When most people think of “communes” they either think of hippies from the 60's or romantic era poets and idealists from the 19th century. Idealism seems to have a strong association with the idea of living in a “commune”. This is unfortunate, because community style living need not be idealistic, impractical, or all about “going back to nature”. If ordinary people choose to live together with a clear understanding of modern society and the business world then they can operate a competitive employee owned business effectively and efficiently. The idea of the idealistic hippie commune is an unfortunate social tangent that hopefully will not interfere with people considering a more practical approach to community life. Community style living can be very practical, realistic, and can have profound benefits on individual wellness, economic wellness, and the greater social wellness.
The contemporary world continues to head in the direction of globalization, increasing the fluidity of nations economically, intellectually, and culturally. Likewise, those that adopt community living should ensure the fluidity of their community. Family oriented communities, like tribes, tend to be rather isolationist, joining or leaving such communities may be difficult. In contemporary society communities must be much more open. There is no reason why children should have to live in the same community as their parents, some may wish to, but there is no reason in contemporary society for that to be the norm. Likewise, joining a community should not be a lifelong commitment. By allowing people to flow between communities there is a natural exchange of ideas, techniques, and social customs, allowing stronger customs to thrive, and leading to healthier communities. Individuals may even travel from community to community intentionally for a period of time, absorbing and sharing knowledge as they go. In this way communities may be best served by an “easy in, easy out” philosophy. Open the door to any stranger for a limited time. If they work well with your people then ask them if they would like to stay. If they do not, send them on their way as they continue to search for a community where they can find their place.
Generally Community Living is best in suburban or rural environments. Cities are a place of large scale blending and may not benefit from being cut up into small communities, and communities may not benefit by being cramped in a city. That said there are still reasons for pursuing community living within a city. Artistic communities, like theatrical troupes, are a thing of the past but could be a thing of the future. There are many benefits to an artistic community, including collaboration, inspiration, and knowing well the people you are collaborating with. Education also provides a venue where community living is reasonable, both for professors and for students. A fraternity is basically an example of community living. While I personally would prefer less drinking, less peer pressure, and a less rigid social structure, it is still a valid example of contemporary community living and one cannot deny the social benefits and happiness of those that participate. Professors can benefit from community living for similar reasons as artists; it leads to collaboration and an exchange of ideas and knowledge. Overall though the city is a place where people gather as individuals from many communities, suburban and rural environments, however, are not hubs of activity and can therefore be private places where communities can form and evolve as independent and interdependent human organisms.
One of the basic ideas behind community living is to combine it with an employee owned business. It is this combination that leads to many of the benefits of community living. However, this is not essential and there are many employment structures possible within the confines of community living. The community could have a single core business that is responsible for most of their income. If this is the case the community could require that all members contribute to this core business or the community could accept the importance of auxiliary roles or even accept superfluous roles. The community may also draw income from many sources giving more flexibility to the types of activities that members can contribute to. Finally the community may be purely a community leaving the earning of income purely up to the individuals. Whatever the case may be, the community should establish clearly what the expectations are to limit confusion. If an individual does not agree with the policies of the community and the community is not willing to compromise, then that individual can look for another community. If the community is divided and unwilling to compromise, then that community can physically divide. These are no ideal situations, but they are part of what it means to live in a community.
Living in a community protects the individual from the harshness of individualistic capitalism, the “every man for himself” mentality. It can help a person who falls on hard times if there is a community there that knows and supports them, rather than a corporate lifestyle where a person is only as good as their latest contribution. Community living also means that most of the people know each other. A small town environment like that often means less crime and also less need for surveillance. Surveillance is a consequence of the kind of isolation that result from the anonymity of living amongst strangers. Privacy can be protected by living amongst non-strangers, where surveillance is not as important. In summary, living in a community protects the individual from the harshness of “every man for himself capitalism”, protects the individual from crime, and protects the individuals privacy due to the reduced need for surveillance.
Community is an important part of being human, and a part of being human that is often neglected by American society in particular. One cannot overstate the importance of community with regard to social, mental, and emotional wellness. Even if there were not other personal benefits, economic benefits, and benefits to society in general, the human need for belonging to a community would warrant at least pursuing community living as a possibility.
One of the greatest benefits of community living is that it gives us the freedom to care for our lives, our wealth, and often both at the same time. So it is perfectly reasonable for a community to have one core business that they earn their income with but to have members of the community who are engaged auxiliary activities that benefit the community in a way other than contributing to the core business. It is also reasonable to have members of the community that spend a majority of their time in what may be considered superfluous activities by contemporary standards. There is no reason for the community to resent individuals for participating in a way that does not directly benefit the bottom line. We need not see each other, at this personal community level, as business partners who must share equally in the burden of maintaining the community economically. Here on this small scale we can truly embrace the motto of “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. This is merely a possibility, one that is not as much a possibility in the contemporary individualistic capitalist model, and is not an essential part of community living. In fact many very practical individuals may prefer to live in a community where each person's main contribution is to the core business practice, and that is a perfectly acceptable stance to hold. Regardless of the stance on holds, the needs of a community are numerous, and the avenues of occupation that could benefit a community are likewise numerous. So even if the community leaders do insist on each member contributing to the purely economic wellbeing of the community, there can still be many diverse ways in which an individual can contribute. By working with the community each individuals skills and abilities can be applied in a unique way, and no person need feel like a cog.
Sharing resources can greatly reduce the cost of living. Essentials are usually cheaper in bulk, and a community could save a great deal of money by buying things in bulk for the community rather than individually from a grocery store or department store. Many of the luxuries that people enjoy are not used 24/7, or even if they are used frequently, they can often be shared. Instead of buying one mid level television for every one or two people a community could afford to buy a high end television or even a whole “movie room” with surround sound and special lighting. A lot of people will want to watch the same shows and movies anyway, and with digital recordings conflicts can be avoided. The quality of items that can be afforded goes up while the cost goes down. You can live cheaper and better, and the only cost is being more social.
For many Americans commuting represents one of the greatest costs of living both in time and in money. Community living can cut all of those costs down to nothing. How would an extra hour a day sound? How would an extra $20 a week in gas money, or $10 a day in train fare sound? Furthermore commuting represents a huge drain on our economy and infrastructure. All the money we spend in a year on transportation and transportation infrastructure could instead be spent on something we actually want, rather than toward something we feel like we need.
Small communal societies, acting as competitive members of a greater capitalist, are powerful in terms of their potential for social evolution. Group dynamics that fail would die out, leaving stronger social customs. Communities that cannot compete will die out, leaving strong economic customs. As successful communities attract more members and grow, they may eventually need to divide in order to maintain their sense of community. Successful communities, either socially or economically, but most likely both, will grow and divide fastest, spreading their customs though a kind of social asexual reproduction. Not only will successful communities reproduce themselves in this asexual manner, but ideas can spread communicatively. When one community sees another succeed imitation is likely to follow. With economic and social freedoms each community also has the power to express its own unique customs. Social experimentation on this micro-scale would lead to a constant level of mutation, maintaining the “biodiversity” of the culture as a whole. Social and economic principles would grow and evolve. Customs could be declared good not merely on theory, but on the evidence of their success or failure, on the happiness and wellbeing of those that observe them.
It is natural for individuals to cooperate with each other. We are a tribal species. In fact, cooperation on an individual level is very beneficial, because generally each person is interested in and skilled at different tasks than their peers. As a result close knit groups of individuals whose skills and personalities complement each other can be particularly healthy, happy, and successful. Meanwhile it is quite natural for each tribe to be competitive with other tribes. In times past this competitiveness may have taken the form of repeated small scale wars, or larger ones in the case of larger communities. However this natural competitiveness is also quite apparent in sports. This natural competitiveness on the group level is very much in sync with capitalism, and capitalism can be a healthy outlet for this group competitiveness. In this way both cooperation and competition are healthy parts of human existence, at different levels of society. Likewise both Marxism and Capitalism are healthy economic systems, and can coexist quiet healthful at their appropriate levels of social scale. These concepts are discussed further in the article about Employee Owned capitalism.
Many Americans have little or no idea what it means to live with other people. As a result, many Americans find living with other people very difficult. This does not mean that community living would not benefit these people, it merely means that these people need to overcome significant hurdles with regard to social skills and understand social roles before they can truly benefit from the numerous advantages of living in a community. I don't intend to go into depth with this topic, I only mean to point out that this is a problem that may need to be faced. I would like to say, briefly, that certain character traits are very important and need to be developed if community living is to be successful. These traits include: humility, open-mindedness, honesty, and empathy. One cannot live well with other if one is not devoted to understanding their perspective and if one is unwilling to respect the possibility that others may have wisdom or knowledge of their own.
Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made. Does the community divide over irreconcilable differences? Do we kick out a member of the community because they are causing more harm than good? Should we change directions with our business? These questions may not be unique to community living, but they are far more difficult with the wellbeing of the whole community at stake and with the emotional attachments that will exist as people settle into a community lifestyle. The important thing to keep in mind is that these questions are more difficult for a reason, because there is a greater bond and a greater mutual dependence. It is a great sign of immaturity to avoid attachment or commitment because of the potential consequences of loosing those attachments or breaking those commitments. These decisions can be made, and as long as life goes on their will always be new opportunities, even as there are new obstacles and risks. The greatest benefit of the community is that we can face these obstacles and risks together, and together we are stronger.