A family can be a functioning commune.
The only philosophical objection I have to a commune would be in such cases were they have no valid claim to their collective property, or they tried to stop someone from leaving.
And yes, if you're talking about the ideal end state of a communist society a commune could resemble that. Is there something wrong with that? I wouldn't like to live in one, but I'm a malcontented eccentric who doesn't play well with others.
Of course something as small as a family could be considered a "commune." I was thinking of the 60s type, which didn't work out.
How does one claim ownership to collective property?
As I see it, the whole idea stems from Marxism which was supposed to be paradise. In theory, everything was communally owned; in practice you owned nothing, arguably not even your toothbrush.
But as the size grew, the law of unintended consequences was never far away. The conclusion, as we all know, was oppression, torture, and mass murder for the enemies of the state on a scale never seen or imagined before.
So to my way of thinking, the idea of communes is flawed from the very beginning. Can they work on a very small scale? Probably. But so does government, lol. Unfortunately, neither are static or fixed.
Maybe I'm just prejudiced against hippies, because it wasn't my thing back then. I was a gearhead, biker, beer drinker type.