It's important
not to wall yourself off from the outside world. Cultures that do that,
like the Amish, for example, loose the ability to effect the outer
culture, the maintenance of which ensures their ability to live as they
do. In Walden Two by B. F
Skinner they remained active in the outer community, especially in
politics. For example, they would vote in bulk. They also had children
at a young age (getting three generations for two) and had an average
of four children per couple-when they became too large the community
established a sister community to split off from it. This would seem
ideal-it allows for an ever increasing influence of interlocking
communities with common ideals. I don't enter into this decision
lightly, but I find the reasoning Skinner gives for it too compelling:
"It's no solution of the problem to lower the birth rate of those who understand it. On the contrary, we need to expand the culture which recognizes the need for birth control. If you argue that we should set an example, you must prove to me that we shall not all be extinguished before the example is followed. No, our genetic program is a vital one. We don't worry about the birth rate, or its consequences."
http://www.twinoaks.org/clubs/walden-two/waldentwo-live.html
Is this counterintuitive? Yes. Is it wrong? No. But if you don't want to produce a lot of children, you can always adopt. This would allow for the same cultural influence as well as increased genetic and cultural diversity to be added to one's group. This would also help to break down racial barriers in general-it's hard to hold stereotypes about groups who look different if you, quite literally, live with them as your brothers and sisters.
When it comes to sex, the other thing
about having a system of interlocking communities with common ideals is
that where the nuclear family fails the community can succeed. Certain
roadblocks to open and healthy sexual activity can more easily be
removed. The two rational fears that prevent people that would
otherwise want to be having sex from doing so are the fear of sexually
transmitted diseases and the fear of unwanted pregnancy. Educating all
members in your communities about the proper use of protection and
holding this as a inter-community ideal can itself go a long way to
solving these problems, but we can go even farther than that. The
community can control for sexually transmitted diseases by having all
members tested regularly (as part of their standard well visit, even if
they don't think they have engaged in risky behavior, so that it
becomes routine) and by discouraging sex with those that don't share
such ideals. Pregnancy can be handled through the communal support and
raising of children. There is a certain period in ones life, especially
for women, when it is physically ideal to have children-I would say
somewhere between 15 and 30. But this is not the ideal time to raise
children-emotionally, economically, in terms of maturity and wisdom, in
terms of competing life opportunities-that ideal time is set into later
years-perhaps 35-50. The solution, of course, is to have young adults
bear children but older adults act as their primary care givers. So you
can have children when you are young and your parents can take the
brunt in raising them, and when you are older you can take the brunt in
raising your grandchildren.
Biological parents, of course, can be as involved as they want to be with their biological children, but this takes a great deal of the pressure off. And, what is more, since the group will be raising children communally, children will be raised alongside of and in intimate relation with other children and will have many adult care givers to look up to and learn from-not just one or two. This is ideal because it gives children a pantheon of role models to choose from. This will give them more of an opportunity to shape themselves and become the kind of people they want to be. Every generation, and even every age group, will benefit from the wisdom and experience of those preceding it. In a family with a lot of children, the older ones take care of the younger ones. In this situation, everyone will take care of everyone. The Oedipal and Electra complexes that result from boys and girls being raised primarily by women can be replaced by the healthy balanced perspective made possible by girls and boys being raised by male and female role models of every conceivable age.
This type of neo-tribal group can serve as a family unit for a global civilization-not as a basis of prejudice, but as a source of stability and fulfillment. The members of any given group will not be set-the group will remain open and flexible. The idea is that individuals that have common ideals and want to live together can do so-and as people's ideals change they can go off and form their own groups with other people that want to live as they do. All relationships should be based on merit-you should be in the relationship because you want to be in the relationship, and when you stop wanting to be in the relationship you should leave. (I'm not saying anytime things get tough you should bail-if the relationship is important to you, you'll want to work through the hard times and become stronger through them. But if you are fundamentally unhappy, why would you want to maintain that?) That being said, no traditions should be set, either. Rather, any method of doing things or ideals posited should also remain open and flexible. All groups should learn from one another, take on the traditions of one another, dialogue, do what works, experiment, etc. Let us maintain the knowledge, so easily forgotten, that things are the way they are, we live the way we do, because we choose to, and at any time we can choose otherwise. Study all traditions. If you like something, take it-it's yours. If you don't like it any more, drop it. It's not fundamental-you're fundamental.
Don't encourage your children to be nationalists, but rather to take every culture as their own. Make them world citizens. As Doug Stanhope says, "Nationalism doesn't teach you anything except how to hate people you've never met and take credit for things you had no part in." We want to learn from everyone and teach everyone. Nations exist as an overarching upholder of law and order, but they should be viewed as a bureaucratic instrument to obtain the ideals of the people. In a monarchy, the government has direct influence over the people, but the people don't have direct influence over the government. In a democracy, the people have direct influence over the government, and the government has direct influence over the people. In a panarchy, the people have direct influence over the government, but the government doesn't have direct influence over the people. If anarchy represents the overthrow of the state, panarchy represents its ultimate domestication. A far more libertine situation than what we have currently should be achieved, and by creating powerful communities that are dedicated to liberty we can bring this about.
In reading some of the literature on communes started in the U.S., it seems that some of them have traditionally faced two problems: 1) Not having enough money, and 2) Constantly being bothered by tourists that want to come and see what it's like to live on a commune. The first problem seems to be in part the result of the fact that many communes have been essentially hippie retreats from the outside world. The people that join them don't want to work and the communes in general want to cut themselves from the outside world as much as possible. I'm not advocating either of those things. Sharing resources, possibly growing some of your own food or obtaining it through hunting/gathering, living in health conscious ways, possibly finding independent and green sources for energy and/or water, and having some of your entertainment and spiritual desires served by the commune should help to cut costs. Ideally you wouldn't need to interact with the outside world in order to survive and be happy. But you probably want your group as well as its individual members to become as rich, powerful, knowledgeable, and influential as possible. You want to live in prosperity and not just get by. But having a community should not be a blockade to this-it should help to provide you with a safety network so you have more choices in what you can do for a living.
The second problem doesn't seem to be a problem at all. Tourism can provide both a source of revenue and a means to educate the masses and increase your influence. You can make friends with people in the larger community and from all over the world. You can help educate people in how to set up their own communes to actualize their own ideals. And the internet provides a fantastic means by which we can all communicate and share knowledge and make friends with one another. Try to invest and save as much of your money as possible. Spend more on education and improving long-term quality of life than material products. Very little is actually necessary to live an enriching and happy life. As Kent Brockman put it, "Reject your corporate masters. Buy nothing. Hug your children. Love the one you're with." (The first two represent the ideal of autonomy, but not the ideal of homonomy-and thus by themselves would be a form of the pattern of noncommitment. But in that they represents the ideal of autonomy, I think there's something triumphant about them. Still, as John Perkins explains, the way forward is by bending the corporations to our will, not hiding from them.)
There's a lot of literature to help people interested in starting communes, and this has been a growing movement in the world and the U.S., though it's not much publicized. The book The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann is absolutely excellent in going over these matters. Ways of organizing human beings have "been experimented with by humans for a hundred thousand years or more. What has evolved as the most highly functional, stable, and sustainable form of human organization is the decentralized, small-tribe, egalitarian and democratic community structure as practiced by the Shoshone and other native peoples worldwide" (Hartmann, 269).
So where do we start? Not everyone that is interested in living in community knows how to start a commune on their own. That's okay. Baby steps. If this is something you are interested in, do what you can. If nothing else, find people that hold common ideals with you and live together. Parents, live with your children. Children, live with your parents. Brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, lovers-live together and look out for one another. Once the dogmatic insistence upon the nuclear family is broken, people can begin to organize themselves in ways that are more beneficial for them.
If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.
"It's no solution of the problem to lower the birth rate of those who understand it. On the contrary, we need to expand the culture which recognizes the need for birth control. If you argue that we should set an example, you must prove to me that we shall not all be extinguished before the example is followed. No, our genetic program is a vital one. We don't worry about the birth rate, or its consequences."
http://www.twinoaks.org/clubs/walden-two/waldentwo-live.html
Is this counterintuitive? Yes. Is it wrong? No. But if you don't want to produce a lot of children, you can always adopt. This would allow for the same cultural influence as well as increased genetic and cultural diversity to be added to one's group. This would also help to break down racial barriers in general-it's hard to hold stereotypes about groups who look different if you, quite literally, live with them as your brothers and sisters.
Biological parents, of course, can be as involved as they want to be with their biological children, but this takes a great deal of the pressure off. And, what is more, since the group will be raising children communally, children will be raised alongside of and in intimate relation with other children and will have many adult care givers to look up to and learn from-not just one or two. This is ideal because it gives children a pantheon of role models to choose from. This will give them more of an opportunity to shape themselves and become the kind of people they want to be. Every generation, and even every age group, will benefit from the wisdom and experience of those preceding it. In a family with a lot of children, the older ones take care of the younger ones. In this situation, everyone will take care of everyone. The Oedipal and Electra complexes that result from boys and girls being raised primarily by women can be replaced by the healthy balanced perspective made possible by girls and boys being raised by male and female role models of every conceivable age.
This type of neo-tribal group can serve as a family unit for a global civilization-not as a basis of prejudice, but as a source of stability and fulfillment. The members of any given group will not be set-the group will remain open and flexible. The idea is that individuals that have common ideals and want to live together can do so-and as people's ideals change they can go off and form their own groups with other people that want to live as they do. All relationships should be based on merit-you should be in the relationship because you want to be in the relationship, and when you stop wanting to be in the relationship you should leave. (I'm not saying anytime things get tough you should bail-if the relationship is important to you, you'll want to work through the hard times and become stronger through them. But if you are fundamentally unhappy, why would you want to maintain that?) That being said, no traditions should be set, either. Rather, any method of doing things or ideals posited should also remain open and flexible. All groups should learn from one another, take on the traditions of one another, dialogue, do what works, experiment, etc. Let us maintain the knowledge, so easily forgotten, that things are the way they are, we live the way we do, because we choose to, and at any time we can choose otherwise. Study all traditions. If you like something, take it-it's yours. If you don't like it any more, drop it. It's not fundamental-you're fundamental.
Don't encourage your children to be nationalists, but rather to take every culture as their own. Make them world citizens. As Doug Stanhope says, "Nationalism doesn't teach you anything except how to hate people you've never met and take credit for things you had no part in." We want to learn from everyone and teach everyone. Nations exist as an overarching upholder of law and order, but they should be viewed as a bureaucratic instrument to obtain the ideals of the people. In a monarchy, the government has direct influence over the people, but the people don't have direct influence over the government. In a democracy, the people have direct influence over the government, and the government has direct influence over the people. In a panarchy, the people have direct influence over the government, but the government doesn't have direct influence over the people. If anarchy represents the overthrow of the state, panarchy represents its ultimate domestication. A far more libertine situation than what we have currently should be achieved, and by creating powerful communities that are dedicated to liberty we can bring this about.
In reading some of the literature on communes started in the U.S., it seems that some of them have traditionally faced two problems: 1) Not having enough money, and 2) Constantly being bothered by tourists that want to come and see what it's like to live on a commune. The first problem seems to be in part the result of the fact that many communes have been essentially hippie retreats from the outside world. The people that join them don't want to work and the communes in general want to cut themselves from the outside world as much as possible. I'm not advocating either of those things. Sharing resources, possibly growing some of your own food or obtaining it through hunting/gathering, living in health conscious ways, possibly finding independent and green sources for energy and/or water, and having some of your entertainment and spiritual desires served by the commune should help to cut costs. Ideally you wouldn't need to interact with the outside world in order to survive and be happy. But you probably want your group as well as its individual members to become as rich, powerful, knowledgeable, and influential as possible. You want to live in prosperity and not just get by. But having a community should not be a blockade to this-it should help to provide you with a safety network so you have more choices in what you can do for a living.
The second problem doesn't seem to be a problem at all. Tourism can provide both a source of revenue and a means to educate the masses and increase your influence. You can make friends with people in the larger community and from all over the world. You can help educate people in how to set up their own communes to actualize their own ideals. And the internet provides a fantastic means by which we can all communicate and share knowledge and make friends with one another. Try to invest and save as much of your money as possible. Spend more on education and improving long-term quality of life than material products. Very little is actually necessary to live an enriching and happy life. As Kent Brockman put it, "Reject your corporate masters. Buy nothing. Hug your children. Love the one you're with." (The first two represent the ideal of autonomy, but not the ideal of homonomy-and thus by themselves would be a form of the pattern of noncommitment. But in that they represents the ideal of autonomy, I think there's something triumphant about them. Still, as John Perkins explains, the way forward is by bending the corporations to our will, not hiding from them.)
There's a lot of literature to help people interested in starting communes, and this has been a growing movement in the world and the U.S., though it's not much publicized. The book The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight by Thom Hartmann is absolutely excellent in going over these matters. Ways of organizing human beings have "been experimented with by humans for a hundred thousand years or more. What has evolved as the most highly functional, stable, and sustainable form of human organization is the decentralized, small-tribe, egalitarian and democratic community structure as practiced by the Shoshone and other native peoples worldwide" (Hartmann, 269).
So where do we start? Not everyone that is interested in living in community knows how to start a commune on their own. That's okay. Baby steps. If this is something you are interested in, do what you can. If nothing else, find people that hold common ideals with you and live together. Parents, live with your children. Children, live with your parents. Brothers, sisters, cousins, friends, lovers-live together and look out for one another. Once the dogmatic insistence upon the nuclear family is broken, people can begin to organize themselves in ways that are more beneficial for them.
If you identify with the message of this article, please email it to people, tell your friends, even print out copies to pass around. Together we can raise awareness. Thank you.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
