5 ms·

The Bruderhof communities, the Amish, and many of the other peace churches are largely sustainable examples of communities which seem quite self sustaining in t

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.
    - nextaccountic 2y ago
      Are Kibbutz communes?
      - WalterBright 2y ago
        Yes. They are also supported by Israeli tax money, as they are not self-sustaining.

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.
  - nextaccountic 2y ago
    Are Kibbutz communes?
    - WalterBright 2y ago
      Yes. They are also supported by Israeli tax money, as they are not self-sustaining.