As a
broad generalization, cohousing communities only address social
problems and do it only through architecture and resource
sharing, ecovillages only address social and ecological problems
(and they are usually less ecological than us because of their
multi household models), spiritual communes only address social
and psychological problems. Some secular communes (such as Twin
Oaks and us) attempt to address all levels of human (and
environment) organization.
One of
the main difference between what we propose and what any other
communes have proposed is our emphasis on
free time, and
learning and
creativity.
There are many communities who share some of our values,
but not all of them. Here are some examples
The Farm
when it was still a commune
www.thefarm.org
This
commune attracted a large number of idealistic people in its
heyday. It did some things right, and some things wrong.
Similarities:
-
At
first, strong, clear values, most of which we share
-
After the initial phase, they did switch over to modern
agricultural machinery
-
Communal kitchen at first (until the number of people became
unmanageable)
Differences:
-
Guru/charismatic leader at
first
-
Single or few family
dwellings vs. 50 people to a building
-
They worked most of the time
to survive or save the world-free personal time was not a
value
-
They went into a lot of debt
-
They didn't take a stand
against lending money for profit or other EEPs
-
There was no clear, efficient
method for group decision making
-
New members were not screened
enough on whether they agreed to all the values, and hence
the values (and community cohesiveness) were diluted. More
inclusive than us.
-
Huge number of people (about
6 to seven times our projected size- this size is not good
for communal kitchen and management of farming
operation or ecological impact)
-
Mind-numbing drugs were used
routinely
-
Certain bizarre sexual
restrictions
The Farm
today
www.thefarm.org:
"... the Farm has become increasingly difficult to distinguish
physically from a "planned community" enclave for wealthy
executives or retirees. "
Similarities:
Differences:
-
All
of the previous differences except size, decision-making
process, presence of Guru, and restrictions on sexual
practices
-
No
communal kitchen and dining
-
No
communal agriculture
-
Not
as much resource and expense sharing (except within
The
Second Foundation)
-
A
lot of people work in the system to make a living
Twin
Oaks
www.twinoaks.org
Similarities:
-
This
community has a labor system we admire.
-
They
managed to avoid debt by somehow getting free land and
keeping their construction costs relatively low (with the
possible exception of their kitchen and dining complex).
-
They
prepare food and eat together.
Differences:
-
Despite the relatively low cost of construction, more
savings could be made by more shared walls, and by double
occupancy of rooms.
-
Sharing at TO goes beyond food and buildings. They are much
more communistic than us.
-
Egalitarianism is a main value for them, but not for us. We
expect differences in income, creativity and productivity to
arise naturally between people.
-
There is not a big emphasis on increasing free time,
learning or creativity.
Earthaven
www.earthaven.org
Similarities:
Differences:
-
They
took many years to build their buildings due to lack of
money and inefficiency of building single family structures.
We expect to build our residential buildings and
kitchen/dining hall quickly so we can enjoy the benefits of
association.
-
Having separate buildings is not as eco-friendly as dorm
style buildings.
-
Learning, creativity, increasing free time, and opposition
to EEP's are not explicit values.
Brook
Farm
www.transcendentalists.com/brook_farm.htm
This
is a community from ante-bellum New England. It only lasted
about 5 years, but it had some really good values.
Similarities:
-
A big emphasis on learning,
creativity, group recreational activities, individualism and
social change, and a stand against EEPs.
Differences:
-
They accumulated much debt,
which was a major reason for their dissolution.
-
They built out of wood, and
an expensive building caught on fire and contributed to
their downfall.
-
Due to unavailability of
labor-saving agricultural machines, a harsh climate, and
poor soil, they could not have much of an agricultural base,
and moved away to community industries.
Ananda
Village
Similarites:
Differences:
-
Religious based
-
charismatic leader and rigid hierarchy
-
Don't grow much of own food or eat together often
-
lots
of separate residential buildings instead of a few group
buildings
The
Hutterite Communities
Similarities:
Differences:
Twelve Tribes Communities
www.twelvetribes.org
Similarities:
Differences:
-
Religious base (cultish)
-
rigid hierarchy
-
patriarchal
-
by
the sweat of their brow they toil most of their time
-
living arrangements more crowded than we envision
-
they
seem to be dependent for their survival on outside jobs.
Zendik Farm
www.zendik.org
Similarities:
Differences:
-
They are mostly artists and
"right-brained" people and have not solved the economic
problem, being dependent for survival on donations from the
outside, and on selling their art.
-
Their buildings do not seem
as economical as possible
-
they do not farm as
efficiently as possible
-
they are more of an extended
family (<30 people) whereas we want to be ~200 people
-
they do not encourage an
atmosphere of free thought and inquiry, and hence have been
seen as cultish by some.
