"Mindfulness
must be engaged. Once there is seeing, there must be acting. Otherwise what is the use of seeing.? " and "The most
noble task is to build community" by Thich
Nhat Han
A lot of words perhaps, but one simple
hypothesis: we would achieve the quality of life and
personal freedom we desire in more meaningful, enjoyable and
healthy ways if we simply addressed our most fundamental needs such as food, shelter,
and access to natural resources (such as firewood and land); plus
addressed the need for a few of the essential utilities
such as washing,
resources like a library, and institutions like a school for young
children that make life function adequately at a basic level.........and
addressed these needs in a cooperative way that works for all, and is
fair.
If the ethics this idea is based upon seem few, and the
size of the community proposed seems large, know that the most
successful attempts at human unity and cooperation share these traits in
common - large size, which tends to mean (inclusive and diverse) and founded upon
simple (yet profound) ethics.
For an
interesting excerpt called "Pioneering" from "A Handmade Life,
In Search of Simplicity" by William S. Coperthwaite......click here For an interesting excerpt about cooperative food
preparation and eating.......click here
There is perhaps no
better way to see these ideas expressed in words than to read Erich
Fromm's book "To Have or To Be". Also, to listen to an audio version of
Eric Fromm's book "The Art of Loving".....click here.
For a professional video introduction to the (general idea) by
someone else,click here For a video introduction by
this proposals author, wmv format....dial
up....DSL
"Intentional communities" these days and
of the past several decades, generally, as the phrase is commonly
thought of, talk about sustainable this, and consensus that, but rarely
can their thoughts, actions, or membership requirements be summed up in
a few simple (but profound) ethics and goals which would radically
alter the existing social and economic status quo, or dramatically improve
the quality of life for the individual. Their visions tend to be very
limited and there numbers clearly indicate a very limited appeal. A simple explanation is
that they are
opportunity based (or land based, as in a particular parcel of land) and
are not revolutionary/change/idea based. They are, generally, about a
few people taking advantage of some particular opportunities that happen to come
their way.........rather than creating a fundamentally different kind of
social and economic design with equal opportunities for all and a
radically better way of life for all.
They tend to mimic the family type (extended or nuclear)
social and economic structure.......which is typically egalitarian,
often hierarchical, and usually centers around "work" for the common
good. Erich Fromm has referred to these type of small
social units as connections of "blood and soil" and they represent a
form of, in this person's opinion, a kind of small minded and limited
vision - provincialism. There is nothing new or revolutionary about them at all.
There is a lot of "concern" these days about
(our, or one's own)
"future", as if "the here and now" was some sort of
paradise where everyone was healthy and happy, and no one else was going
to follow in our footsteps i.e. nuclear waste. This
worldview, or view of America is shortsighted and self-centered, for there has been terrible
injustice, cruelty, personal tragedy, and massively destructive
environmental practices in both our recent past (the history of
America) and continuing on in the
present, at home and abroad......war after war, preventable mental and
physical disease, addictions of every sort, endless crime and so on.
This website isn't just another internet intellectual spout off about current
affairs, or appeal for "virtual" friendship: it is a proposal, a
suggestion to tackle some of the challenges we face as a society and as
individuals.......with actual
(not just talk) solutions, effort, work, relationships, risk, "loving one's
neighbor as oneself",conviction, faith and most of all,
thinking for oneself.
If these things seem like negatives, if they strike terror in one's
soul, I believe it shows just how far we've sunk, of how terribly serious this
dilemma we find ourselves in
is at present. The potential rewards however, for the adventurous, courageous, and
purposeful would be much better health, abundant energy, joy, meaning, human connection,
a high quality of life, social and economic diversity and abundant
personal freedom. There is often an assumption that doing nothing means
no risk, the reality however is quite the opposite. Doing nothing means
taking the biggest risk of all.
If we
wish to live wisely and compassionately we would: (1) never resort to any kind of violence unless
we, or those physically around us were
personally and immediately threatened; and even then, only as the
most desperate of last resorts.
(2) the only kind of nuclear waste we would
generate would come from what is needed for medical x-rays (3) we would not
genetically modify nature (4) we would farm organically (5) we would controlour population.........(6) and land and natural resources would be
(used) not owned.
Love, justice, peace, health, joy and all
that is desirable for us as human beings (I believe) demand that
we live/organize ourselves in some sort of new communal, communitarian
or socialistic socio-economic design. This does not mean that all must
have the same, or do the same. But because (as a culture) we
are
slightly demented........most of us never experiencing much
deep relatedness with others, joy in living and only a pseudo
kind of freedom, we project this "demented" life experience onto our
ideas about what living in a socialistic way, or what living
"communally" might mean, hence, immediately pervert it into a vision
reflecting our addiction to authoritarianism, hierarchical power
structures, control of one another, our exploitative use of one another,
our unreasonable need for possessing things (consumerism) and one
another, and our many fears and
puritanical attitudes.
If we can pretend thatusury and exploitative
capitalism(owning that which one doesn't use, dead capital, and trying to
make profit from it without actively producing goods or services) as well as
overpopulation.........represent wisdom, freedom, fairness,
compassion, "spirituality", love for our fellow human kind, democracy,
justice and sanity.....we can pretend and deny almost anything and
everything. And because we most
certainly do pretend these things, ours is indeed a make-believe
world, ours are cultures which make mockery of our human intelligence,
make mockery of love, "spirituality", and makes everything and anything
we say a lie, a con (or at least a half truth), and indeed a bad joke. The military, as well as the highest levels of
education need to keep the citizenry as docile obedient sheep, or
dependent naïve children. Governments, major institutions and
corporations certainly don't want a population who have any desire, or
ability to think critically, or for themselves (except of course in
how to do their jobs, and make money so they can pay taxes, and buy stuff they don't need).
Many men and women, as well as much of the "alternative" and liberal
population as well go right along with this (as Derek Jensen
so aptly names it) "the culture of make believe". The
population is now
(as
Don Miguel Ruiz says in his book
"The Four Agreements") "auto domesticated", and so,
is conditioned (of its own volition, and convinced of its
total free will) to reject wisdom, fairness,
compassion, love for our fellow human kind, democracy, justice and
finally sanity itself in favor of, as Erich Fromm calls it,
"the marketing, or having orientation". The poor, and women are
generally as conservative, as filled with fear, and obsessed with money,
possessions, wealth, and power as are the rich, and men. This enormous
pretense of "freedom", civilization, organized religion, the "state" and
the sanctity of the "family" has cost millions of lives and may in the future cost billions
of lives, if not the species itself.
Quotes from "Erich Fromm, His Life and Ideas" by Rainer Funk
This is not a
"survival plan" per se. Thinking only about one's own individual
self,
family, children, or even one's own community's "survival"
needs (irrespective of the "whole", or everyone else's
same need to survive) is
one of the saddest aspects of human behavior, and one of the primary
reasons we have the problems that we do. This proposal is a suggestion
on how to change this, not by doing "for" another, but by setting up a new type of socio-economic system/design
which allows all to contribute (with simple
labor) towards (in a meaningful and enjoyable way) one's
own survival. In other words, to do "with" one another,
and end up with not less individual freedom, but more.....a lot more.
Even though what is being
proposed, one must concede, does looks like a "commune;" strict egalitarianism
(in other
words, no difference in possessions or income)
is NOT
being proposed. Individual freedom and liberation
expressed in terms of time, thought, expression,
activity and income is a paramount goal. This is a 99% difference from all past and present
attempts, or practices. One needs to study the proposal
in-depth, or call
on the telephone if one needs further clarification as
to why this would NOT
create envy, nor
why it need not feel any different from "regular" or
"normal life" as we know it now......except be
a lot better.
Amusingly, if not amazingly, though the idea of living in a commune seems
strange, outdated or even repugnant to many.......people seem to have
no trouble living in cities, condos, apartment
complexes, suburbs, (realistically speaking, those in
the country, unless disabled, extremely well-off, or
actually working at home, are, in all reality, spending
little time actually "at home");
AND all are spending a great deal (if not most) of their
time/lives in traffic jams, working in large institutions and
businesses, going to social functions and wishing they
could afford to eat out more, have more free time, spend
more time with the kids, spend more time with friends, spend more time in nature, get
more exercise and so on.
Something resembling
communal living, whether
one wants to admit it, or not, may be the only way we will
ALL
get to live a high-quality and a HEALTHY lifestyle, (even spend a lot of time alone if that
is what one wants,)......and just as
importantly, do it in
such a way that does not directly
EXPLOIT others, does not destroy nature,
and the natural resources we depend and
enjoy so much.
Perhaps the simplest way to explain the
difference between what has been, and what could be is in
stating that the goal, which, rather than total servitude
to "the group", should be......individual
liberation and freedom. In
other words, rather than five or six days of "work" for
one day of freedom, it should be two days of "bread labor" for five days of
individually directed activity. This
is an easy goal to accomplish IF
that is what is desired. The "issue", though attempted
to be masked by saying one doesn't want to be "around all those people",
is really simply about agreements and expectations. Generally speaking,
most agree to be around, live and work with other people most of the
time for an expectation of receiving a certain amount of money. The
consequence is the world in front of us collectively and individually.
To the degree that one is either happy, discontented, or disconcerted
with this world, is the degree to which one might consider other
agreements and expectations.
If
communal living is so great, or "the answer"......why isn't
it being talked about? If one is going to ask that
question, one should also ask every other question about
humanity such as (1) why did we (and only
uninformed Americans can believe the US is simply an
innocent bystander) just slaughter 100
million people in the last century? (2) why has
slavery existed throughout the entire "civilized"
historical era? (3) what are we doing with nuclear
weapons? And the list, of course, could go on and on. We
have falsely thought that the best way to get our needs
met has been through the "everyone for themselves"
mentality, and as long as we keep thinking in that way,
nothing will change. Indeed, plenty of respected and
highly intelligent individuals are saying the future of
humanity, if we are to continue going on as we have
been, is in jeopardy. Of course, we are much too
arrogant and self centered to be moved by such
statements.
Whether it is in classic
Communist or capitalistic societies, it is clear that to
continue on with the "couple" or "the family" as the
socio-economic center (the intimate
and sexual center yes, but not the social and economic
center) of societies, large and small,
will be disastrous.
It will also be disastrous if we
continue on thinking that our "problems" will be solved
by technology and that everything will be grand if we
can just figure out a clean and cheap energy source. This is pure illusion. We had sophisticated enough
technology at the turn of the 19th century, never mind the
20th century.....that with wisdom we should have
been living in absolute Utopia back then. But we didn't have the wisdom
then, and we don't now. It's time to start reading
Erich
Fromm, or a host of other wise teachers, and get
that wisdom before it's too late.
A special mention about
health is called for. To solve the "health problem"
primarily through expensive curative technology, is, as
the solution for energy through technology and
individual independence through monetary means, a
classic dead-end. It won't work. People, we, must be given
the right and the means to live in the healthiest way
possible, and eating the highest quality food. Again,
this will only be accomplished, realistically, through
living in a cooperative communal situation.
There is nothing wrong
with high technology, at least high technology that doesn't
pollute and poison. But high technology should be more of an
extra than a necessity. Costs, in every way, should
always be considered. We should reduce the population to
the point where there are plenty of natural resources
i.e. forests, water and farmland to go around for
everyone. Again, even if we only had the simpler technology of the
19th century and abundant natural resources, life, if we lived
wisely, would be incredibly abundant and easy for
everyone. But we
refuse to live wisely, and we refuse to put "everyone"
or the
"community",(in other words, everyone's need for a basic quality-of-life), at the center. Instead,
putting the "sacred family" or individual as the center, only
exasperates this "everyone for themselves" mentality. It
contributes greatly to overpopulation, and ultimately
provides numbers of people, not for the wonderful and
noble life which human beings could be meant for,
but rather as human beings for cannon fodder, physically
and mentally ill "patients" to enrich the "healing
professions", victims to be exploited through Usery and
to keep the criminal system and other government
employees in jobs. And this is
called creating jobs and growth........ it's a form of
insanity, that's what it is!
Why do men and women
resist living socialistically, communally? It appears it is a control
issue. Basically, in the communist or
religious fundamentalist countries (which amount to
little more than institutions of state run capitalism) it seems the men are
afraid of not being able to control the women; and in
the capitalistic countries, it's seems it's the women
who are afraid they will be unable be able to control the men. The
excuse (conscious or unconscious) is probably that it's about sex.......or survival issues. The argument being, that
without isolation (of the family) and dependency, men and women will not
be able to control their partners, or "depend on them".
Yet on the other
hand, no one denies that "independence" of the
individual is also highly desirable. How can control and dependency
coexist with independence? Obviously they can't.
Given the reality
regarding the relationship between men and women on the
planet at this time (who could possibly deny that it
is very sad indeed, 26% of the population actually living alone) it seems hard to imagine we
would not want to at least try something different.
There is no evidence to suggest that men and women would
be any less monogamous living in socialistic
cooperatives or communes (considering
all cooperative/communal experiences recorded all through history) than couples generally are
now. It seems hard to imagine that it's not about pure
and simple control issues, and fear. But sometimes doing nothing is more
dangerous than at least trying something new.
If we try to accomplish,
or tie
this "independence" of the individual, of the
sexes, to monetary
exchange and high technology.......rather than simplicity,
living close to one another, living close to nature and
sharing some cooperative labor in order to take care of
our basic needs, the consequences for humanity and our planet may not
just be catastrophic, this approach may very well put the grand human experiment
at risk altogether.
What
Karl Marx didn't
see or understand (apparently) was the "exploited"
"masses" own
inability, or refusal to move beyond the
"every person
for themselves" approach to life, particularly regarding
the
pursuit of pleasure, power, position and material acquisition.
All this continually reinforced by socio-economic conditioning through
education, mass marketing-propaganda, and the power of conformity,
comparison, and envy.
Ultimately, forget all the words and the
hype about......Marxism, capitalism, egalitarianism, socialism, anarchism, communism,
liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, alternative, ecological, sustainable, peace,
prosperity, quality of life and on and on.....understanding.....ultimately
lies beyond the words.......one must think
critically for oneself!
What
so-called (freedom loving?) "capitalists"
and even "anarchists" forgot to leave out, and....should have left outoftheir song and dance about the "freedom to provide goods and services" was, and is, USURY, AND
any other sort of economic activity which
generates income WITHOUT...providing goods and services. This situation has
ultimately lead to each and every man, woman, and sometimes even
children, if they can, to find other human beings to
personally exploit through the use of "capital".....and
many succeed to
some degree; whether it is the innocent sounding bank CD, annuities, or
any other financial "investments", some sort of rental income, or selling land or anything else......for more
than one paid for it without adding value.
What this amounts to, in no uncertain terms, is for one great
mass of humanity attempting to make slaves out of the other great mass
of humanity. And if we can't find other human beings to
exploit and plunder, we exploit and plunder the the earth in destructive
and unsustainable ways.
To think there can be any kind of ecological, sustainable
or peaceful world without changing this fundamentally and profoundly
dysfunctional, antisocial, anti-community, non-loving behavior is
PURE HYPE AND ABSOLUTE FANTASY! There will never
ever be anything that even remotely comes close to what an "eco-village"
is technically, and supposedly about (if
subjected to scientific critical analysis) as long as usury
and exploitative capitalism are not totally rejected by those living in
these so-called, or proposed....."eco-villages".
Neo liberals and conservatives argue that this situation
(how society is now) is how it
should be, that it as near to some sort of social and economic utopia as we will ever get;
and the general population generally agrees. Such is the degree to which
social conformity, mass delusion, insensitivity, greed, fear, ignorance, indoctrination and propaganda have
their sway. But for those who think critically, analyze, read books, watch documentaries, or for whatever
other reason, (often experience) can think "outside
the box", a far different picture emerges; a picture which indeed portends dark days
ahead for humankind. Why?
The dark days are already here,
if one can see beyond the materialism, propaganda, reconnect with one's
sensitivity, intelligence, compassion, be well informed and well read.
And they've
been with us for a very very long time, thousands of years really.....slavery,
wars, joyless puritanical workaholic lives, and exploitation of one's
fellow human beings. But
denial, conditioning, fear, and a refusal to feel compassion or concern for our fellow
man, woman, and the future generations; as well as the courage and
ability to think critically for ourselves, and about ourselves, prevent us
from seeing this reality. In other words, of course the
suffering doesn't happen to everyone, nor all the time; but just because
one can (think) that those who suffer deserve it, that it's
their own fault, doesn't make that the complete truth either......even though we do, of course, bear personal
responsibility for the outcome of our lives.......that outcome is
profoundly influenced by the larger socio-economic circumstances and
culture we find
ourselves in. To a great degree, those who do or can make the "system" work
for them, often, are in fact living off a great many others who cannot.
How? Taxes, regulations, rent and outright coercion, force and
fraud. A great many who are involved in education,
government,
the military AND all the various support industries supplying these
state sponsored institutions, could never make it in this very system
(free market capitalism) that
they are indoctrinating others to believe in, supporting with their
efforts, forcing others to live in, and supposedly defending
us from......various enemies........of, again, the free-market
capitalistic system......which they themselves could never make it in.
With such a exploitative and destructive socio-economic
system, it's not hard to imagine why there would be enemies.
Feminism misjudged as well: men are every bit as in need of liberation
as women. The "oppressor" (at least in the West) was never men,
generally speaking, it was the ever increasing cost of living because of
less natural resources, an adding on of unnecessary accouterments to
living, and the increasingly diminished ability of people to be
self sufficient, and to be able to share expensive man-made resources. The
idea that men loved slaving away in factories or field, loved being a 9
to 5 wage slave and going off to war might be romantic, but real? Men
dream of a freer, more creative, more vital and more meaningful life
just like women do.
What's fascinating is that years after the feminist revolution one might
expect men and women to be living together in utter bliss. In fact, it
is just the opposite. 26% of the population lives completely alone (one would be hard-pressed to find something more
un-ecological or unsustainable than this...besides the use of an
automobile) and
one can perhaps assume another 25% to 50% live with "roommates" or
family. It seems the more both men and women aspire to the goals of
feminism such as freedom, self expression, independence, creativity and
so on, the more likely they will be living alone. This isn't because the
goals of feminism are wrong, it's just the economic
realities of our present
society-culture do not support the accomplishment of these individual goals for all, or both.
Perhaps it could be stated that what this effort is about is love;
love
in the broadest and nonsexual sense of the word. For how can we
expect men and women to be able to love one another personally and
intimately if we
are not able to interact in a loving, respectful, FAIR, committed and meaningful way with
all people with whom we have a relationship, and with the natural environment in which we live? How can we expect
men and women to be able to love one another personally and intimately if they do not
feel free and fulfilled as individuals and as long as they are
terribly burdened because of economics?
