What is being
put forth here is not something to "believe in", rather
it is a call for radical life altering action. It is not
an invite for "cyber relationship" or even philosophical
debate, rather it is a call for direct, in person,
relationship based on consensus; the goal of which is to
establish a large (200 to 300, including children),
rural, largely self-sufficient cooperative community;
the benefits and positive consequences of which are
clearly visible in the proposed goals and ethics to be
commonly shared. If you are contented with your life the
way it is and the circumstances of your fellow human
beings, the creation of nuclear waste, war as a means of
conflict resolution, the existence of prisons, cutting
down of all the large trees, spoiling the soil and food
with chemical fertilizer and man-made chemicals and the
forcing of human beings to live like robots, machines
and work animals then it is unlikely what is suggested
here will be of much interest.
Human
relationship, at least the kind most of us desire, is
based on consensus. And consensus, generally speaking,
is based on a relatively narrow range, but nonetheless
profound, shared goals and ethics (or interests). Not
that making (small) decisions or creating the sort of
organization required is always easy, but generally,
deciding for instance, what kind of house to live in, a
few basic rules and some organization, or what to have
for dinner, doesn't generally break up a marriage, or
partnership, or cause undue duress.
The basis for
this proposed community is no different. Though the
notion, widely held, that "consensus" is only possible
in marriage, or the sexual partnership of a couple, and
that all other "relationships" must be based on some
sort of hierarchical power structure, or based on barter
(I do this for you, if you do this for me)........nevertheless
three questions come to mind. (1) are people (generally
men and women) all that happy and healthy? (2) is the
president state and historical record of the world all
that wonderful? (3) is the mass amount of people living
alone now really such a great idea (not to mention
even remotely ecological)?.... just to mention a few
questions.
Of course,
these questions immediately lead to an opinionated
philosophical, cultural and technical quagmire. For
instance, philosophically the question of "personal
responsibility" comes up, and the pointing out that
plenty, if not some numbered "majority" are quite
content and happy with things just the way they are. And
technically, the questions arise such as "can't we
create community, a local economy right where we are?"
Or " isn't eco-village, cohousing, sustainability and
organic farming a great idea?" Suffice to say, it is
assumed the reader of this page is someone who "asks
questions", thinks for oneself and does not merely
accepts the "politically correct" answers handed
out by the "status quo", or even the "alternative" status quo.
It is
postulated that the above goals and ethics could form
the foundation for a successful cooperative community.
True community being, it is speculated, a socio-economic
structure based on clearly stated goals and
ethics....... as well as a few basic rules which enable
and encourages the maximum liberation, freedom, and
self-expression technically possible for its individual
members. The "family paradigm" by contrast is
based on vaguely stated goals, ethics and rules which
ask for absolute loyalty and commitment, and as Eric
Fromm coined the phrase, "blood and soil". This basis
for relationship, seriously minimizes and restricts
individual liberation, freedom, and self-expression.
Unfortunately
today, the "family paradigm" is almost universally
mistaken for "community", probably because "family" is
the only social institution (often with profound
economic ramifications) people primarily know;
consequently the "intentional communities movement" is
not very popular. And why should it be, most people
already have a "family". And family, as the primary
basis or source for societal or community ethics and
goals, it is extremely deficient, if not outright
dysfunctional....... nevertheless, being all that is
known, "family" is what is sought. The vast majority of
all "intentional community" involves only a few
to 20 people, clearly an extended family paradigm. And
even larger "egalitarian communities", practicing the
type of egalitarianism that is commonly practiced, can
again, resemble "family" more than "community". Family
keeps people small, keeps people immature, provincial,
specialized not broad, focused on money, focused on
survival, focused on having, not being. And despite the
outward show of equality and consensus, family and
entire societies can often times be subtly dominated by
either a dominant male or female consciousness
manifesting in mass delusional desires, conditioning, or
ideals which seek to control through resource, cultural
or sexual manipulation.
In true
"community" there is much more individual freedom so
that "individual expression" through "community
decisions" is simply not a burning necessity and so it
is possible to remain detached from these "minor"
details. In the "family paradigm" there is often a power
struggle to "run the show". In the "community paradigm"
individuals are primarily on their own and so there is
no need to express oneself in decisions which affect the
community. The community, once set up, would, actually
be a more or less auto sustaining, auto governing, and
auto directed. Of course, to achieve this, agreement on
some fundamental goals and ethics, as well as
establishing a few rules for basic order and mutual
consideration, established by the community itself,
would be critical to its success.
Despite the
rhetoric and hoopla about "freedom", free enterprise and
the individual entrepreneur the reality is: our society
is decidedly communal in nature in that it would quickly
come to a grinding halt were it not for all the
"governmental" support, or at the very least, the brutal
nature of its exploitative capitalistic side would be
glaringly obvious.
