We do not live in authoritarian societies - and it's ridiculous (and offensive to survivors) to suggest that Mao et. all 'were just the other side of the coin'.
That Mao said he was fighting for 'freedom for all' is completely besides the point, if in fact he was actually fighting for totalitarian control and mass murder.
"these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power,"
No, they failed because they were never quests for freedom in the first place.
How many times does that experiment have to repeat itself for people to dismiss with that delusion?
I'm not comparing communes, to Mao, but I am saying that they are culty and have authoritarian tendencies way beyond what we have in regular societies. In culty situations, many of your personal views are scrutinized and you're pressured to 'be and think' a certain way. They have the power to excise you because you don't fit the mould.
In regular society, you're generally free to be whatever kind of fool you want on your own land.
Then why do we have cops, tribunals, prisons and military? Why do people decide for others and have an armed wing to detain or exterminate those who dissent? Isn't that an obvious example of authoritarianism?
You may be confusing authoritarianism (hierarchical power structures) with totalitarianism (the State has total control over individuals). Although our western "democracies" are not far-off from totalitarianism: as history has shown, "human rights" only exist for the well-off, and the people in power will not hesitate to use manipulation, torture and terrorism as means of exterminating political dissent. On this topic, you can read about CointelPro [0] in the USA or more generally about counter-insurgency doctrines [1].
> That Mao said he was fighting for 'freedom for all'
Marxist-leninists and maoists typically don't claim that, at all. They advocate for a "dictatorship of the proletariat", which is what led to the fork of the First International between the anarchists and the marxists. You may be interested to read some anarchist critiques such as Emma Goldman's "There is no communism in Russia" or "Trotsky protests too much".
> No, they failed because they were never quests for freedom in the first place.
That's what the new powers-that-be (eg. Lenin/Mao) have rewritten history to be, claiming the quest for freedom was a petit-bourgeois concern and it was all about building a strong "Workers State". However, most revolutions historically had some libertarian (in a left-wing understanding of the concept) tendencies and were very horizontal in nature. You may be interested for example to read about the Russian revolution, which initially was a direct democracy experiment (based on local assemblies called soviet), before a well-organized minority party (the Bolsheviks) seized power and massacred every dissenting voice (which took a few years).
> I am saying that [communes] are culty and have authoritarian tendencies way beyond what we have in regular societies
That's not my experience with self-organized communities at all. If anything, there's a lot more room for personal autonomy, and a much greater tolerance for individual quirks. Most squats and communes i've lived in or visited over the years were populated mostly by people our society explicitly rejects for failing to adhere to norms (neuro-atypical, trans, people of color, anarchists..). Therefore we tend to have more empathy and openness about everyone's weirdness.
> In regular society, you're generally free to be whatever kind of fool you want on your own land.
I'm tempted to agree, but i have to point out first that this is only true to the extent that you are recognized by the State as owner of "your own land", which requires considerable resources/wealth most people don't have. A commune is based on an anarchist understanding of property where you own your house because you inhabit it (usage-based property), not because a piece of paper says so.
Of course the state can revoke property titles at any time via expropriation schemes (see also: NDDL ZAD). And even if you own the land, specific regulations may apply to prevent you from leading your life however you see fit. For example in France, it's illegal to live on DIY housing with cut-off from the electricity grid; it's also illegal to be visibly naked from someone else's property or from public space; etc.
Moreover, living alone as an individual owner has its quirks. You're free to live however you want, but you still greatly depend on other people for basic resources, services and maintenance. A community usually has the same upsides as individual living, but also has a greater share of skills and resources to face issues and find solutions without relying on the capitalist system (greater autonomy).
That Mao said he was fighting for 'freedom for all' is completely besides the point, if in fact he was actually fighting for totalitarian control and mass murder.
"these revolts for change have been crushed precisely because new people have been placed in power,"
No, they failed because they were never quests for freedom in the first place.
How many times does that experiment have to repeat itself for people to dismiss with that delusion?
I'm not comparing communes, to Mao, but I am saying that they are culty and have authoritarian tendencies way beyond what we have in regular societies. In culty situations, many of your personal views are scrutinized and you're pressured to 'be and think' a certain way. They have the power to excise you because you don't fit the mould.
In regular society, you're generally free to be whatever kind of fool you want on your own land.