I hear these comments for not wanting to help people, and it feels like we’re worshipping individuality to the detriment of community, which is necessary for survival.
- “I don’t want my money going to ___ .”
- “This is not a democracy, it’s a constitutional republic!”
- “You don’t have any freedoms under socialism/communism.”
- “They’re just looking for a handout because they’re lazy.”
- “I’m a self-made man. I didn’t need anyone’s help.”
- “Empathy is not a virtue.”
- “I don’t see how that’s my problem.”
Annoyed to report: successful and long standing communes/communities seem to all be highly selective, at least initially.
If you’ve got good examples that contradict this, please share.
I feel like examples that prove it using some standard definitions are a prerequisite to that conversation.
Without standard definitions such as selection method/criterium and controlling for variables such as external factors your basically asking me to refute apples with oranges.
Selective: there is either a process which rejects a nontrivial number of applicants (in a way which is not random; the output distribution is different from the applicant population), or there is no open system to join the commune at all (and the initial members are again very much not typical).
Long-standing: a continuous group has existed with the same name for more than, let’s say, 25 years. Ideally in a similar place and with similar policies, but I’m flexible.
Commune/community: a democratically run sharing of resources and container of social connections. They must have things held in common, to which any productive member contributes and any needy member can draw from. The things must be controlled according to the groups intent. Participation in this process should be high. A significant portion of social life of most members should stay within the community.
Successful: a vibe, but not killing too many members and improving the quality of life for members seem like good minimums.
Definitions are meant to be broad here, because I would like to hear about your oranges. Close examples that miss:
Most governments (not communal or not democratic)
Most churches (quite selective, required beliefs for example)
I still think you need to present examples that fit your definitions first. Assuming we’re only talking about selectivity here. Also you’ve kind of raised the bar on yourself by stipulating democracy, egalitarianism, etc.
IMO if you control for selectivity you will find that it’s statistically insignificant and that the success of those examples was due to other factors not how selective they are.
Like the closest thing I would agree exists is mennonites/etc but you don’t count patriachial and religious.
I agree that the bar seems to have raised; the implicit assumptions were taken from the OPs quotes. That was the intended context, apologies if that was not clear.
Non-selective bodies: food banks that serve all who appear, common greens and parks, public libraries, perhaps some gyms or cellular networks. There were a few intentional communities that took a broad welcoming stance, I think New Harmony Owenites is one I’ve heard about.