“Communal”?

We use the word communal with a great degree of trepidation. We are well aware that this word can be associated with something approaching the very antithesis of freedom, as in communism for example. Or at the very least, a way of living thought of as a quaint wish for utopian idealism; certainly not something to take seriously or "invest" effort into.  Isn't communal living something that has proven itself to be an unsuitable form of human organization? Some communal groups (The Hutterites) have been around for few hundred years, and there are 25,000 of these people right now, in the midwest and Canada. And in our case, very importantly, we're not asking people to "invest" anything, but rather to just come, live and get on with one's life.

In a way, "investing" in this community is prohibited. It is this very detachment that makes sharing so possible and helps create so much freedom. With the rewards for this sharing and living simply being so great and so immediate, this approach to living and its practice will be easy to embrace.

Expenses will be so low, that we can concentrate on what really interests us at a particular time, right from the get go. If that interest earns us some, or a lot of money--great, if it doesn't, that's okay too.  Of course if nobody steps up and at least helps set this up now, to get it started..... that could make it kind of hard. It would be sort of like, nobody willing to lift a finger for anyone else and so we all lose; in some cases even perish.

Some more thoughts..............

Co-housing is way too expensive and can easily look like a condo association, with most people heavily tied into "the system" and not sharing enough of their lives to achieve the intimacy so many of them crave.

Eco-village concept is great in theory, but in all implementations we are aware of, there is much inefficiency in having everyone have their own house and in not sharing walls. It also seems like in most eco-villages, economic problems have not been addressed sufficiently and so people have to spend a large portion of their time trying to make money.

 

Both these concepts (or at least their implementations so far) represent a practically zero change from the basic socio-economic structure that is in place now.........which is both their strength and weakness.  People are attracted to these ideas because they feel comfortably familiar, and yet can be equally uninteresting, because the ideas are not that different, sometimes cost more, sometimes cause the people to be more isolated and don't offer enough to make the effort or the move.

Egalitarian communes are too restrictive and do not sufficiently nurture individual freedom. They are liable to slide into the lowest common denominator when it comes to taking care of shared resources, and people may not have sufficient incentive to improve communal enterprises. The group mind does not necessarily guarantee common sense or wisdom.

Finally, all three of these genuine and well meaning attempts at a better way, fall short on delivering quality of life.  Quality of life being defined as extremely low cost in dollars,  extremely low time requirements to accomplish basic survival (food* + shelter*), rich social environment, a rich variety of shared communal resources and facilities, varied economic opportunities, and ample free time to follow ones passions.

It may be presumptuous of us to think we have come up with a better idea. Yet, it may also be presumptuous to assume that these other attempts are without flaws. Or that there might not be another way or a better way.

Actually, what we suggest is not completely new nor untested.  Having important yet simple to understand values and goals that are shared by all and living simply and sharing resources, is how most all religious or spiritually centered communes thrive; and they do thrive, most of them. And there are many of these. What would be different in our case would be to not center around a named religion or leader; an to leave free choice up to the individual, in all areas, as much as possible. 

In conclusion:  Just about every thinking person is concerned about humanity's future.  Nobody can say for sure what's going to happen, but the possibilities are truly staggering.  If this planet's population has exploded, dependent primarily on a resource that is about either to run out or get very expensive.....PLUS  individual desire/consumerism/capitalism is about to explode on a global level, the answer is clear on any and every level (and the consequences extremely ominous).

Whether it be ecological, personal quality of life, or a socially just life, a new societal structure is simply the only response that makes sense. "Communal" living is what most will see us as proposing, so we use the word.  Yet, it is so different that a new word could be invented to describe it.

 

*Food: the very best, meaning all organic and all whole foods; and all fruits and vegetables homegrown

*Shelter: adequate, low maintenance, private room; most large facilities shared