An often overlooked aspect:
In Eastern Europe, industrialization took place within the framework of feudalism (think Russia). People saw capital accumulate in the hands of landed nobility tied to the feudal hierarchy, and capitalism was, as Marx stated, just another phase of exploitation. In the West, however, capital accumulation took place outside the sphere of state influence and was driven by the rising commercial class which was outside traditional social order. Where land was in abundance, like America, the result was dramatic, and a vastly different type of evolution took place than Eastern Europe. Consequently, radical communistic ideology took hold there and not here.
When Bakunin came to America during exile (Oregon, I believe) he was asked if he was going to give speeches to ignite the flames of revolution in the New World. He flatly stated no, because it simply wasn't necessary in America…there was no government there anyway!
The communitarians, however, sought to build their societies within the framework (or under the "umbrella") of republican protection which afforded them the opportunity to build their communities and did not seek to overthrow "the system." The problem was, it didn't work, and members of these societies ended up seeking a better alternative outside the communitarian bubble and in the market economy which surrounded. This is why Marx was so pissed at them.
tl;dr Much of what we look back on and call "socialism" must be differentiated from the various flavors of state socialism which came later. The communitarians were nice folks. The Amish can make it work to a degree. The hippies couldn't because they needed gasoline for their motorcycles.
You want to try it, fine. Pool your funds and buy your land. But don't ask me for any money and please stay the fuck out of my yard.