Where does "vision" come from?
Simply put, what would living in this proposed, large, (approximately 100 to 300 people-no one knows the exact best numbers), rural, largely self-sufficient, INTENTIONAL COMMUNITY be like? To jump to the proposal's basic goals and ethics, click here.
Living in this proposed community would be something like living on a university campus, or being at a summer camp, except it would be more spacious, spread out and would have a feeling of being much closer to, or part of, the natural surroundings it finds itself in. The buildings and grounds would be more creative, unique, diverse and beautiful. There would be vegetable gardens, fields, fruit and nut orchards, and many kinds of animals. There would be an equal distribution of ages, from the very old, to the very young. One would share a room with one's "partner", spouse or best friend, work two days a week, or four hours a day in the garden, kitchen, or doing maintenance work (or make some sort of other arrangements to fulfill one's minimal requirements to the community in return for receiving one's basic requirements of food , shelter and a few other of life's basic amenities). The rest of the time one would be free to do as one wished. There would be many shared facilities, such as kitchen, cafeteria, laundry, men's and women's bathhouse, library and Internet/phone access. And because there would be plenty of land, resources and people, there would be plenty of opportunity for collaboration, self-employment, cooperative business ventures, commercial farming, socialization (or the opportunity to be, or to work, alone if one so wished). In other words, the resources and people would be available for fulfilling and meeting ones individual needs and desires, whatever they might be. If this sounds, well, horrible, I'm sorry. I am trying to envision something that would be REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE.........ECOLOGICALLY SUSTAINABLE, AND BE SOCIALLY, AND ECONOMICALLY JUST. In other words, something fair, and that everyone could participate in regardless of economic status. This would potentially be a way of life that would (optionally) largely reduce the need for barter, business and money.
To reiterate and equally important, it would be a way of life that would be immensely interesting, creative, freeing, meaningful, secure, healthy and enjoyable way to live........for us as individuals.......irrespective of its positive effect on the rest of the world, and its modus operandi based on being responsible world citizens.
Urgent message for our times Some common responses The dreaded word: "commune" Nonattachment recent e-mail reply from me to an inquiry
"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
Many words, but one simple hypothesis: we would achieve the highest quality of life, most personal freedom, and do so in the most meaningful, enjoyable and healthy of ways, if we addressed our most fundamental needs of food, shelter, and access to natural resources (such as firewood, water and land) and a few essential utilities (such as clothes washing, bathing, library, communications, and school for the children).....in a cooperative/communal way that is fair, fun, flexible and in harmony with nature.
This video, while off a bit in my opinion about the population and food thing, is mostly dead-on. It is called "Capitalism and Other Kid's Stuff".
While this is a proposal to live communally....to a degree. To exactly WHAT "degree" is crucial to understanding why this proposal is so different. In this case, the degree of "required" communal obligations and restrictions are SMALL, while the freedom gained and benefits enjoyed would be LARGE. The purpose of this proposed communal/cooperative living arrangement is NOT the pursuit of some ideal regarding "togetherness", rather, it is viewed as simply the most pragmatic path to individual freedom (as well as being, perhaps, the only truly and deeply ecological, sustainable and socio-economically just way for human beings to live).
This socioeconomic paradigm, or something close to it, it is believed, is the way we're meant to live as human beings. And it is strongly suspected to be only way we will ever achieve maximum personal freedom, maximum health and live in harmony with nature and in peace with one another.
If the ethics this idea is based upon seem few, and the size of the community proposed (approximately 200 plus) 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 a video introduction to the (general idea) by another person, Jack Reed, and who is not associated with this proposal, click here. 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.
A comment about the above video More related You Tube videos, click here
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, overpopulation, destruction and pollution of the natural environment. This worldview, or view of America seems 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.
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 that usury 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.......most 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, humanity, (and only uninformed Americans can believe the US was, or is always an innocent bystander or some paragon of saintliness) 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 physical and 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 a dangerous 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. As people we must be given the right and the means to live in the healthiest way possible, and to eat the highest quality food. Again, this will only be accomplished, for most, 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. And by putting the "sacred family" or individual as the center, it only exasperates this "everyone for themselves" mentality.
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 is continually reinforced by powerful socio-economic conditioning through education, mass marketing-propaganda, and cultural conformity, comparison, and envy.
Ultimately, forgetting the words and hype about Marxism, capitalism, egalitarianism, socialism, anarchism, communism, liberalism, libertarianism, conservatism, alternative, ecological, sustainable, peace, prosperity, quality of life and on and on.....understanding actually lies beyond the words and in between the sentences. One must think critically and for oneself.
What so-called (freedom loving?) "capitalists" and even "anarchists" forget to leave out, and....should leave out....of their 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 simply HYPE AND FANTASY. There will never ever be anything that even remotely comes close to what a "just" society would be, or, for that matter what an "eco-village" is technically, or supposedly about (if subjected to scientific critical analysis) as long as usury and exploitative capitalism are not totally rejected by those living in a larger society, or a smaller so-called, ....."eco-village".
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, exploitative economics i.e. usury, greed, hypocritical Puritanism or religiousness, 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 9 to 5 wage slaves 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 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 with and with the natural environment in which we live? How can we expect men and women to be able to love one another if they do not feel free and fulfilled as individuals, and as long as they are terribly burdened because of economics?
since 8/5/08
Miscellaneous
audio
benefits
Jack Reed
Ted Trainer