5 ms·

There are tons of well-functioning communes, cooperatives and similar communities all over the world, doing quite well for themselves and the people who live in

There are tons of well-functioning communes, cooperatives and similar communities all over the world, doing quite well for themselves and the people who live in them and their surrounding communities. Many have existed for decades, such as garden allotment associations here in the Nordic countries. Freetown Christiania has been a cooperative commune since the 1970s. A significant percentage of housing here in Denmark exists as cooperatives, and the best ones have long waiting lists of people wishing to move in and join. They tend not to shout a lot about how great and awesome they are, because that sort of thing goes against the idea and mindset. Perhaps you should look beyond your own ideology, and you'll see that there are a lot more and sometimes better ways to do things than your particular way.

WalterBright 7y ago
> Freetown Christiania Stole the land they use and supported themselves selling illegal drugs. Maybe they're also living off of government benefit checks, which is not self-sufficiency. No mention that I could find on the turnover. 1 to 2 years is a typical stay in a commune, as people get tired of it and move on. > sometimes better ways to do things than your particular way If Freetown is your ideal, feel free to move there. No thanks from me. It's neighbors don't appear to care for it, either. > cooperatives Cooperative housing isn't the same thing as giving people free housing any more than a corporation means giving people free shares.
- KozmoNau7 7y ago
  Literally nobody is talking about "free housing", we're talking about communal ownership in communities and cooperatives. "Selling illegal drugs" as some sort of indictment is laughable considering we're talking about weed, which is quickly being decriminalized and legalized all over the world, as the relatively harmless substance it is. You are sadly quite ill-informed and way out of your depth on subject matter you only have cursory experience with. I genuinely suspect that D stands for Dunning-Kruger, and I would recommend you stick with what you know, instead of embarrassing yourself on subjects your software development experience has absolutely no relation to. Being smart in one area does not make you universally smart in other areas.
  - nickpp 7y ago
    Having to attack the person you are arguing with speaks rather poorly of the argument you are trying to make.
  - WalterBright 7y ago
    Selling illegal drugs enables one to make huge profits not available to legal commerce. I've always been in favor of the legalization of marijuana. I voted for it. But my point that taking advantage of the high profits from trafficking in illegal things is not a valid argument for the economic viability of communes. For a commune to have standing as a viable way to live, it: 1. needs to be voluntary 2. needs to have its residents be there long term, i.e. 5 years or more 3. needs a legitimate source of income (not subsisting on crime) 4. needs to generate enough income to be self-sustaining (not relying on external income to make up the slack, such as donations, retirement pay or government welfare payments) 5. not rely on theft of resources, such as squatting on land not paid for If you have evidence for communes that fit these criteria, I'd like to see it.
    - KozmoNau7 7y ago
      Christiania and countless other communes around the world do quite well, whether you choose to believe it or not. It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune. https://www.ic.org/ https://www.ic.org/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/utopia-erik-reece/494741/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/utopia-... http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-still-thrivedecadesafterthe60sbuteconomyisabummerman.html http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-sti... Examples are plentiful, if you care to actually genuinely look.
      - WalterBright 7y ago
        > Clay observed that 20 percent of the membership turned over annually.[23] I looked at your Twin Oaks example. They weed out slackers and drunks before they can join. Turnover is 20% per year. Evidently people like the concept of a commune much more than the reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/09/us/communes-american-story/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/09/us/communes-american... At least it's a better example than your Christiana one (living on stolen land and illegal trade). It also validates my point that if you want to live in a commune in America, you are free to start one. They are not illegal. Nobody is going to try and stop you. There's no need for you to agitate for them - just do it. If it's really a better and workable way of living, they'd be commonplace. > It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune I didn't define a commune. I set out quite reasonable criteria that would characterize a successful commune.

WalterBright 7y ago

> Freetown Christiania Stole the land they use and supported themselves selling illegal drugs. Maybe they're also living off of government benefit checks, which is not self-sufficiency. No mention that I could find on the turnover. 1 to 2 years is a typical stay in a commune, as people get tired of it and move on. > sometimes better ways to do things than your particular way If Freetown is your ideal, feel free to move there. No thanks from me. It's neighbors don't appear to care for it, either. > cooperatives Cooperative housing isn't the same thing as giving people free housing any more than a corporation means giving people free shares.

KozmoNau7 7y ago
Literally nobody is talking about "free housing", we're talking about communal ownership in communities and cooperatives. "Selling illegal drugs" as some sort of indictment is laughable considering we're talking about weed, which is quickly being decriminalized and legalized all over the world, as the relatively harmless substance it is. You are sadly quite ill-informed and way out of your depth on subject matter you only have cursory experience with. I genuinely suspect that D stands for Dunning-Kruger, and I would recommend you stick with what you know, instead of embarrassing yourself on subjects your software development experience has absolutely no relation to. Being smart in one area does not make you universally smart in other areas.
- nickpp 7y ago
  Having to attack the person you are arguing with speaks rather poorly of the argument you are trying to make.
- WalterBright 7y ago
  Selling illegal drugs enables one to make huge profits not available to legal commerce. I've always been in favor of the legalization of marijuana. I voted for it. But my point that taking advantage of the high profits from trafficking in illegal things is not a valid argument for the economic viability of communes. For a commune to have standing as a viable way to live, it: 1. needs to be voluntary 2. needs to have its residents be there long term, i.e. 5 years or more 3. needs a legitimate source of income (not subsisting on crime) 4. needs to generate enough income to be self-sustaining (not relying on external income to make up the slack, such as donations, retirement pay or government welfare payments) 5. not rely on theft of resources, such as squatting on land not paid for If you have evidence for communes that fit these criteria, I'd like to see it.
  - KozmoNau7 7y ago
    Christiania and countless other communes around the world do quite well, whether you choose to believe it or not. It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune. https://www.ic.org/ https://www.ic.org/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/utopia-erik-reece/494741/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/utopia-... http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-still-thrivedecadesafterthe60sbuteconomyisabummerman.html http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-sti... Examples are plentiful, if you care to actually genuinely look.
    - WalterBright 7y ago
      > Clay observed that 20 percent of the membership turned over annually.[23] I looked at your Twin Oaks example. They weed out slackers and drunks before they can join. Turnover is 20% per year. Evidently people like the concept of a commune much more than the reality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_Oaks_Community,_Virginia https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/09/us/communes-american-story/ https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2015/09/us/communes-american... At least it's a better example than your Christiana one (living on stolen land and illegal trade). It also validates my point that if you want to live in a commune in America, you are free to start one. They are not illegal. Nobody is going to try and stop you. There's no need for you to agitate for them - just do it. If it's really a better and workable way of living, they'd be commonplace. > It is not up to you to define the end-all be-all definition of a commune I didn't define a commune. I set out quite reasonable criteria that would characterize a successful commune.