3 ms·

>One of my issues with distributivism is I'm not sure if we'd have the technological advancements under such a system I'd take the simpler life, social harmon

>One of my issues with distributivism is I'm not sure if we'd have the technological advancements under such a system I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements.

WalterBright 2y ago
You're free to start such a commune. They're not illegal. People start them up all the time in the US. The trouble is, they don't work. The Woodstock commune lasted 3 days, and the people left after turning the fields into a sewage farm. The Summer of Love in San Francisco lasted 3 months or so. There are lots of others.
- hprotagonist 2y ago
  The Bruderhof communities, the Amish, and many of the other peace churches are largely sustainable examples of communities which seem quite self sustaining in this vein. Monastic communities have operated this way, to varying degrees, for millennia. To a certain extent, even the tenured academic system reflects this sort of dynamic -- and came from the same roots.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The Amish communities are not communes. The Bruderhof has many communes, with a total of 2900 members worldwide. Doesn't sound very successful. Monastic communities and academic communities seem to survive on external donations. "The Bruderhof run a variety of businesses that provide income to run their communities and provide common work for the members who almost all work onsite." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities Is it really a commune if they're running a capitalist business? Or is it more of a cooperative?
    - coldtea 2y ago
      >The Amish communities are not communes. Even if that's true (and, sure, they certainly aren't hippy communes), so? Neither me (in the original comment that spawned this subthread) nor your direct parent said anything about communes or this idea being restricted to communes. I just said "I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements" That said: >Is it really a commune if they're running a capitalist business? Yes - "commune" is not the same as "communist". Just means sharing stuff and living together as a close community, it's not tied to Marxism, the Paris Commune of 1870, or other such doctrines (and obviously many of the examples are religious based).
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. > Even if that's true It's easy to look it up. > I just said "I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements" That's the promise of communes.
        coldtea 2y ago
        >A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. A commune is a particular living arrangement. Communism can be applied to whole states, regardless of such a living arrangement. On top of this, "communism" and "communist" has acquired specific meaning in 2024 and much of the 20th century, which is not the idea of communal living of early Christians, of hippies, or even that of Charles Fourrier. Words are define by their use, not by their historical origins. This is just muddying the waters. >That's the promise of communes. Communes are neither necessary nor sufficient for this. You could have distributivism on a larger state that's not a commune. This wouldn't make the whole country "a big commune" without distorting the meaning of the term, and more importantly, how it's colloqually understood. And of course you can also have communes with none of those elements, like people living together with high technology, a Star Trek like commune. Or a commune of people working their ass off and considering leisure a sin. Or a highly hierarchical commune. And several other types besides. Living together and sharing resources (the essentials of a commune) doesn't promise or guarantee the rest I've mentioned.
- coldtea 2y ago
  >The trouble is, they don't work. The Amish have been going strong for centuries, so there's that. But I didn't say I want a niche commune anyway, I'd prefer society to be like that at large.
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    The Amish community is not a commune.
    - coldtea 2y ago
      The "Amish community" is a general group with a specific heritage that follows certain principles. They live in many different states. Actual Amish people do live in a communal way, share resources, help each other, have common church practice, etc, which makes their local communities (not "the Amish community" in general) communes.
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Individual Amish people own property and business and keep the profits from them. That's not being a commune.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > The Amish have been going strong for centuries Because they are protected by a superpower that allows them to continue their way of life. > I'd prefer society to be like that at large. So you'd be fine with giving up a good chunk of your life expectancy? Because that's what the simple societies of the past involved. You'd be fine with giving up modern medicine, sanitation, sewage disposal? You'd be fine with having to work all day just to produce a bare subsistence amount of food, so that your body wears out much faster than in a modern society? You'd be fine with no Internet, books being rare and expensive (no printing presses), travel beyond your local village being a huge undertaking? You'd be fine with no modern hospitals, no 911 to call, no ambulance to come get you if you're injured or have a heart attack or stroke? I could go on and on. People who yearn for "the simple life" only do so because they have never actually experienced it and have no idea what it actually entails.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
I'm not sure if this is on the table even theoretically, as history shows that all those qualities correlate positively with technological advancement. I'm probably biased heavily by modern upbringing, but "simpler life" sounds like a lot of mind-dumbing boredom, mixed with suffering and hard work, and defined by people dying young from trivial ailments we don't even consider dangerous today.
pdonis 2y ago
> I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements. But your ability to post here depends on technological advancements. A simple agrarian society would never have invented the medium through which we are having this conversation. Not to mention the vast majority of the other wealth in our modern society.

WalterBright 2y ago

You're free to start such a commune. They're not illegal. People start them up all the time in the US. The trouble is, they don't work. The Woodstock commune lasted 3 days, and the people left after turning the fields into a sewage farm. The Summer of Love in San Francisco lasted 3 months or so. There are lots of others.

hprotagonist 2y ago
The Bruderhof communities, the Amish, and many of the other peace churches are largely sustainable examples of communities which seem quite self sustaining in this vein. Monastic communities have operated this way, to varying degrees, for millennia. To a certain extent, even the tenured academic system reflects this sort of dynamic -- and came from the same roots.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The Amish communities are not communes. The Bruderhof has many communes, with a total of 2900 members worldwide. Doesn't sound very successful. Monastic communities and academic communities seem to survive on external donations. "The Bruderhof run a variety of businesses that provide income to run their communities and provide common work for the members who almost all work onsite." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruderhof_Communities Is it really a commune if they're running a capitalist business? Or is it more of a cooperative?
  - coldtea 2y ago
    >The Amish communities are not communes. Even if that's true (and, sure, they certainly aren't hippy communes), so? Neither me (in the original comment that spawned this subthread) nor your direct parent said anything about communes or this idea being restricted to communes. I just said "I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements" That said: >Is it really a commune if they're running a capitalist business? Yes - "commune" is not the same as "communist". Just means sharing stuff and living together as a close community, it's not tied to Marxism, the Paris Commune of 1870, or other such doctrines (and obviously many of the examples are religious based).
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. > Even if that's true It's easy to look it up. > I just said "I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements" That's the promise of communes.
      - coldtea 2y ago
        >A commune is communism. The religious rationale for it is different than the Marxist rationale, but the result is the same. A commune is a particular living arrangement. Communism can be applied to whole states, regardless of such a living arrangement. On top of this, "communism" and "communist" has acquired specific meaning in 2024 and much of the 20th century, which is not the idea of communal living of early Christians, of hippies, or even that of Charles Fourrier. Words are define by their use, not by their historical origins. This is just muddying the waters. >That's the promise of communes. Communes are neither necessary nor sufficient for this. You could have distributivism on a larger state that's not a commune. This wouldn't make the whole country "a big commune" without distorting the meaning of the term, and more importantly, how it's colloqually understood. And of course you can also have communes with none of those elements, like people living together with high technology, a Star Trek like commune. Or a commune of people working their ass off and considering leisure a sin. Or a highly hierarchical commune. And several other types besides. Living together and sharing resources (the essentials of a commune) doesn't promise or guarantee the rest I've mentioned.
coldtea 2y ago
>The trouble is, they don't work. The Amish have been going strong for centuries, so there's that. But I didn't say I want a niche commune anyway, I'd prefer society to be like that at large.
- WalterBright 2y ago
  The Amish community is not a commune.
  - coldtea 2y ago
    The "Amish community" is a general group with a specific heritage that follows certain principles. They live in many different states. Actual Amish people do live in a communal way, share resources, help each other, have common church practice, etc, which makes their local communities (not "the Amish community" in general) communes.
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Individual Amish people own property and business and keep the profits from them. That's not being a commune.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > The Amish have been going strong for centuries Because they are protected by a superpower that allows them to continue their way of life. > I'd prefer society to be like that at large. So you'd be fine with giving up a good chunk of your life expectancy? Because that's what the simple societies of the past involved. You'd be fine with giving up modern medicine, sanitation, sewage disposal? You'd be fine with having to work all day just to produce a bare subsistence amount of food, so that your body wears out much faster than in a modern society? You'd be fine with no Internet, books being rare and expensive (no printing presses), travel beyond your local village being a huge undertaking? You'd be fine with no modern hospitals, no 911 to call, no ambulance to come get you if you're injured or have a heart attack or stroke? I could go on and on. People who yearn for "the simple life" only do so because they have never actually experienced it and have no idea what it actually entails.

TeMPOraL 2y ago

I'm not sure if this is on the table even theoretically, as history shows that all those qualities correlate positively with technological advancement. I'm probably biased heavily by modern upbringing, but "simpler life" sounds like a lot of mind-dumbing boredom, mixed with suffering and hard work, and defined by people dying young from trivial ailments we don't even consider dangerous today.

pdonis 2y ago

> I'd take the simpler life, social harmony, leisure, equality and the rest, over the rat race with its technological advancements. But your ability to post here depends on technological advancements. A simple agrarian society would never have invented the medium through which we are having this conversation. Not to mention the vast majority of the other wealth in our modern society.