4 ms·

The 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, o

The 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 ago
Are 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Non-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to corruption.
  - mandelbrotwurst 10y ago
    Would you mind elaborating on that?
    - afarrell 10y ago
      It is partially a reference to http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
  - TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
    Not 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 ago
      Not following. Can you reduce it to chimp level for slowpokes like me?
      - cinquemb 10y ago
        I 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_...
        tomcam 10y ago
        Had no idea. Thanks
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
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 ago
It 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 ago
Well, 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 ago
Or 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 ago
To 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 ago
  I've also heard that the Kibbutzim is dying ? Is that true ?

bryanlarsen 10y ago

Are 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 ago

The 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 ago
Non-hierarchical (or rather non-explicit) models are even more open to corruption.
- mandelbrotwurst 10y ago
  Would you mind elaborating on that?
  - afarrell 10y ago
    It is partially a reference to http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Not 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 ago
    Not following. Can you reduce it to chimp level for slowpokes like me?
    - cinquemb 10y ago
      I 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_...
      - tomcam 10y ago
        Had no idea. Thanks
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

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 ago

It 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 ago

Well, 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 ago

Or 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 ago

To 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 ago
I've also heard that the Kibbutzim is dying ? Is that true ?