4 ms·

North American Phalanx

20 points by benbreen 7y ago

smitty1e 7y ago
Phalanx != phoenix
missosoup 7y ago
> Just as there was difference in eating habits, a range of religious affiliations existed among the North American Phalanx's resident members. Included among the community's ranks were Unitarians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Shakers, as well as agnostics and atheists.[18] While religious matters were frequently the object of discussion and debate, heated division over religious topics does not seem to have occurred in the community until 1853, with the climate sharpening as the end of the institution approached. You can't have a tight community like this unless the members are all homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc. This was doomed from the start.
- peteretep 7y ago
  Lasted ten years, tho
- abathur 7y ago
  Maybe true, but don't lose sight of the fact that "Unitarians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Shakers" all come from the same tradition/belief/value family tree, as it were. They were all once tight communities "homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc." that eventually split (though perhaps they weren't still "tight" communities by the time of those splits). In any case, people are good at finding things to disagree about--and groups of people in elective association are good at fracturing over disagreements.
- iron0013 7y ago
  "You can't have a tight community like this unless the members are all homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc." Citation needed.
refurb 7y ago
What’s so fascinating about history is there is truly nothing new under the sun. Any ideas or issues that are discussed today were discussed in the past - or at least similar ideas.
narag 7y ago
As someone raised in a small town that moved to a big city, I'm very skeptical of small communities as a solution to anything. Anonymity inside a big mass of people provides freedom from nosy neighbors and relatives. It does has drawbacks, but so be it.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Anonymity inside a big mass of people provides freedom from nosy neighbors and relatives I partially disagree. I think you are assuming a set of specific circumstances that often apply but are not universal. I think it depends on what you want to use your freedom to do. On a timeline measured in months or more there is no anonymity anywhere. If whatever it is you do is so socially unacceptable as to be a problem people will take notice. What changes is the criteria you need to meet to become a problem and how big of a problem you need to be to get attention. My observation is that diversity increases freedom and community resources available to enforce social norms decrease freedom. dense cities are high in both, rural areas are low in both. So in the city it is usually much harder to be the tall nail but if you are the tall nail you will get hit much harder and in BFE you're probably a problem but not a big enough one for it to be worth the community's resources to go after. This is why various religious and political fundamentalists/extremest communities tend to wind up living in a compound somewhere rural (they're big enough and violate norms enough to be noticed anywhere, best to go somewhere the community probably can't justify harassing you too much) and when they do get bothered it's often by the state not the local community/government. (if it's not obvious, I'm defining freedom as "the ability to do things that most other people don't like without bad things happening to you").
  - narag 7y ago
    I think it depends on what you want to use your freedom to do. Sure. I didn't mean anything illegal or inmoral, just different enough from the norm as to make the usual idiots to tell you. If you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are you haven't lived in a small community.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
ur-whale 7y ago
"The phalanxes never solved the problem of what to do about those who did not assume their share of the work." Something worth remembering next time you head for the poll booth.
Nokinside 7y ago
I have nothing against communes. I have visited and know many people who have lived for a long time in communes around the world. Communes and alternate lifestyles are exercise in humanity. As usual, people are the problem: 1. Everything becomes politics. All the bad things you hear from neighborhood associations are replicated in communes in different forms. Negotiating and deciding everything together is nice until differences become too big to handle. 2. Introverts or retreating people are sidelined. Because everything is politics, those who network and are good at influence get all the power. Unpopular people don't have equal power. Popular people have excess power. 3. If you work for the commune for 20 years and suddenly things go sour on you, you leave out with noting. Everyone who want's to build commune or equal society should start with THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman aka Joreen https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm It details power relations within radical feminist collectives,
rpiguy 7y ago
The most remarkable idea they had was that the jobs no one wanted to do should be compensated the most: "Jobs were compensated at three levels, with exhausting or repugnant jobs earning a premium and light and attractive jobs being docked a penalty" Imagine a world where actors, and white collar workers made less than people who dug ditches and cleaned up refuse.
- L_226 7y ago
  That overly simplistic analogy breaks down when you realise that capability is not evenly distributed.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    The communes do not match work to ability based on what I read. The distribution of ability wasn't a factor in who did what job and who got paid.
- kangnkodos 7y ago
  Many communes have failed over the issue of who will do the dishes. This one solved the issue by using money (is it really a commune?) and paying more for repugnant jobs.
- Isamu 7y ago
  Actually it is the case that attractive, passion positions like actor, musician, and the like are compensated poorly on average, especially when they are not protected by unions. That's because of the surplus of people wanting to do the dream job. Digging ditches and garbage collection are compensated poorly because of the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet.
  - rpiguy 7y ago
    That is actually a really fair point, I was only considering the actors and musicians who have "made it." The second point, the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet - this is shrinking as more people expect to be able to survive without working, but also a fair point.
SEJeff 7y ago
Here I was hoping for North American Hoplites with Dory spears and all I learned about was a commune :(

20 points by benbreen 7y ago

Phalanx != phoenix

> Just as there was difference in eating habits, a range of religious affiliations existed among the North American Phalanx's resident members. Included among the community's ranks were Unitarians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Shakers, as well as agnostics and atheists.[18] While religious matters were frequently the object of discussion and debate, heated division over religious topics does not seem to have occurred in the community until 1853, with the climate sharpening as the end of the institution approached. You can't have a tight community like this unless the members are all homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc. This was doomed from the start.

peteretep 7y ago
Lasted ten years, tho
abathur 7y ago
Maybe true, but don't lose sight of the fact that "Unitarians, Presbyterians, Quakers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Shakers" all come from the same tradition/belief/value family tree, as it were. They were all once tight communities "homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc." that eventually split (though perhaps they weren't still "tight" communities by the time of those splits). In any case, people are good at finding things to disagree about--and groups of people in elective association are good at fracturing over disagreements.
iron0013 7y ago
"You can't have a tight community like this unless the members are all homogeneous in traditions, beliefs, values, etc." Citation needed.

refurb 7y ago

What’s so fascinating about history is there is truly nothing new under the sun. Any ideas or issues that are discussed today were discussed in the past - or at least similar ideas.

narag 7y ago

As someone raised in a small town that moved to a big city, I'm very skeptical of small communities as a solution to anything. Anonymity inside a big mass of people provides freedom from nosy neighbors and relatives. It does has drawbacks, but so be it.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Anonymity inside a big mass of people provides freedom from nosy neighbors and relatives I partially disagree. I think you are assuming a set of specific circumstances that often apply but are not universal. I think it depends on what you want to use your freedom to do. On a timeline measured in months or more there is no anonymity anywhere. If whatever it is you do is so socially unacceptable as to be a problem people will take notice. What changes is the criteria you need to meet to become a problem and how big of a problem you need to be to get attention. My observation is that diversity increases freedom and community resources available to enforce social norms decrease freedom. dense cities are high in both, rural areas are low in both. So in the city it is usually much harder to be the tall nail but if you are the tall nail you will get hit much harder and in BFE you're probably a problem but not a big enough one for it to be worth the community's resources to go after. This is why various religious and political fundamentalists/extremest communities tend to wind up living in a compound somewhere rural (they're big enough and violate norms enough to be noticed anywhere, best to go somewhere the community probably can't justify harassing you too much) and when they do get bothered it's often by the state not the local community/government. (if it's not obvious, I'm defining freedom as "the ability to do things that most other people don't like without bad things happening to you").
- narag 7y ago
  I think it depends on what you want to use your freedom to do. Sure. I didn't mean anything illegal or inmoral, just different enough from the norm as to make the usual idiots to tell you. If you don't know what I'm talking about, chances are you haven't lived in a small community.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago

ur-whale 7y ago

"The phalanxes never solved the problem of what to do about those who did not assume their share of the work." Something worth remembering next time you head for the poll booth.

Nokinside 7y ago

I have nothing against communes. I have visited and know many people who have lived for a long time in communes around the world. Communes and alternate lifestyles are exercise in humanity. As usual, people are the problem: 1. Everything becomes politics. All the bad things you hear from neighborhood associations are replicated in communes in different forms. Negotiating and deciding everything together is nice until differences become too big to handle. 2. Introverts or retreating people are sidelined. Because everything is politics, those who network and are good at influence get all the power. Unpopular people don't have equal power. Popular people have excess power. 3. If you work for the commune for 20 years and suddenly things go sour on you, you leave out with noting. Everyone who want's to build commune or equal society should start with THE TYRANNY of STRUCTURELESSNESS by Jo Freeman aka Joreen https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm It details power relations within radical feminist collectives,

rpiguy 7y ago

The most remarkable idea they had was that the jobs no one wanted to do should be compensated the most: "Jobs were compensated at three levels, with exhausting or repugnant jobs earning a premium and light and attractive jobs being docked a penalty" Imagine a world where actors, and white collar workers made less than people who dug ditches and cleaned up refuse.

L_226 7y ago
That overly simplistic analogy breaks down when you realise that capability is not evenly distributed.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  The communes do not match work to ability based on what I read. The distribution of ability wasn't a factor in who did what job and who got paid.
kangnkodos 7y ago
Many communes have failed over the issue of who will do the dishes. This one solved the issue by using money (is it really a commune?) and paying more for repugnant jobs.
Isamu 7y ago
Actually it is the case that attractive, passion positions like actor, musician, and the like are compensated poorly on average, especially when they are not protected by unions. That's because of the surplus of people wanting to do the dream job. Digging ditches and garbage collection are compensated poorly because of the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet.
- rpiguy 7y ago
  That is actually a really fair point, I was only considering the actors and musicians who have "made it." The second point, the surplus of people willing to do whatever to make ends meet - this is shrinking as more people expect to be able to survive without working, but also a fair point.

SEJeff 7y ago

Here I was hoping for North American Hoplites with Dory spears and all I learned about was a commune :(