what today are called free intentional communities had instantiation in the us communistic communities, e.g. rappists, In russia they were forced collectives. In africa they were semi-forced ujamaa. all were tried in the context of CENTRLIZED government and capitalism. they were not free and under a decentralized government. they failed. elaborate and evaluate
ChatGPT said:
You’re pointing to a critical and often under-discussed pattern in the history of intentional communities: many past experiments that resembled modern-day “free intentional communities” (such as eco-villages, communes, or cooperative living groups) occurred in constrained, top-down contexts that undermined their autonomy. Let’s break this down and critically evaluate the historical instances you mention and the broader dynamic.
1. Definition & Context
Free intentional communities today are typically:
- Voluntary and ideologically diverse (e.g., spiritual, ecological, anarchist, socialist)
- Decentralized in governance, often practicing consensus or direct democracy
- Alternative to mainstream economic systems (e.g., cooperative ownership, mutual aid)
- Often non-hierarchical, though not always anti-authoritarian
The key feature is freedom from coercive external authority and a self-determined way of life.
2. Historical Instantiations & Their Limitations
U.S. Communistic Communities (e.g., the Rappites, Shakers, Oneida)
- These communities were often religious or utopian experiments.
- Examples:
- Rappites: A German pietist group focused on religious purity and economic cooperation.
- Oneida: Practiced complex marriage and communal property.
- Shakers: Celibate, pacifist, and communitarian.
- Conditions:
- Operated within a capitalist society.
- Had relative autonomy, but were still subject to broader legal and economic systems.
- Often died out due to internal cohesion issues, demographic decline (e.g., celibacy), or external pressures (e.g., land markets, hostility from neighbors).
Russian Collectivization
- Forced collectivization under Stalin (kolkhozy and sovkhozy).
- Framed as socialist but in reality:
- Top-down imposition
- Backed by state violence (dekulakization, famine)
- Little to no local agency or voluntarism.
- Outcome: Famines, economic inefficiency, and widespread suffering.
African Ujamaa (Tanzania under Nyerere)
- Ideological push for African socialism, drawing on communal traditions.
- Villagization policies moved rural people into planned villages.
- Semi-coerced, not always violently, but often forced relocations.
- Failed due to:
- Lack of genuine local buy-in
- Centralized state control
- Poor economic planning
3. Core Insight: Coercion Undermines Community
These historical examples differ from modern free intentional communities in crucial ways:
| Aspect | Historical Examples | Free Intentional Communities Today |
|---|---|---|
| Autonomy | Low – subject to state or religious authority | High – voluntary, self-governing |
| State Role | Centralized, often coercive | Minimal or none |
| Economic Context | Embedded in capitalism or state socialism | Often attempt alternatives (barter, gift economy, cooperatives) |
| Voluntarism | Often lacking | Foundational principle |
When the state imposes collectivism, even in the name of equality or tradition, it undermines the organic social bonds that make communities resilient and cohesive.
4. Evaluation: Why They Failed
Common failure modes in the centralized or coercive models:
- Lack of local ownership or agency
- Incompatibility with surrounding economic systems (market capitalism or bureaucratic socialism)
- Internal contradictions (e.g., religious dogma vs. human needs, economic inefficiency, demographic unsustainability)
- Political fragility – vulnerable to repression or manipulation
5. Modern Implications
Modern intentional communities are learning from these failures:
- Start small, scale through replication, not expansion
- Build economic self-sufficiency, often through permaculture, cooperative businesses, or mutual aid networks
- Emphasize personal autonomy and consensus-based governance
- Often exist on the margins of state control, which is both a strength (freedom) and a weakness (vulnerability)
However, even now, many are still embedded within capitalism (e.g., land ownership, taxes), making true autonomy elusive.
Summary
The historical attempts at communal living you referenced often failed because they were:
- Not truly voluntary
- Not autonomous
- Embedded in hierarchical, centralized systems
Free intentional communities today stand in contrast by emphasizing decentralization, autonomy, and mutual agreement. Their success depends on maintaining independence from coercive systems and developing sustainable internal dynamics.
Would you like a chart comparing famous historical communities and how they measure up to modern ideals of intentional communities?
You said:
compare with anarchism
ChatGPT said:
Great — comparing free intentional communities (FICs) with anarchism is highly relevant, since many FICs are deeply influenced by anarchist principles, even if they don’t explicitly identify as anarchist.
Let’s unpack this systematically:
1. Core Philosophies Compared
| Aspect | Free Intentional Communities (FICs) | Anarchism |
|---|---|---|
| Foundational Principle | Voluntary, self-organized living; often focused on sustainability, cooperation, or spiritual values | Opposition to hierarchy, coercion, and centralized authority; promotion of horizontalism and mutual aid |
| Relationship to the State | Often seeks autonomy within or alongside the state | Seeks the abolition of the state as inherently oppressive |
| Economic Values | Diverse: some use money, some are anti-capitalist, many support cooperative economies | Typically anti-capitalist: supports gift economy, communal ownership, workers’ self-management |
| Decision-Making | Consensus, direct democracy, or cooperative models | Direct democracy, consensus, and federated councils (in anarcho-collectivist variants) |
| Scope | Usually local and small-scale; focused on practical living | Both philosophy and practice with global revolutionary aims |
| Violence / Coercion | Rejects coercion, usually pacifist or nonviolent | Varies: from strict nonviolence (anarcho-pacifism) to revolutionary resistance (insurrectionary anarchism) |
2. Shared Values
Despite differences in scale and intent, FICs and anarchism share several key ideals:
| Shared Value | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Voluntarism | Both reject forced participation and embrace communities based on free association |
| Mutual Aid | Both promote shared resources and collective support mechanisms |
| Anti-Authoritarianism | Both resist top-down control, though anarchism is more ideologically explicit |
| Horizontalism | Preference for non-hierarchical structures, rotating roles, and shared leadership |
| Self-Sufficiency | Desire to be economically and socially independent from dominant systems |
3. Key Differences
| Issue | FICs | Anarchism |
|---|---|---|
| Political Engagement | Often apolitical or focused on withdrawal (“dropping out”) | Overtly political, often confrontational toward power structures |
| Scale of Vision | Localized, experimental | Global transformation of society |
| Theoretical Grounding | Pragmatic, spiritual, ecological | Heavily philosophical: Bakunin, Kropotkin, Bookchin, Goldman, etc. |
| Cohesion Mechanism | Often based on shared lifestyle or spiritual values | Based on ideological commitment to freedom, equality, and anti-authoritarianism |
4. Historical Intersections
- Anarchist Communes: Many anarchists have built FICs (e.g. early Spanish anarchist collectives, Christiania in Denmark, Freetown Christiania).
- Bookchin’s Communalism: Proposed structured, directly democratic municipal federations, blending anarchism and practical community governance.
- Kibbutzim (Israel): Early ones had anarchist and socialist influences.
- Zapatistas (Chiapas, Mexico): Autonomous indigenous communities influenced by anarchist and Marxist thought, using local democracy and resisting the state.
5. Evaluation
| Metric | Free Intentional Communities | Anarchism |
|---|---|---|
| Scalability | Limited; usually small and vulnerable | Theoretically global, but often lacks viable implementation at scale |
| Survivability | High when under the radar; low when targeted by state or market forces | Historically repressed (e.g., Spain 1936), but resilient in underground or semi-autonomous contexts |
| Ideological Clarity | Often vague or pluralistic | Strong and well-articulated, but sometimes rigid |
| Adaptability | High – tailored to local needs | Variable – depends on anarchist school of thought |
6. Conclusion: FICs as Practical Anarchism?
In essence:
- Free intentional communities often practice anarchist values (mutual aid, self-governance, decentralization) without using the label.
- Anarchism provides a theoretical framework and revolutionary critique of the broader systems (state, capital, patriarchy) that FICs try to escape.
- Where FICs retreat, anarchism confronts.
- Where anarchism theorizes global change, FICs test it locally.
They are complementary: FICs may be the laboratories, anarchism the blueprint.
Would you like a visual diagram comparing their structures or a historical case study showing where the two overlapped successfully?Attach
Search