<p>I’ve been thinking about some possible reactions to our growing global and economic problems that Americans might implement in the coming years, and I starting fantasizing about small co-op communities—kind of like updated communes. What do you think? Might it work?</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Of course, I realize that such an arrangement can be rife with potential problems, and might not be a realistic proposition at all. But if you get the right group of people together, ones who are like minded in desire and philosophy, it might work(?). I wouldn’t become involved in one centered around a religion or denomination, but one that subscribes to a philosophy of simplified living and eco-responsibility is intriguing. And, of course, I haven’t thought the entire concept thoroughly through. Just dreaming.</p>
<p>Would you be open to such an arrangement? Does such a thing already exist somewhere? Tell me what you think.</p>
<p>Time and time against communes have been proven to be flops. The Mormon commune in Texas is an example. Twin Oaks is another example. Communes are great in theory just as the book Utopia was a great book in theory, but they rarely work out. What is green about this community? I don’t see much. Why does the community have to own the land together? What happens when members become old and no longer can pull their “fair share” of the work load at the community job? How do you resolve disputes? Do you have separate laws? </p>
<p>The reality is that communes that work are usually addressed by zoning laws through the creation of planned unit developments.</p>
<p>If you really want a green community, a better model might be what Prince Charles is trying to develope in the UK. I think his vision is called poundbury or something like that. </p>
<p>Community ownership does not work and that has been proven time and time again. Just as the former Soviet Union and the old communist version of China. Nobody did well under those visions. </p>
<p>It’s a good try, poet, but if you want something that might work, it would be to focus on common interests not common ownership.</p>
<p>Right, cohousing is a viable concept. It provides a combination of common and private space. I’d like to try it!
Be careful to avoid authoritarianism when designing your community, poetsheart. I think requiring parents to educate their children at the community school would be a big mistake, for example. Leave lots of room for individual choice.</p>
<p>I think cohousing is a great idea & when my kids were younger I knew several single moms who had an informal cohousing arrangement with other single moms.
Shared housing, shared expenses , shared care of the kids & frankly- not to disparage any dads, but the moms gave each other more support than some of the dads I knew gave their own kids.</p>
<p>I knew too many dads who felt that working 8 hours was all that was expected, and had wives who wanted to at least work part time, but because they were expected to work full time at home plus some, they could barely manage part time- myself included. Baah. ( more baah because while the working dads had breaks, lunches etc- I remember many days when I couldn’t even go to the bathroom by myself, let alone take a shower or sleep for 4 hours straight)</p>
<p>I think the cohousing part is good- smaller actual living space- but individual for each family group- shared community space- gardens- with a building attached for group meals ( periodic and for meetings)</p>
<p>However- most meals wouldn’t be shared, it would be run more like a co-op where new residents would have to be voted in by community, but they owned their own domicile. School would be separate, health care separate, but they could have residents who span the age spectrum, enabling elders to stay in their own homes, and to share expenses of child care- etc.</p>
<p>I think it would be important to limit the size of the community however- so they still would be responsive to the people who live there.</p>
<p>If you had a good mix of people- you could have the perks of a commune without being so insular.</p>
<p>Yes, that was what I was hoping for—the perks of a commune without it getting cultish and as greenblue said, “authoritarian”. I did wonder about the community home schooling aspect. It certainly does have its potential pitfalls (as does the entire arrangement, truth be told:o), but if it could be well designed, and contain the right mix of people, it could be quite fulfilling I think.</p>
<p>Virtually no wealth creation. Negligible tax receipts, so you are truly a net sink on the economy.
No way to pay for advanced medical care without charity.
No way to pay for advanced education without charity.
No way to “travel” without charity.</p>