Author: chrucky

elaborate on the idea that monastic communities were the original intentional communities. Also that the us communistic communities of the 19 century were religious

ChatGPT said:

Certainly! The idea that monastic communities were the original intentional communities and that many 19th-century U.S. communistic communities were religious is rooted in how people have historically organized themselves around shared values, often spiritual or ideological, to create alternative ways of living. Let’s break this down:

---

Monastic Communities as the Original Intentional Communities

Intentional communities are defined as groups of people who choose to live together with a shared purpose, often prioritizing cooperation, shared resources, and collective governance. Monastic communities were arguably the first enduring examples of such arrangements.

Key Points:

• Spiritual Intentionality: Monasticism, especially in early Christianity (e.g., Desert Fathers in Egypt, 3rd–4th centuries CE), was driven by a deep desire to live out spiritual values apart from mainstream society. This is foundational to the concept of an intentional community — forming a separate society built around shared purpose.
• Rule-Based Living: Communities like those founded by St. Benedict in the 6th century were structured around a rule (e.g., the Rule of St. Benedict), which dictated daily routines, labor, worship, and governance. These were intentional systems of communal life.
• Self-Sufficiency and Shared Labor: Monasteries were often self-sustaining — growing food, brewing beer, copying manuscripts — where labor and resources were shared communally. This aligns closely with modern definitions of intentional communities, particularly eco-villages and co-housing.
• Longevity and Resilience: Some monastic orders survived for centuries, showing that intentional communities rooted in strong shared values and structures can be highly durable.

---

19th-Century U.S. Communistic Communities Were Often Religious

During the 19th century, the United States saw a wave of utopian experiments, many of which we would now call intentional or communitarian. A significant number of these were explicitly religious in nature.

Examples:

1. The Shakers (United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing):
   • Celibate, communally living Christians who believed in equality of the sexes and communal ownership.
   • Known for their furniture, music, and simple living.
   • Their communities were highly structured and centered around worship and work.
2. The Amana Colonies (Iowa):
   • German Pietists who fled persecution in Europe.
   • Practiced a form of religious communism — shared property, cooperative labor.
   • Maintained a strong religious identity alongside economic communality.
3. The Oneida Community (New York):
   • Founded by John Humphrey Noyes on the principle of Perfectionism — the idea that people could live sinless lives.
   • Practiced “complex marriage” (a form of group marriage) and communal property.
   • Religious ideology was central to its social structure.
4. The Harmony Society (founded by George Rapp):
   • German religious separatists who practiced celibacy, communal ownership, and millenarianism (belief in the imminent Second Coming of Christ).
   • Built several prosperous, well-organized communal settlements.

Why Religion?

• Motivational Framework: Religion provided a powerful moral and ideological framework to justify and motivate radical social experiments.
• Community Cohesion: Shared religious beliefs helped maintain unity and resolve conflict — crucial in communal settings.
• Alternative to Mainstream Culture: Many of these communities were reacting against perceived moral decay, industrialization, or religious corruption. They sought to create “heaven on earth.”

---

Conclusion

Monastic communities set the blueprint for intentional living — structured, value-driven, and communal — centuries before the term “intentional community” was coined. In 19th-century America, religious faith was often the primary engine driving communal and even communistic experiments. These groups weren’t just economic or social alternatives; they were spiritual utopias — living embodiments of their founders’ vision of a better, holier world.

Would you like a comparison chart between monastic and 19th-century U.S. religious communes?

You said:

explain the economic basis of these communities. in other words where did they get their money, or how did the manage to survive

ChatGPT said:

Great question. The economic sustainability of both monastic communities and 19th-century U.S. religious communes was essential to their survival. Though driven by spiritual or ideological goals, these communities were often highly pragmatic in their economic organization — blending self-sufficiency, craft specialization, and sometimes trade with the outside world.

---

1. Monastic Communities – Economic Basis

Self-Sufficiency

• Most monasteries were designed to be economically autonomous.
• Monks grew their own food, raised livestock, and made their own clothing.
• Monastic labor was seen as spiritually beneficial (“Ora et Labora” – Pray and Work, per the Rule of St. Benedict).

Agriculture and Land Ownership

• Monasteries often held large tracts of land, either donated by nobles (as acts of piety) or accumulated over time.
• They managed farms, vineyards, orchards, and fisheries, producing both subsistence and surplus goods.

Craft Production

• Monasteries were centers of skilled labor — brewing, winemaking, book copying, manuscript illumination, metalwork, cheese-making.
• These goods were often sold or bartered with surrounding communities.

Tithes and Donations

• Wealthy patrons and monarchs frequently gave donations, tithes, or land to monasteries, either out of devotion or to gain favor with the Church.
• This made some monastic orders incredibly wealthy — especially in medieval Europe.

Hospices and Guesthouses

• Some monasteries ran hostels for pilgrims, charging small fees or receiving donations for hospitality, thus contributing to local economies.

---

2. 19th-Century U.S. Religious Communes – Economic Basis

These communities also aimed for economic independence, often out of mistrust for the capitalist world or to align with their theological ideals.

Communal Ownership

• Property was typically held in common.
• Members shared labor, food, housing, and tools.
• No private profit — resources were reinvested into the community.

Agriculture

• Farming was the primary economic base for most communities.
• Land was either purchased, donated, or cultivated from wilderness.
• Produce fed the members and any surplus was sold in nearby markets.

Artisanal and Industrial Production

• Many communities became known for high-quality handmade or manufactured goods:
  • Shakers: Famous for furniture, seeds, herbal medicines, brooms, and packaged food items.
  • Amana Colonies: Known for textiles, woolen mills, and excellent craftsmanship.
  • Harmony Society: Produced textiles, wine, and ran industries like mills and tanneries.
  • Oneida Community: Manufactured silverware (Oneida Ltd. later became a major flatware company).

Trade with the Outside World

• Most communities sold goods at markets or by mail-order, especially Shaker products.
• These interactions generated cash flow, but were tightly controlled to preserve community values.

Collective Labor

• Everyone contributed — men, women, and children — with labor divided according to ability and gender (sometimes egalitarian, sometimes traditional).
• No wage system: needs were met by the community.

Celibacy or Population Control

• Some communities (like the Shakers) did not grow through birth but through conversion or adoption, which limited growth and often created labor shortages, making economic sustainability harder over time.

---

Comparison in Brief:

Feature	Monastic Communities	19th-Century Religious Communes
Economic Goal	Self-sufficiency + surplus	Self-sufficiency + values-based economy
Main Income Sources	Agriculture, crafts, donations, land rent	Agriculture, crafts, trade
Labor Structure	Monks/nuns under religious rule	Members working collectively, often communally organized
Trade	Limited but existed	Often extensive (especially Shakers & Oneida)
Ownership	Collective under religious order	Collective under community rules or leaders
External Support	Church hierarchy, nobles	Rare — usually fully independent

---

Conclusion

Despite being rooted in religious ideals, both monastic and 19th-century religious communities had robust, well-organized economies. They thrived through labor discipline, self-sufficiency, and skilled production, proving that intentional communities could be both spiritually meaningful and economically viable — at least for a time. Many left lasting economic legacies (like Oneida silverware or Shaker designs) that outlived the communities themselves.

Would you like to explore a specific community’s economy in more detail?

You said:

how did they survive in either feudalism or capitalism

ChatGPT said:

Excellent question — and a complex one. Understanding how monastic and 19th-century religious communities survived within feudalism and capitalism requires looking at how these systems adapted to — and at times resisted — the broader economic orders around them. Here’s a breakdown:

---

I. Monastic Communities Under Feudalism (roughly 9th–15th century Europe)

Feudalism was a hierarchical, agrarian system based on landholding and vassalage, with wealth measured in land and labor rather than capital or cash. Monasteries not only survived in this system — many thrived, becoming some of the wealthiest and most powerful landowners.

Why Monasteries Survived (and Thrived) in Feudalism:

1. Land Donations from Nobility

• Feudal lords, seeking spiritual merit (or a place in heaven), donated large estates to monasteries.
• These lands came with peasants or serfs already working them — making the monastery effectively a feudal lord.
• In return, monks often prayed for the souls of donors — a spiritual “exchange.”

2. Spiritual Legitimacy

• The Church, and by extension monasteries, held enormous cultural and ideological authority in feudal society.
• They were seen as guardians of salvation, education, and literacy — granting them protected status and political influence.

3. Economic Autonomy within the Feudal System

• Monasteries functioned like mini-economies:
  • Grew food, made clothing, managed estates.
  • Employed or oversaw serfs and lay brothers (non-monastic workers).
  • Sometimes leased land to tenants in exchange for rent or labor.

4. Non-Market Values with Market Skills

• Although they didn’t operate for profit, many monasteries were economically efficient and produced surpluses (grains, wine, livestock).
• These surpluses were traded or sold, inserting monasteries into local and regional economies.

5. Tax Exemptions and Legal Privileges

• Many monastic houses were exempt from feudal dues or royal taxes.
• They were protected by the Church and often had their own legal jurisdictions.

---

II. 19th-Century Religious Communes in a Capitalist Context

The U.S. in the 1800s was rapidly transitioning from agrarian to industrial capitalism — marked by market expansion, wage labor, urbanization, and consumer culture. Many religious communities emerged as countercultural responses to this system, seeking moral purity and communal solidarity in contrast to individualism and materialism.

How They Survived in Capitalism:

1. Intentional Economic Separation

• These communities rejected wage labor and private property — key features of capitalism.
• They formed “islands” of collective ownership, pooling resources and labor.
• Internal economies were designed to meet needs, not create profit.

2. Market Engagement on Their Terms

• While ideologically anti-capitalist, many communes sold goods in capitalist markets to survive:
  • Shakers: sold furniture, seeds, herbal remedies, textiles.
  • Oneida: produced traps and later silverware.
  • Amana: woolen goods, meats, and tools.
• Their reputation for quality often gave them a competitive edge in niche markets.

3. Low Overhead, High Unity

• Shared property and housing kept costs low.
• Religious conviction and communal living minimized labor disputes or wage demands.
• Their moral discipline translated into economic efficiency — a key survival strategy.

4. Recruitment and Labor Challenges

• Some (e.g., Shakers) practiced celibacy, relying on converts or adoptees for new members.
• As capitalism offered more opportunities (wages, independence), these communities struggled to retain young people.

5. Adaptation or Decline

• Many communities dissolved as members aged, internal cohesion weakened, or capitalism offered better alternatives.
• Others adapted: Amana transitioned into a for-profit corporation and eventually became Amana Refrigeration, Inc.

---

Comparison: Feudalism vs. Capitalism

Factor	Monasteries (Feudalism)	Religious Communes (Capitalism)
Economic System	Land-based, hierarchical	Market-based, competitive
Survival Strategy	Land control, serf labor, religious legitimacy	Self-sufficiency, niche production, communal labor
Relation to Dominant System	Embedded within and supported by feudal system	Often in tension with or resisting capitalist norms
Use of Market	Limited trade/surplus exchange	Actively sold goods in the market (selectively)
Main Asset	Land	Labor, craft skill, moral capital
Vulnerability	Dependent on Church power, later dissolved during Reformation	Dependent on recruitment, vulnerable to economic & cultural change

---

Conclusion

Both monastic and 19th-century religious communities managed to carve out alternative economic systems within dominant structures — feudalism and capitalism — by combining values-based living with practical economic adaptation. They were not fully insulated from the outside world, but survived by engaging it selectively, on their own moral and economic terms.

Would you like to explore how any specific community adapted economically over time?

Get smarter responses, upload files and images, and more.

Log in

Sign up for freeAttach

Search

Voice

ChatGPT can make mistakes. Che

show how anarco-capitalism is not classical anarchism

ChatGPT said:

Anarcho-capitalism and classical anarchism are fundamentally different in their goals, values, and understandings of power and freedom, even though both use the label “anarchism.” Here’s a breakdown of how they diverge:

---

Classical Anarchism vs Anarcho-Capitalism

Aspect	Classical Anarchism	Anarcho-Capitalism
Core belief	Abolition of all hierarchical structures (state, capitalism, patriarchy, etc.)	Abolition of the state, but preservation of free-market capitalism
View of capitalism	Capitalism is inherently exploitative and a form of coercion	Capitalism is a voluntary system of exchange and a natural result of liberty
Property	Rejects private property (especially in means of production); favors personal possession	Strongly defends private property, including land, capital, and businesses
Authority	Rejects all unjustified authority, including bosses and landlords	Sees authority as legitimate if it arises from voluntary contracts
Economic system	Advocates for mutualism, collectivism, or communism (stateless)	Advocates for laissez-faire capitalism with private markets in law, security, etc.
Influences	Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Emma Goldman	Murray Rothbard, David Friedman, Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Freedom	Emphasizes freedom from domination, not just legal coercion	Emphasizes freedom of exchange and property rights
View of corporations	Generally opposed—seen as extensions of capitalist/state power	Defended if they arise without state privilege or coercion
Role of markets	Often opposed or radically transformed into gift or cooperative economies	Seen as the core organizing structure of a free society
View of the state	State is one of many hierarchical oppressors	State is the only coercive institution to be abolished

---

Key Philosophical Differences

1. Definition of Coercion

• Classical anarchists view coercion as any form of systemic domination—bosses, landlords, and capital accumulation backed by market forces.
• Anarcho-capitalists define coercion narrowly as physical aggression or fraud, so wage labor and landlordism are fine if “voluntary.”

2. Freedom vs. Power

• Classical anarchists say power and hierarchy corrupt freedom—you can’t be free if your survival depends on selling your labor to survive.
• Anarcho-capitalists say freedom is about voluntary contracts, regardless of inequality or social power dynamics.

3. Use of the Term “Anarchy”

• Classical anarchists accuse ancaps of hijacking the term “anarchy”, which historically meant the abolition of all hierarchies, not just the state.
• Ancaps argue that state power is the only hierarchy that must be abolished for liberty to flourish.

---

In Summary

Anarcho-capitalism:

• Is a right-libertarian ideology
• Embraces capitalist markets, private property, and hierarchical firms
• Opposes the state but not economic hierarchies

Classical anarchism:

• Is a left-libertarian or socialist ideology
• Opposes both the state and capitalism as systems of domination
• Promotes horizontal, cooperative, anti-hierarchical social organization

---

Would you like a visual or infographic comparing the two? Or a deeper dive into a particular thinker or concept (like Proudhon vs Rothbard)?

You said:

does rothbard advocate free homesteads for all?

ChatGPT said:

Murray Rothbard does not advocate “free homesteads for all” in the sense that classical socialists or Georgists might propose it. Instead, he supports a Lockean homesteading principle, which means individuals can acquire private property rights over unowned land by mixing their labor with it—not that everyone is entitled to land just by being alive.

Here’s what Rothbard does believe regarding homesteading and land:

---

Rothbard’s View on Homesteading and Land

1. Original Appropriation

• Rothbard follows a Lockean framework: a person can acquire ownership of unowned natural resources by first use or transformation (e.g., cultivating land, building a structure).
• This is not about equality of access, but about first come, first served—as long as appropriation is through labor and non-aggressive.

“Any person who seizes and transforms unowned resources becomes the proper owner of those resources.”
— Rothbard, “The Ethics of Liberty”

2. Rejection of Land Reform or Redistribution

• He opposes forced redistribution of land or property, even to the poor.
• He sees state-imposed equality (including free homesteads for all) as a violation of property rights.

3. Critique of Idle Landowners

• Rothbard does argue that if land is not being actively used or transformed, it is not legitimately owned. So, someone who merely fences off land without using it cannot claim ownership forever.
• This is a nuanced position: he supports homesteading through use, but not speculative ownership of unused land.

4. Land Confiscated by States

• Rothbard says land previously stolen or unjustly acquired (e.g., via colonialism or state seizure) should be returned to victims or opened up for homesteading.
• So in post-state scenarios, some land might become available to homestead—but this is not the same as advocating land for all.

---

Not Free Homesteads as a Right

Rothbard does not believe that:

• Everyone is owed land just because they exist
• The state should guarantee land access or distribute land equitably
• Property rights should be subordinated to social justice or need

Instead, his system favors:

• Voluntary markets
• Private property acquired by labor
• No state interference or redistribution

---

Summary

Myth	Reality
Rothbard supports “free land for all”	❌ No — he supports land acquisition through labor-based homesteading, not entitlement
Rothbard wants land to be equitably distributed	❌ No — he defends unequal outcomes if derived through voluntary action
Rothbard supports land use over speculation	✅ Yes — if land is unused and unclaimed, it can be homesteaded by others

---

Let me know if you’d like quotes from Rothbard directly or a comparison with someone like Henry George or Kropotkin.

https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/peter-h-marshall-demanding-the-impossible. evaluate

ChatGPT said:

Here’s a balanced evaluation of Peter H. Marshall’s Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism:

---

Strengths

• Unparalleled breadth and thoroughness: Covering more than two millennia of anti-authoritarian thought—from Taoism, Buddhism, Greek philosophy, early Christianity, through to Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, and 20th‑century movements—Marshall delivers one of the most expansive accounts of anarchism ever attempted Reddit+15PM Press+15library.bathspa.ac.uk+15.
• Accessible yet scholarly: Though dense (over 800 pages), reviewers praise its clarity and depth, valuing Marshall’s ability to distill complex ideas and biographies for general readers PM PressPM Press.
• Sympathetic yet critical: Marshall clearly identifies as an anarchist, yet does not shy away from exploring contradictions—such as Proudhon’s sexism or Bakunin’s secretive tendencies—lending credibility to his balanced approach PM PressPM Press.
• Newest movements included: The updated edition includes an epilogue surveying post-anarchism, anarcho-primitivism, and the intersection of anarchist ideas with global justice, environmental, and peace movements Reddit+7library.bathspa.ac.uk+7Barnes & Noble+7.

---

Criticisms

1. Over‑inclusive definition of anarchism

Marshall’s broad definition—as anyone opposing external authority and the state—means that thinkers like Camus, Nietzsche, Gandhi, Burke, Rousseau, and even anarcho‑capitalists are included in the anarchist genealogy PM Press.

Some reviewers feel this dilutes the coherence of anarchism as a political tradition:

“Lao Tzu as an anarchist? … Marshall attempts to assimilate any earlier thinking … resulting in nonsense such as the claim that Lao Tzu is the first Anarchist” RedditAmazon+2Reddit+2Reddit+2.

“He uses an overbroad definition … Any Tom, Dick or Harry in Medieval France who questioned the King gets a short entry” Reddit.

2. Geographical imbalance

With around 700+ pages covering Europe and North America and only a small portion addressing Asia and Latin America, the global picture feels underdeveloped, especially given recent research on anarchist movements beyond the West PM Press.

---

Community Sentiment (Reddit)

Readers on forums like r/Anarchism and r/Anarchy101 often recommend it as the most comprehensive general history:

“By far the best general history of anarchism is Demanding the Impossible by Peter Marshall.” Reddit+2Reddit+2Reddit+2Wikipedia+15Reddit+15Reddit+15

Yet many caution readers about its inclusiveness and length:

“It’s good… just pick and choose interesting parts. The ‘Forerunners’ section covering Taoism and Christianity … is interesting.” Reddit.

---

Who Should Read This?

Ideal For

• Readers seeking a huge historical sweep, from ancient ideas to modern anarchist movements.
• Those interested in how anarchism overlaps with broader libertarian, environmental, and global justice thought.
• Anyone wanting a well‑researched reference that can serve as a gateway into specific anarchist thinkers or regions.

Less Suitable For

• Readers looking for a strictly defined anarchist canon, focused on classic left‑wing anarchists.
• Those wanting concise, focused histories of specific geographic regions or time periods.
• People uncomfortable with the inclusion of non‑anarchist thinkers under the anarchist banner.

---

Summary Table

Feature	Evaluation
Scope	Monumental: spans millennia and diverse currents
Depth	Scholarly yet readable; dense and detailed
Definition of “Anarchism”	Very broad—encompasses many non‑traditional figures
Global coverage	Weighted toward Europe/North America
Tone	Enthusiastic, well‑referenced, tempered with critique

---

Final Verdict

Demanding the Impossible remains perhaps the most ambitious and wide‑ranging history of anarchist ideas in print. It offers unparalleled scope and organized scholarship suitable for both newcomers and experienced readers. But its loose definition of “anarchism” and Western bias may disappoint those seeking a tighter or more traditional account of anarchist political theory and movements.

If you’re looking for global balance or a focused account of self‑declared anarchists only, you may want to supplement or contrast it with works like Ruth Kinna’s The Government of No One or region‑specific histories.

Sources