15 ms·
Like startups, most intentional communities fail. Why?
- johan_larson 10y agoThe problem I see with these communities is that they never manage to achieve prosperity. The best of them sort of get by, but none of them are actually rich, or anywhere close to it. I think that points to some fundamental problem in what they are doing.
- bryanlarsen 10y agoAre there any alternate communities that have actually had that as a goal? If not, you can hardly count that as a failure. Most alternative communities were set up to explicitly de-emphasize the goal of material wealth in exchange for emotional, religious or environmental wealth.
- AstralStorm 10y agoThe problem is the definition of prosperity. How much and what do you want or need to prosper? How much dependency will you accept? How much maintenance risk? Quick prosperity has usually been achieved by distribution of the cost elsewhere. The main goal of a community is some degree of sustainability, which strictly conflicts with ultimate profit and prosperity. And if each community tries to prosper you get hard interactions at the edges, including equivalent of tribal or trade wars. This is partly why the model does not scale, especially in the modern world. Hierarchical models are open though to corruption if not handled carefully, and subject to alienation of the leaders.
- rmah 10y agoNon-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to corruption.
- mandelbrotwurst 10y agoWould you mind elaborating on that?
- afarrell 10y agoIt is partially a reference to http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- TheOtherHobbes 10y agoNot necessarily. Conventional economic theories fail to make a useful practical distinction between value creation and resource/wealth enclosure and monopolisation. (This is deliberate - you need to know about Henry George to understand why.) An updated scientific economics would highlight that distinction instead of attempting to obfuscate it. I suspect it's harder to be corrupt if you're generating real social value, and relatively easy to be corrupt when you're simply appropriating value tokens.
- tomcam 10y agoNot following. Can you reduce it to chimp level for slowpokes like me?
- cinquemb 10y agoI think this is what they were referring to[0] in part: "Mason Gaffney, an American economist and a major Georgist critic of neoclassical economics, argued that neoclassical economics was designed and promoted by landowners and their hired economists to divert attention from George's extremely popular philosophy that since land and resources are provided by nature, and their value is given by society, land value – rather than labor or capital – should provide the tax base to fund government and its expenditures.[90]" [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_land_and_natural_resource_rents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Socialization_of_...
- tyre 10y ago> The problem I see with these startups is that they never manage to achieve profitability. The best of them sort of get by, but none of them are actually rich, or anywhere close to it. I think that points to some fundamental problem in what they are doing. Replaced "these communities" with "startups" and "prosperity" with "profitability". Statement remains just as true.
- erikb 10y agoIt seems to me as if many communities just get by because their members continuously invest in them, by providing money that is not really earned through the life in the community.
- subpixel 10y agoWell, that's just not true. Though certainly not the norm, some of these communities have done really well: - Yogi Tea was started by 3HO which was a network of Ashrams in the 70s, today they do tens of millions of dollars in sales. - Oneida Flatware has its origin in the Oneida Community, a 19th century free-love sect in New York State, and they're still one of the largest silverware brands. - The Bruderhof Communities run the Community Playthings company, a multi-million dollar furniture operation. Those are just the ones that come to mind. Interestingly they are all examples of religious groups. I'd love to know of examples that are not.
- defen 10y ago- Massachusetts Bay Colony & the Plymouth Colony were originally founded as religious communities; they ended up taking over almost the entire world.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- md224 10y agoOr perhaps our tendency to judge the success of a project by how much money it makes points to a fundamental problem in what we are doing?
- nitwit005 10y agoTo the contrary, prosperity has been a problem for some of them. The Israeli Kibbutz movement, for example, experienced a lot of tension as a result of their successful businesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Economics The reality of running a business tends to conflict with peoples ideals.
- throwaway129380 10y agoI've also heard that the Kibbutzim is dying ? Is that true ?
- exolymph 10y agoBecause emergent systems respond to incentives fluidly without needing centralized coordination. They outperform designed systems.
- tomcam 10y agoCitation? In my opinion, emergent systems have a very high mortality rate
- exolymph 10y agoYou're right, I didn't phrase what I meant very precisely. This comment expressed the same sentiment much better: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- djrogers 10y agoThere is a huge selection bias in that statement - emergent systems often don't make it past the first opposing stimulus, so you're only considering the ones that evolve past a certain point.
- exolymph 10y agoThat's fair! What I meant is roughly equivalent to this better-worded comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13777826
- hypeibole 10y agoDoes anyone have references to books about this topic? I'd be interested in reading about it.
- subpixel 10y agoParadise Now by Chris Jennings (Peter Jenning's son, FYI) is recent and I enjoyed it: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/books/review/paradise-now-the-story-of-american-utopianism-by-chris-jennings.html?_r=1 https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/07/books/review/paradise-now...
- bilch 10y ago"Activism Or Escapism: Making Sense of 21st Century Communes" by M. Jade Aguilar has a lot of references. Text seems to be paywalled, but maybe you can find what you need via Google Books' snippets ...
- mercutio2 10y agoAre you looking for the topic of intentional communities compared to startups? Or just intentional communities in general? The Fellowship for Intentional Community is a great resource for the latter, see http://ic.org/ http://ic.org/
- Kinnard 10y agoIntentional communities are not 'like' startups, they are startups, all the way down to the legal structure in many cases: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company Most notable: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company Peter Thiel Further clarifies this: https://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-heres/ https://www.wired.com/2014/09/run-startup-like-cult-heres/ I think this insight/mode of analysis is most valuable to founders.
- notahacker 10y agoThere's a bit of a difference between a community of libertine/religious utopians to practice their ideals and ventures set up for (mostly) paid workers to operate trading outposts to yield sufficient profit to keep their wealthy and powerful investors satisfied...
- Kinnard 10y agoYes, there is variance of structure and character in the population of startups.
- teddyh 10y agoＷｈｙ ｉｓ ｔｈｅ ｔｅｘｔ ｓｏ ＨＵＧＥ？
- jklinger410 10y agoa e s t h e t i c
- metaobject 10y agoIt actually looks nicely formatted and sized on my phone. Are you on desktop?
- teddyh 10y agoYes.
- khamoud 10y agoCMD -
- lutusp 10y ago"... why?" Quote: "Duhm, heavily influenced by Marxism and psychoanalysis, came to see material emancipation and interpersonal transformation as part of the same project." Hmm ... Marxism and psychoanalysis? I honor this person's idealism and commitment to principles, but these two topics aren't remotely scientific -- they aren't meaningfully tested against reality before being applied. And apart from not being reality-tested in advance, they both have terrible public track records in cases where people went ahead and tried to apply them. It's only the second paragraph of the article, and the reason has already been revealed. This issue can be summarized as, "Before jumping into a lake, first make sure it's not frozen."
- tmnvix 10y agoIt's a (single) generational thing. I spent time growing up in a couple of different 'intentional communities', both of which are dying a kind of slow death for similar reasons (as are many others that I am aware of). These communities were founded by groups with particular sets of shared ideals. Shortly after being founded they started to welcome new members - offering a share in the assets of the community in return for labour and commitment. This generally worked well. The problem is that as these people approach retirement they begin to realise that the community and its assets are all they have in the way of a retirement fund (sometimes also a modest private fund as well but their share of the land they live on is usually their most significant asset). This realisation is usually enough to stop or slow the practice of giving new members a share in the community's assets. This in turn makes joining the community less attractive. On top of these financial concerns, there is the lack of shared ideology from one generation to another. The children that grew up in these communities prefer to go off and live their own life instead of carrying on with their parents dreams. I am only aware of a couple of communes here in NZ that appear to be making this generational transition successfully (most communes here are approaching 50 years old, having been started in the 70s by people in their 20s).
- pmoriarty 10y agoWould the Amish be considered an intentional community? They've somehow managed to keep their community together and functional across the generations, and in the face of enormous technological and cultural upheaval.
- tmnvix 10y agoI suppose so. Interestingly, none of the communities I was referring to in my previous comment were based on religion (with the exception of one that was loosely christian-pacifist). Perhaps where religion is involved the outcome may be different.
- blackbagboys 10y agoI think the article touches on how the Amish avoid this 'problem' - the threat of ostracism from the (probably exceptionally tight-knit) social group keeps younger generations bound to the community.
- fluxic 10y agoWhile I think anti-capitalist communes are as hopeless as the author portrays, communes of likeminded individuals have been successful. Consider the Chelsea Hotel in NYC. In addition to being the cornerstone of NYC's art scene for 100+ years, it also contributed to billions of dollars in value creation. [0] The hotel was intended to be a community for artists from the start, and by every measure it was successful. A few factors that made the community successful: — Residents still had jobs — Residents were expected to pay (very low) rent — Residents had a lot of leeway if they missed their rent — Residents were generally selected for their likemindedness/talent — Residents stayed at the hotel for a good stretch of time, fostering a sense of community — Short-term tourists and wealthy patrons helped keep the rest of the community afloat (like many of these communes) — It was in Manhattan, not the middle of nowhere I think it's still remarkably possible to create successful intentional communities. However, I think that being isolated with 100 people in the middle of Indiana is probably less tolerable (in the long term) than living in a communal hotel with 100 people while still living in an exciting city. It's less incestuous that way, and you're constantly being invigorated by new ideas from your next-door neighbours. [0] https://medium.com/@bagelboy/make-america-bohemian-again-de846e35d757 https://medium.com/@bagelboy/make-america-bohemian-again-de8...
- andrewflnr 10y agoI like this story. My pet theory (after thinking about this for half an hour) is that the key is to keep the tight-knit community (selective entry probably helps), probably the internal governance structure, but drop the requirement of self-sufficiency. In fact, interaction with the "outside world" might well serve to more firmly anchor the group's identity. I want one of these for software developers. Edit: and no, YC doesn't count. Sorry.
- Cyphase 10y ago> I want one of these for software developers. It's not exactly the same, but there is the Recurse Center (formerly Hacker School). https://www.recurse.com/ https://www.recurse.com/
- 10y ago
- forkandwait 10y agoThe Hutterites have been going strong for 500 years. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutterite
- sparky_ 10y agoI don't think that's a fair comparison, given the article discusses things like hippie communes. Baby boomer collectives are a far cry from groups like the Amish.
- paulddraper 10y agoWell, that's the point. Some kinds of intentional communities survive. Other kinds almost never do.
- warcher 10y agoIntentional communities, by and large, fail to recognize the many darwinian iterations of evolution modern societies have gone through over the years, where successful social organizations have overwhelmed their less-adapted brethren. Simply put: the current way of organizing society is a pretty good plan for organizing a very, very complicated social mechanism full of smart, self-interested actors towards the common good. Is it fucked up still in many respects? Absolutely. Do you have a better idea? Highly unlikely. We've been working on this whole "getting along" thing for millennia, and we've tried pretty much every idea possible at one point or another. There's a modern conceit that we're somehow smarter or better than previous generations, and that's very misguided. We're much better informed, certainly. The conventional wisdom, the collective mental schema regarding what's a good idea and what's not, that's improved dramatically. Not because you thought about it, but because a bunch of faulty social assumptions have gotten weeded out over the years. But people are pretty much the same as they've ever been.
- notahacker 10y agoEven more significant than societies sort of work as they are is the selection effect, whereby communities set up by and for people who don't like how society works are going to end up composed of people who tend to - at least at the stage of their life they join - be more opinionated about the way things ought to be and/or less capable of assimilating into and succeeding in conventional society. Some of those people are going to be difficult to integrate no matter what social system you devise.
- aninhumer 10y agoExcept the structure of society has shown to be extremely unstable, even over relatively short timeframes. In just the past few generations we had two major wars that rocked the world, and drastic changed the societies of many countries. Modern society is not a compelling example of a stable local maxima that has survived the eons, it's a seemingly calm period for our portion of a historically chaotic system.
- paulddraper 10y ago"Unstable" is relative.
- Kinnard 10y agoThe author neglects to note the most famous, successful and longevitous example: Israel. Millions of Jews followed Moses into the Sinai desert to build an intentional community over 3,000 year ago and the project is still going today. Even more remarkably, this community grew out of a single family. Most of the intentional community projects of the 19th Century are explicitly modeled on this. I'm guessing this was an intentional omission.
- davidrusu 10y agoOr lack of evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology Please don't assume bad intentions
- Kinnard 10y agoWho said anything about bad?
- kirse 10y agoThis is where Wikipedia really fails. It makes a statement with huge implications, like: A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness Which dismisses a "century of research" based on a single little citation: Meyers 2005, p. 5. Which upon visiting the book, provides the same blanket statement at the bottom of the page, and is itself a citation to yet another external resource. Did you even bother to investigate the "lack of evidence" claims yourself, or did you just assume the entire black hole of citations was correct?
- powera 10y agoDo you have any evidence for your claim?
- dragonwriter 10y ago> Millions of Jews followed Moses into the Sinai desert to built an intentional community over 3,000 year ago and the project is still going today That absolutely did not happen. If anything like the Exodus as written happened -- and there are plenty of reasons to doubt that it did -- it didn't involve millions of people, a number which the Bible doesn't even claim and which would be implausible for the Hebrew population in Egypt at the time.
- evjim 10y agoI live in an intentional community. It is only 3 years old and not flourishing at all. The major problem is the benevolent dictator system and highly restricted rules. I find reading these reports very interesting because I would like to find/join/build an actually successful village. Current cities are highly regulated and high cost. All I want is my own plot of land(not a commune) with like minded neighbors who built their own houses, grow their own gardens, and work on technology. It seems like the only way to do that would be to cooperatively purchase land at split it up on ground leases, making it commune ish
- blunte 10y agoYou mention like-minded neighbors... even if everyone in your community is like-minded, your community property boundary touches properties owned by people who may not share your vision or ideals. Then you need to create a buffer zone around your community. But even still, and especially significant for communities that want to do farming, property beyond your control can do things that directly affect water flows into your property. There are some eco village efforts going on around the world. The Tamera group in Portugal is fairly famous (and mentioned in the article), but it tends to draw a lot of attention due to it's _almost_ mandatory practice of non-monogamy. (And I challenge you to look through their photos and imagine being expected to have sex with some number of the other community members :P ). Costa Rica seems to attract very eco-minded community efforts, and in fact much of their tourism is eco-related. You might find something interesting there.
- dvt 10y agoI think that most communities (but specifically utopian communities, as the article discusses), like startups, aim for a "non-zero-sum" ideal -- that is, a way of making everybody happy. But there's something about our existence that screams "zero-sum": there's scarcity in the universe, for one (a lot more hydrogen than lead, for example); there's scarcity in the Earth (a lot more iron than gold); there's scarcity in nature (mates are hard to find, not finding a mate means your genetic material doesn't propagate), heck there's even scarcity in our own lives (if I spend time studying math I won't have time to study music). IMO failure is driven by this facade of non-zero-sum-ness crumbling and people becoming disillusioned. So I've tried to change my mentality recently when building (or thinking about) social things. In a zero-sum universe, if someone has a lot of followers, someone else won't have any. If someone gets some benefit, someone else won't. Socialism vs capitalism is a very weak analogy (the idea of scarcity and winners and losers goes far beyond economics), but I think there's some merit to it.
- qplex 10y agoComputers break the zero-sum game; data can be copied with almost no cost within the limits of the system. Failure of communities that embrace this fact is usually brought on by external entities that cling to the norm of scarcity.
- scythe 10y agoSome things are necessarily constrained. The electromagnetic spectrum, the atmosphere (in terms of pollution), land, and social capital are always going to be contested and you can't just make more.
- dvt 10y agoBut I think the point is that people aren't computers.
- qplex 10y agoYes, very true. My point was that the (virtual) communities that fully embrace the non-zero-sum properties of computers usually fail because the outside norm of scarcity gets imposed upon them.
- allenz 10y agoThe reasons given: "capital constraints, burn-out, conflict over private property and resource management, poor systems of conflict mediation, factionalism, founder problems, reputation management, skills shortage, and failure to attract new talent or entice subsequent generations"
- suneilp 10y agoMany people lack, or don't have enough of, the ability to deal with conflicts, emotions, unexpected outcomes, etc. Not to say that these things are always easy to deal with for anyone. Advancement is also an infuriating process. Either there isn't enough opportunity to learn or develop the skills to advance, or the requirements to get someone or some organization to invest in you is difficult to obtain for a lot of people. The maddening pursuit of self-interest makes people more discriminating in who to support and build up. The way a lot of people put down others often tends to be very toxic and not everyone who is on the receiving end knows how to deal with that. We definitely haven't tried everything possible to "get along". One thing for sure is that there is definitely advancement in this area led by thought leaders blogging and new trends such as the recent "triggered" and "safe space", the typical criticism by assholes like calling them "snowflakes", etc. And then someone will realize some new idea and the cycle will begin. There is clearly a large amount of people who are deaf to these things, or perhaps it does reach them, just very slowly. Education is so very important and yet we're gutting it here in America. I'd like to see more emphasis placed on teaching kids (and adults) how to deal with conflict with people and within themselves.
- xacaxulu 10y agoJust an opinion having spent a few months on a few in rural NC: Hippies are well meaning, but generally bad at the logistical/business angles to running these within a broader state environment, i.e. county/city zoning, fundraising, banking concerns, ownership legalities, etc.
- blunte 10y agoYup, just like many very passionate, motivated entrepreneurs. They have the vision and maybe the charisma, but definitely also the drive, to get the thing in motion and collect some participants. But just as the essay pointed out, once the organization grows beyond a certain size and maturity, a more business-like leader takes over. And we have plenty of tech startup examples of what happens when that charismatic visionary (non-businesslike) leader fails to recognize when it's time to step aside...
- defen 10y agoA sense of shared sacrifice strengthens community bonds. I would suggest that there is a signalling problem that needs to be solved ("we are all in this together, making this sacrifice") - in other words, an unforgeable way for community members to signal to each other that they are not free riders. If everyone knows that everyone is not a free rider, the community will be much stronger. I submit that this is the primary reason religious "intentional communities" with strict rules are much more likely to succeed than the generic "utopian community" ones. Without that sense of shared sacrifice, it is too easy for grifters and free-riders to glom on.
- arjie 10y agoIn The Righteous Mind, Jonathan Haidt cites evidence that intentional communities that have shared sacrifice without sacralising the acts or the principles behind them see no gains from the sacrifices demanded. Essentially, you need religious fervour or something similar to get the advantage of sacrifice.
- jtsnow 10y agoAn interesting counterpoint: Early Mormon settlements in western North America had a 90% success rate. In Utah, the success rate was 94%. [1] Renowned urban planner Andrés Duany has praised the design of these communities. [2] [1] https://youtu.be/5xP33zsNTzE?t=25m30s https://youtu.be/5xP33zsNTzE?t=25m30s [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VW0ihf3SA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58VW0ihf3SA
- blunte 10y agoFanatical followers behind a single leader probably helped it reach a critical mass, which helped with attaining and largely maintaining success.
- blhack 10y agoBecause the further you are away from the original members, the further away you are from the people who did a lot of the work to create the community in the first place. As the community approaches its peak, every new member gets to enjoy the increasingly polished community, but lacks the respect needed for the work required to get that polish. Eventually, the inmates take over the asylum, and the original members leave.
- kingkawn 10y agoThe intentions are too defined for people to get any satisfaction from actually living them out any longer than it takes to prove that such an intention can be carried out.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- teslaberry 10y agoit's too bad the discussion of this important compartison wasn't applied to stupid ideas like seasteading..... perhaps many people would have invested in good and useful attempts at starting new communities. an NYU professor and some folks had a novel idea of negotiating a tax settlement for land in guatemale with the guatemalen government but it fell through. a major new startup of a society would not succeed int he west because any great success would be seen as a threat to the governments themselves and would either be crushed through a demand for larger taxes , or through violence ( branch davidians......and other cults who fared badly when they refused to succumb to the irs overwhelming demands) . the key is to start an intentional community on fertile ground, meaning in developing nations where the costs are very low, and the government is small and easy to negotiate with and reliably non-invasive over time. the west has no more room for this .......
- delegate 10y agoI think the premise of the article is wrong. Most 'intentional' communities didn't fail and are still around after hundreds or thousands of years - they're called 'villages' and 'cities'. Granted, not all were founded on ideological or philosophical principles, but many (if not most) were - some were christian settlements, some were people running away from poverty or some kind of banishment from their native communities, some were founded by idealistic explorers. Forming a community based on drug fuelled inspiration is of course doomed to failure, because like it or not, a human settlement requires a certain 'machinery' set up which can sustain it - food production, energy, waste disposal, health care and so on - all of these need to be well planned ahead of time and resources (human or otherwise) allocated for each of these areas. Another mistake that these communities make is turning away from technology and trying to live 'purely', based on the premise that technology in itself is somehow 'evil', which of course is not true, as that is a function of how people apply it to the world. What if instead of avoiding technology, people in a community embraced it and actually developed new versions of it ? How about a well-planned, energy-independent, self-driving electric everything, robots-everywhere high tech community of knowledge workers ? Psychedelic buildings ? Fine, 3D print (or fabricate) them, while making them energy efficient. Food ? How about building and fabricating plant-farming robots instead ? Education? How about children participating in the design and development of the software and robotics developed by the community ? Decision making: Through the software written by the community members. All of this based on a sustainability and ecological ethos / leave no trace ethos. Just a few pointers. Current technology is probably not quite there yet, although it's maybe a couple of years away - and what better place to refine it than the community itself. The 'community' technology, when refined enough, can then be replicated all over the world pretty easily. An alternative would be 'town-as-a-service' kind of organisations - building and maintaining the tech stack of entire cities/communities, although it would totally rock if the community itself did this.
- xpaqui 10y ago> Most 'intentional' communities didn't fail and are still around after hundreds or thousands of years - they're called 'villages' and 'cities'. That doesn't count as an intentional community. Unless you are talking about very specific `villages` and `cities` that where created from the top for specific groups.
- artur_makly 10y agoone of the most influential books on this topic for me was : Ecotopia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecotopia it attempts to solve all of man's biological, emotional, and spiritual needs via a techno-eco master plan. top 10 book on my list. enjoy
- xpaqui 10y agoWithout reading the article. Most unintentional communities also failed. Can it be that there is a lot of trial and error on these things.
- thinkcontext 10y agoI was kind of disappointed by this article, it seemed very distant from the real flourishing intentional communities that exist today. Seems like the author did a little reading and that's about it. If one is going to connect intentional communities to startups a good one to think about is the Factor E Farm that's part of the Open Source Ecology project [0]. The community is a hacker space for implementing and experimenting with machines for self sufficient communities. It might not be the best when considering intentional communities since the community supports the project. Another community worth considering is called Dancing Rabbit [1] in rural Missouri, it was founded in the 90s by Stanford grads. Its model is that of an eco-village. Residents are economic free agents, many of whom free associate into a variety of co-ops. The land is owned by a trust and the rules the trust holds residents to place an emphasis on ecological stewardship. It has around 75 residents. Twin Oaks [2] in VA by contrast is a classic collectivist community. Its modeled after the community described in Walden 2 by BF Skinner. The community is centrally planned and is income sharing, that is, residents work on business and chores for the community who receives the revenue, pays all expenses, and gives the individuals a small allowance. This community has been around since the 70s and has over 100 residents. Its businesses include hammock making, tofu making, book indexing and agriculture. [0] http://opensourceecology.org/about-factor-e-farm/ http://opensourceecology.org/about-factor-e-farm/ [1] http://www.dancingrabbit.org/ http://www.dancingrabbit.org/ [2] http://www.twinoaks.org/ http://www.twinoaks.org/
- dredmorbius 10y agoConsider what makes a community succeed in the first place, and what examples of successful and failed communities there are. Travel through much of the rural and rustbelt United States, for example, and you'll find thousands of failing communities, in the sense that quality of life, opportunity, population, and social infrastructures are declining. The fundamental premise of a community is that it provides a basis for livelihood, generally on the basis of solving some problem of interest to both the inhabitants and those with whom they trade: rasing of crops or other agricultural products, providing extractive resources, access to transportation or communications routes or hubs, including ports, crossroads, railways, or trading centers. And that's after taking care of the basics: fresh drinking water, disposal of wastes, adequate food supply, shelter, protection from elements and enemies. Facilitating productive human interactions, most especially trade, industry, development of technology or science, financial services, and the like. Or providing for social welfare functions: education, healthcare, defence, organisational acumen. An "intentional community" is one, generally, formed on the basis of some idea, and frequently an idea at odds with orthodoxy. Within any advanced system, most deviations from the norm are maladaptive, which is to suggest that most ideas aren't all that good. So there's that. Heading off into the desert to pursue some idealised society starts off with several strikes against you: no commerce, poor means of support, and an insular society. This isn't certain doom (the Mormons, after all, did colonise Utah), but it's an uphill fight. The Mormon emphasis on industry is probably among the success factors. I think the discussion is missing the signs of intentional communities around us, that we simply don't recognise as such. Colleges and universities are little more than communities based on ideas themselves, and whilst dynamic and not entirely corresponding to the notion, aren't so far from the idea. I'd argue that every city, town, or village, is in a sense an intentional community based on the idea of forging a livelihood, which is the distillation of what it takes to exist and sustain a community. That might be a good idea to start with. And, as I'd noted to start with, there's no assurance such establishments will continue or prosper either.
- edblarney 10y agoMennonites, Amish etc. are 'intentional' and have in reality fairly 'anti capitalist' ideals (though not framed in those terms). I know it's not the authors intent - but they are similar and should be a basis of comparison to grasping why some work and some don't. These traditional communities are highly authoritarian (as some hippie communities often are), but they're maybe 'culturally authoritative' instead of individualistically. By that I mean - social or religious orthodoxy 'sets the rules' as opposed to 'some guys word' or a 'loosely agreed upon set of rules with little foundation'. At least in the former, there's a degree of objectivity, however good or bad you may judge those rules to be. In short - very strongly traditional/culturally conservative mindset helps to define a set of behaviours and attitudes that people stick with, and as long as they do, it keeps going. We have many near my hometown, very pleasant people. I'm sometimes jealous and wish I could chill with them for a few months.