Intentional Communities: The pursuit of a modern utopia

Sam Martinez9 said:I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.

And that was exactly the kind of "civilization" I was talking about. One of the biggest drivers for forming a community like that, and keeping it going, is the desire to "escape" from a social reality that, at its worst, devolves into people fighting over trivial status symbols. But the real kicker is that you can't run away from yourself. If you're naturally combative, or if life has just hardened you into being that way, you're going to bring that baggage right into the new community, which eventually poisons the internal dynamic. Maybe stricter vetting of new members could help, but it's incredibly difficult to tell at first glance who's actually a misfit because they operate on a "pre-conventional" (basically sociopathic) level, versus someone who has reached a "post-conventional" stage and is just completely fed up with the rat race.

Sam Martinez9 said:I agree.

Though I would argue we need to include the social landscape in that definition of "environment." Capitalism, unfortunately, is designed to foster conflict—whether it's the cutthroat competition in the market or the internal power struggles within a corporation—and it's incredibly hard to resist that pull.

I’ve actually had the chance to observe the *evolution* of one young woman who, over the course of a decade, transformed from a genuinely kind person into a total predator who crushes anyone in her path. She works in an environment like that, at a major firm like State Farm, where everything is measured by metrics and compensation is tied strictly to performance. And in that world, you can only succeed if you step on whoever is beneath you to get ahead. It's chilling.

You never truly know... maybe she’s just quietly undermining the whole system from the inside. 😬

Back when I was young, naive, and completely out of sync with the world, I actually thought about ditching the monastery life to run off to join some commune.

But looking back after enough time has passed—and having seen enough of what happens behind the polished PR facades—it all feels pretty "meh." There isn't some perfect escapist fix for every personal or social mess we deal with, though I suppose one lifestyle might suit certain people better than others.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

First off—it’s a matter of personal choice. We only get one life, so everyone should have the right to live exactly how they please, even if they happen to be making a mistake.

I skimmed through the article pretty quickly, and most of the communities mentioned seemed to have a negative bent—religious cults and things of that nature. Regarding those types of groups, I can only say one thing: they don't sit well with me because they actually offer less freedom than living in larger societies. There is almost always some *supreme leader* imposing incredibly rigid laws on every single member. Control is much easier to maintain and far more pervasive in small communities, leaving very little room for an individual to *live on their own terms*. The community only lives "differently" in relation to the rest of American society. Beyond that, all small communities inevitably offer a limited way of life to their members. What am I getting at? For instance, if a child in such a community has a talent and dreams of becoming a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or even a surgeon, they won't be able to pursue that within the confines of a tiny commune; the group simply lacks the financial resources and infrastructure to support it. That is just another way liberty is stripped away.

In that sense, small communities act as deviations from mainstream society. Society is tolerant enough to allow them to exist, and since they are too weak to cause widespread damage, the harm is usually contained within the membership itself.

So, there is my critique of small communities; the affirmation will follow in my next post.

Joseph Bailey41 said:And that was exactly the kind of "civilization" I was talking about. One of the biggest drivers for forming a community like that, and keeping it going, is the desire to "escape" from a social reality that, at its worst, devolves into people fighting over trivial status symbols. But the real kicker is that you can't run away from yourself. If you're naturally combative, or if life has just hardened you into being that way, you're going to bring that baggage right into the new community, which eventually poisons the internal dynamic. Maybe stricter vetting of new members could help, but it's incredibly difficult to tell at first glance who's actually a misfit because they operate on a "pre-conventional" (basically sociopathic) level, versus someone who has reached a "post-conventional" stage and is just completely fed up with the rat race.

You never truly know... maybe she’s just quietly undermining the whole system from the inside. 😬

Yes, you are, my mistake. I was already running on fumes, so I completely missed that.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

This really should have accompanied my previous post, but I forgot: since you are so fond of small communities (which is obvious from everything you write), why don't you actually live in one? Shouldn't you at least try living in one, so if you did eventually leave, you'd have a realistic perspective rather than just relying on what the media tells you?

My affirmation of small communities might not sit well with you because it isn't quite what you emotionally crave.

Ultimately, modern Humanity is composed of small communities. The only thing separating a small community from the rest of the world is that the boundaries aren't always sharp. A family is a small community, and within a city of 24 million people, large metropolises are broken down into neighborhoods; large states are divided into counties or regions, cities, towns, and even specialized groups—like a hiking club, a mushroom foraging group, an animal rescue organization, or a bluegrass band. A small community exists within larger ones.

As for communities that are more distinctly separated from the rest of society, we can look at religious groups, such as various monastic orders; for instance, I would suggest a Dinner Party community as a good example of that kind of setup.

Then we have villages that are isolated by poverty or by the sheer geography of the land, tucked away in hard-to-reach areas. You find these everywhere—from the Himalayas to parts of Romania or Bulgaria, mostly in the mountainous regions of almost every country in the world.

However, we should also include mountain villages in wealthy nations, such as those found in the Alps of Austria, Switzerland, or Italy.

Or, say, towns and villages located on islands.

We have the kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...

For a small community to truly succeed, it needs to be firmly linked to larger structures. Laws, economics... they cannot exist in total isolation. A community cannot simply operate under its own private legal code; it must be integrated into the legal system of the larger entity. The same applies to the economy.

And, naturally, the more prosperous the nation a small community resides in, the better and easier life will be there, which reduces the likelihood of the community collapsing or members leaving to seek a better life elsewhere.

People don't typically abandon villages in Austria, whereas American coastal islands risk becoming ghost towns.

I don't really know how to put this into words—it’s a bit awkward to admit—but I feel like I've been stuck in a loop lately. It's that feeling where you're just... wandering? Not quite lost, but definitely not moving forward either. It's like being caught in a constant state of transit without ever actually arriving at a destination. I've been trying to process it all, but everything feels a bit hazy. Just one of those things, I guess. Sam Martinez9 says:
To be fair, some communities have actually managed to figure out how to handle conflict—whether they rely on the pull of a charismatic leader or some kind of democratic process aimed at reaching a consensus.
They tend to last longer that way, for sure—as long as they actually have a clear vision to hold onto. I guess the real question is what their actual purpose is, and more importantly, what someone really gains by sticking around in a community like that.
The author points out that their "success rate" is pretty much on par with what you'd see from a Silicon Valley startup—though, to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually questioning their underlying purpose or why they do what they do.

Is that figure a little too low, though? I can't help but wonder if there’s any more detailed data out there to back it up. It makes me curious—which types of communities actually manage to last longer, and which ones tend to fall apart first? Does anyone know what the average lifespan of a community actually looks like? I'd also love to know what kind of specific struggles different groups run into along the way.

Do you think the Amish count in this? To me, they seem to be holding it together a whole lot better than all these utopia freaks. 🤷

Sam Martinez9 said:On one hand, I see your point—cooperation and competition are often tightly intertwined, essentially packaged together. However, there is also a form of cooperation that doesn't stem from underlying conflict, though that largely depends on how rational the community is.

If a small community faces a challenge, it can be resolved through common sense, without any friction, posturing, tug-of-war, or fighting... they simply choose the solution that serves the collective good best.

In my line of work, everyone has their niche, and there’s no need to fight for someone else's territory. My company holds its own space in the American market, and I actually collaborate with colleagues who run firms in the same industry. Competition is literally right at my doorstep, yet I’ve maintained excellent working relationships with them for decades. They have their client base, and I have mine... neither side has any interest in poaching from the other.

That would require people who are morally perfect. Honestly, I haven’t run into anyone quite like that yet—if I had to pick the closest thing, maybe some of the hardline communists or progressives, but even then, you could argue that's just splitting hairs. There's also the issue that even in those groups, you'd likely see constant friction; any cooperation would probably just be a way to manage the underlying conflict. And that's just looking at the human element. Beyond people, you're talking about a total transformation of the entire cosmos along with us—for all the obvious reasons Flying mentioned down below.

Joseph Bailey41 said:That’s just one part of it. The second factor is the environment the community lives in. If things are tough—whether due to nature or just the way society is perceived—that pressure tends to pull people together and encourage them to work as one. But once you cross that line where the surroundings stop being just "difficult" and start feeling genuinely threatening... that's when things get messy. You see social breakdowns, or the group shifts back toward more "traditional" ways of organizing themselves to survive.

This is just completely nonsensical.

Lisa Jackson7 said:Since a few threads have already popped up on Philosophy about individuals "escaping" society, I figured it was high time I started this one—focusing on how entire groups try to make that break. I’ve been sitting on this idea for a while.

First off, sorry if my wording is a bit clunky... I wasn't sure if I should stick to the literal "intentional communities" or just call them "utopian communities."
But let's be real—using the word "utopian" right out of the gate just triggers all those old prejudices—you know, the whole anarchist, hippie commune, religious cult vibe.

Still, maybe a little "preconception" is exactly what we need to get people talking... 😁 ... though if anyone has a better title for this, go ahead and throw it out there.
"Intentional communities" are a wild, diverse bunch, and yeah, they definitely include the types that most people look at sideways.
Anyway, trying to find a somewhat objective take on this, I stumbled upon this article...

Utopian Struggle : Preconceptions and Realities of Intentional Communities

So, here we have the biases versus the actual facts regarding these groups...

The author, Bill Metcalf, actually knows his stuff—he’s spent decades living in these setups and has been researching and writing about them for 30 years.
He’s looked into over a hundred of them to figure out why some work and others crash and burn, digging into a history where the same damn mistakes keep getting repeated over and over again.

Here is his definition...

An intentional community:

A group of five or more people, coming from different families or social circles, who voluntarily join forces to tackle specific social issues or shortcomings. They’re looking for a life outside the "mainstream" by adopting consciously designed—and usually pretty well-thought-out—social and cultural alternatives.

To reach their goals, they share major parts of their lives. Members carry this "we-consciousness," seeing themselves as a permanent, distinct group that is, in many ways, superior to the society they left behind.

Eco-village:

An intentional community focused on environmental sustainability alongside social justice, equality, peace, and so on.

So, what’s your take on this whole phenomenon?

I mentioned the Ithaca Eco-village in the US and an article about them on another thread... and one user basically just trashed them as a bunch of ridiculous losers after reading about them.

Look, I get why people react that way... but is the media mostly just pushing a negative or totally unrealistic image of these people?

None of that matters. It's all just empty, barren talk. There is far too much humanity involved in these discussions. Human relationships are fundamentally flawed goods. The Struggle for Utopia is nothing more than a beautiful dream handed down by Thomas More (in On the Ideal Commonwealth and the New Island of Utopia). But now, naturally—a new question arises: why exactly are human relationships such flawed goods? Because they are ideological. And I mean that in every sense of the word. ☕

Sam Martinez9
Quote:
For a small community to actually succeed, it needs to be firmly tethered to larger societal structures. In short, finally, things like the economy... cannot exist in a vacuum; a community can't just operate under its own private set of laws, it has to be integrated into the legal framework of the larger nation. The same goes for the economy.

Of course you're right. No activity can ever truly be isolated (whether we're talking about economics, philosophy, etc.). You hit the nail right on the head—metaphorically speaking.

Amy Bennett said:

I don't really know how to put this into words—it’s a bit awkward to admit—but I feel like I've been stuck in a loop lately. It's that feeling where you're just... wandering? Not quite lost, but definitely not moving forward either. It's like being caught in a constant state of transit without ever actually arriving at a destination. I've been trying to process it all, but everything feels a bit hazy. Just one of those things, I guess. Sam Martinez9 says:
To be fair, some communities have actually managed to figure out how to handle conflict—whether they rely on the pull of a charismatic leader or some kind of democratic process aimed at reaching a consensus.
They tend to last longer that way, for sure—as long as they actually have a clear vision to hold onto. I guess the real question is what their actual purpose is, and more importantly, what someone really gains by sticking around in a community like that.
The author points out that their "success rate" is pretty much on par with what you'd see from a Silicon Valley startup—though, to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually questioning their underlying purpose or why they do what they do.

Is that figure a little too low, though? I can't help but wonder if there’s any more detailed data out there to back it up. It makes me curious—which types of communities actually manage to last longer, and which ones tend to fall apart first? Does anyone know what the average lifespan of a community actually looks like? I'd also love to know what kind of specific struggles different groups run into along the way.

Do you think the Amish count in this? To me, they seem to be holding it together a whole lot better than all these utopia freaks. 🤷

That would require people who are morally perfect. Honestly, I haven’t run into anyone quite like that yet—if I had to pick the closest thing, maybe some of the hardline communists or progressives, but even then, you could argue that's just splitting hairs. There's also the issue that even in those groups, you'd likely see constant friction; any cooperation would probably just be a way to manage the underlying conflict. And that's just looking at the human element. Beyond people, you're talking about a total transformation of the entire cosmos along with us—for all the obvious reasons Flying mentioned down below.

This is just completely nonsensical.

Cooperation without conflict doesn't actually require perfect people; it just requires rational ones. It requires individuals who, first and foremost, understand themselves and possess the capacity to regulate their own emotions and impulses. It sounds daunting, but it isn't. It would be significantly easier if our society encouraged this kind of stability rather than constantly fueling strife, warfare, and base passions. Yet, despite how much our culture pushes the opposite, we are seeing an increasing number of people who choose to rely solely on cooperation and actively avoid confrontation.

Furthermore, the existence of morally perfect people would signal the end of Humanity. You see, Humanity is defined by evolution and the journey itself; perfect people represent the destination, which means the end of the road for Humanity.

Sam Martinez9 said:Cooperation without conflict doesn't actually require perfect people; it just requires rational ones. It requires individuals who, first and foremost, understand themselves and possess the capacity to regulate their own emotions and impulses. It sounds daunting, but it isn't. It would be significantly easier if our society encouraged this kind of stability rather than constantly fueling strife, warfare, and base passions. Yet, despite how much our culture pushes the opposite, we are seeing an increasing number of people who choose to rely solely on cooperation and actively avoid confrontation.

Furthermore, the existence of morally perfect people would signal the end of Humanity. You see, Humanity is defined by evolution and the journey itself; perfect people represent the destination, which means the end of the road for Humanity.

Exactly—they need to know themselves and the world around them, especially what is "Good," and have the discipline to live in alignment with that. In other words, they’d have to be perfect.

It sounds nearly impossible, but it isn't. It would be much easier if society encouraged this kind of balance instead of constantly fueling conflict, war, and base passions. Yet, despite how things are set up, more and more people are choosing to rely solely on cooperation and steer clear of confrontation.

I don't think it's about avoiding conflict at all—it's more about a way of life, about existing in a world that doesn't force you into combat. To me, people who just run away from existing conflicts are often just weak; they're dodging reality and getting lost in their own fantasies, which usually leads to a harsh reality check later on. That's when you see who they really are.

The existence of morally perfect individuals would actually signal the end of Humanity. After all, Humanity is an evolutionary process, a journey—perfect people represent the end of that path, the end of Humanity itself.

Reaching the end of the path isn't the end of humanity; it's where its eternity begins.

Amy Bennett said:Exactly—they need to know themselves and the world around them, especially what is "Good," and have the discipline to live in alignment with that. In other words, they’d have to be perfect.

It sounds nearly impossible, but it isn't. It would be much easier if society encouraged this kind of balance instead of constantly fueling conflict, war, and base passions. Yet, despite how things are set up, more and more people are choosing to rely solely on cooperation and steer clear of confrontation.

I don't think it's about avoiding conflict at all—it's more about a way of life, about existing in a world that doesn't force you into combat. To me, people who just run away from existing conflicts are often just weak; they're dodging reality and getting lost in their own fantasies, which usually leads to a harsh reality check later on. That's when you see who they really are.

The existence of morally perfect individuals would actually signal the end of Humanity. After all, Humanity is an evolutionary process, a journey—perfect people represent the end of that path, the end of Humanity itself.

Reaching the end of the path isn't the end of humanity; it's where its eternity begins.

First and foremost, one must recognize the evil within oneself and keep it firmly under control.

If you find yourself in the middle of a conflict, there is no escaping it. You have two choices: you can either dampen the flames or pour gasoline on them.

Only life is eternal. The forms life takes are not.

bluemason3 said:Back when I was young, naive, and completely out of sync with the world, I actually thought about ditching the monastery life to run off to join some commune.

But looking back after enough time has passed—and having seen enough of what happens behind the polished PR facades—it all feels pretty "meh." There isn't some perfect escapist fix for every personal or social mess we deal with, though I suppose one lifestyle might suit certain people better than others.

Look, we aren't talking about escaping *from* society here; we’re talking about escaping *into* something else. Running away from the world is easy enough, but unless you’re a hardcore individualist, that’s rarely a viable path. Seeking refuge in some utopian community is usually just a refusal to grow up—an attempt to cling to a childhood safety net long after you should have let go. It inevitably leads to emotional and financial freeloading. And for every person looking to be carried, there’s someone else doing all the heavy lifting. Those providers eventually hit their breaking point and bail, and once they leave, the whole thing collapses because there’s no one left to pull the weight.

1. It’s actually quite fascinating how little anyone seems to talk about those specific types of intentional communities that have been around for millennia. They are always there, lurking on the fringes of society, yet they always seem to be somewhat overlooked or underestimated.

2. I'm talking about religious communes. Monasteries. Ashrams.

3. One thing that really caught me off guard was this:

it turns out almost every major world religion has some form of monastic order, except for Islam, which explicitly forbids them😲 (viewing them as contrary to the natural order)

4. If you want a brilliant account of how one of our own philosophers (Charles Veljacic) retreated into the Sangha community, you can find it at this link:

Disillusioned with the world—suffering from what he described as a sort of Sartrean nausea—he felt a growing spark of desire for a Buddhist-style withdrawal, or rather, an escape from the chaos of modern life.

I’d say the topic is a bit more niche than that and doesn't really encompass those types of communities.

There are similarities, sure, but plenty of differences too.

Ashrams are a pretty loosely defined phenomenon; they're basically just places where people gather around certain spiritual ideals, but they lack a rigid structure. A lot of them operate on commercial programs where most residents are actually just transient guests providing revenue through fees and donations. Very few actually sustain themselves through some kind of self-sufficient industry, so comparing them to the communes we're discussing here feels a bit off.

Most religious communes have a heavy ideological backbone—often involving strict hierarchies (sometimes with shady cult-like dynamics), intense discipline, and so on. On the other hand, so-called eco-communes are essentially a modern spin on the hippie movement, attracting groups of people who tend to be anti-establishment.

I wouldn't include monasteries or ashrams in this conversation at all, even if they happen to have some production or economic independence. Given how strictly they are organized, it's a completely different ballgame. Living in a brotherhood that functions as a surrogate family, or living with your own biological family, brings in the need to secure a future for children (which leads to the automatic accumulation of capital, right? 😁). Then you have multi-generational dynamics that can totally shift the original ideals (since kids aren't there because they share the ideology; they're brought into it by "force" and might hold very different modern views), plus schooling needs, and the broader requirements of monastic or religious communities, etc.

bluemason3 said:I’d say the topic is a bit more niche than that and doesn't really encompass those types of communities.

There are similarities, sure, but plenty of differences too.

Ashrams are a pretty loosely defined phenomenon; they're basically just places where people gather around certain spiritual ideals, but they lack a rigid structure. A lot of them operate on commercial programs where most residents are actually just transient guests providing revenue through fees and donations. Very few actually sustain themselves through some kind of self-sufficient industry, so comparing them to the communes we're discussing here feels a bit off.

Most religious communes have a heavy ideological backbone—often involving strict hierarchies (sometimes with shady cult-like dynamics), intense discipline, and so on. On the other hand, so-called eco-communes are essentially a modern spin on the hippie movement, attracting groups of people who tend to be anti-establishment.

I wouldn't include monasteries or ashrams in this conversation at all, even if they happen to have some production or economic independence. Given how strictly they are organized, it's a completely different ballgame. Living in a brotherhood that functions as a surrogate family, or living with your own biological family, brings in the need to secure a future for children (which leads to the automatic accumulation of capital, right? 😁). Then you have multi-generational dynamics that can totally shift the original ideals (since kids aren't there because they share the ideology; they're brought into it by "force" and might hold very different modern views), plus schooling needs, and the broader requirements of monastic or religious communities, etc.

The similarity lies primarily in the fact that both serve as escapes "into" something. Religious organizations attract those driven by a deep desire to distance themselves from the secular world, which inevitably creates a demand for some form of sanctuary. For such a refuge to actually last, it demands a rigid, uncompromising structure.

hiddenpuma75 said:1. It’s actually quite fascinating how little anyone seems to talk about those specific types of intentional communities that have been around for millennia. They are always there, lurking on the fringes of society, yet they always seem to be somewhat overlooked or underestimated.

2. I'm talking about religious communes. Monasteries. Ashrams.

3. One thing that really caught me off guard was this:

it turns out almost every major world religion has some form of monastic order, except for Islam, which explicitly forbids them😲 (viewing them as contrary to the natural order)

4. If you want a brilliant account of how one of our own philosophers (Charles Veljacic) retreated into the Sangha community, you can find it at this link:

Disillusioned with the world—suffering from what he described as a sort of Sartrean nausea—he felt a growing spark of desire for a Buddhist-style withdrawal, or rather, an escape from the chaos of modern life.

If you happened to actually read the article that Lisa Jackson7 linked in the opening post, you'd see that monasteries are explicitly mentioned as an example of an "intentional community."

Sam Martinez9 said:First off—it’s a matter of personal choice. We only get one life, so everyone should have the right to live exactly how they please, even if they happen to be making a mistake.

I skimmed through the article pretty quickly, and most of the communities mentioned seemed to have a negative bent—religious cults and things of that nature. Regarding those types of groups, I can only say one thing: they don't sit well with me because they actually offer less freedom than living in larger societies. There is almost always some *supreme leader* imposing incredibly rigid laws on every single member. Control is much easier to maintain and far more pervasive in small communities, leaving very little room for an individual to *live on their own terms*. The community only lives "differently" in relation to the rest of American society. Beyond that, all small communities inevitably offer a limited way of life to their members. What am I getting at? For instance, if a child in such a community has a talent and dreams of becoming a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or even a surgeon, they won't be able to pursue that within the confines of a tiny commune; the group simply lacks the financial resources and infrastructure to support it. That is just another way liberty is stripped away.

In that sense, small communities act as deviations from mainstream society. Society is tolerant enough to allow them to exist, and since they are too weak to cause widespread damage, the harm is usually contained within the membership itself.

So, there is my critique of small communities; the affirmation will follow in my next post.

The author really went out of his way to highlight certain religious groups—giving this quick little history lesson that basically puts the spotlight on the long-standing ones. And honestly? It’s no surprise that most of them are tied back to specific denominations. Makes total sense.

Quincy:

Always. So there’s always some "supreme leader" type imposing their rigid-as-hell rules on everyone in the group. It’s way easier to control people in small communities—you’re basically under a microscope 24/7, so there’s zero room to just *be yourself*. The only way these groups actually function is by being an outlier to the rest of society. Plus, let’s be real: these tiny setups offer such a limited lifestyle. What happens when a kid in one of these groups actually has talent? Say they want to be a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or a surgeon—they aren't going to make that happen within the community because the math just doesn't work. There’s no way to fund or support that kind of ambition. That’s just another way they strip away your freedom.

Nah, that’s just not how it works—based on what Metcalf said, which is pretty freaking obvious... we aren't living in the 1800s anymore.
When it comes to nurturing a kid's talent... I'm guessing people just lean on whatever community resources work for them at the time—or whenever their kids actually need it. Once the local schools can't cut it anymore? They're gone. Just like that. Either they head out solo or pack up the whole family and move to a better city. Simple as that.

Don't forget—denying a kid a decent childhood is basically just another way of stripping away their freedom. Real social connection and just letting kids run wild playing with their friends isn't even considered easy anymore—not in most big American cities, anyway.

Quincy:

These male communities are just straight-up deviations from how society should work—honestly. Sure, America is tolerant enough to let them exist, but they're basically just hurting their own members at this point. They're way too weak to cause any real damage to the rest of us. Alright, here’s my take on why small communities are a mess—wait for the next post where I actually say something positive.

Look, some small cult-like groups might be total deviations—they actually end up wrecking their own members—but let's be real, those types are a tiny minority.

Sam Martinez9 said:This really should have accompanied my previous post, but I forgot: since you are so fond of small communities (which is obvious from everything you write), why don't you actually live in one? Shouldn't you at least try living in one, so if you did eventually leave, you'd have a realistic perspective rather than just relying on what the media tells you?

My affirmation of small communities might not sit well with you because it isn't quite what you emotionally crave.

Ultimately, modern Humanity is composed of small communities. The only thing separating a small community from the rest of the world is that the boundaries aren't always sharp. A family is a small community, and within a city of 24 million people, large metropolises are broken down into neighborhoods; large states are divided into counties or regions, cities, towns, and even specialized groups—like a hiking club, a mushroom foraging group, an animal rescue organization, or a bluegrass band. A small community exists within larger ones.

As for communities that are more distinctly separated from the rest of society, we can look at religious groups, such as various monastic orders; for instance, I would suggest a Dinner Party community as a good example of that kind of setup.

Then we have villages that are isolated by poverty or by the sheer geography of the land, tucked away in hard-to-reach areas. You find these everywhere—from the Himalayas to parts of Romania or Bulgaria, mostly in the mountainous regions of almost every country in the world.

However, we should also include mountain villages in wealthy nations, such as those found in the Alps of Austria, Switzerland, or Italy.

Or, say, towns and villages located on islands.

We have the kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...

For a small community to truly succeed, it needs to be firmly linked to larger structures. Laws, economics... they cannot exist in total isolation. A community cannot simply operate under its own private legal code; it must be integrated into the legal system of the larger entity. The same applies to the economy.

And, naturally, the more prosperous the nation a small community resides in, the better and easier life will be there, which reduces the likelihood of the community collapsing or members leaving to seek a better life elsewhere.

People don't typically abandon villages in Austria, whereas American coastal islands risk becoming ghost towns.

I can't—well, I don't want to—live totally isolated... I've got a family to think about. So, what my wife and I have actually decided is moving to a smaller nearby town... just better conditions for the kids, plain and simple.
As for work—you know, actually making a living—we can't just pack up and move anywhere overnight.
But... we might eventually have to... even if the idea of moving overseas sounds exhausting.

So, basically, modern humanity is just a collection of small communities. The only thing separating a tight-knit group from the rest of the world isn't always a hard line. A family is its own little unit, and even within a massive city of 20 million people, everything is broken down—neighborhoods, counties, states, tiny towns, or even niche groups like hiking clubs (or mushroom foragers, animal rescuers, or local bluegrass bands...). A small community is just one layer inside a larger one.

When you look at communities that are more clearly set apart from society, you've got religious groups—different monastic orders, for instance. Personally, I’d point to a Benedictine monastery as a solid example of that kind of separation.

Then you have those isolated villages cut off by poverty or rough terrain—places tucked away in the Himalayas or deep in the mountains of places like Romania or Bulgaria; you find rugged, mountainous pockets like that in almost every country.

That said, you also have mountain villages in wealthy nations, like those nestled in the Alps in Switzerland or Italy.

Or, you know, island towns and villages.

We even have things like kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...

For a small community to actually work, it needs strong ties to the larger structures around it. Laws, the economy... they can't just exist in a vacuum. A community can't just make up its own rules; it has to be integrated into the legal framework of the larger society. Same goes for the money side of things.

And obviously, the wealthier the country, the easier life is within those small communities, which means there's less chance of them falling apart or people ditching for a better life elsewhere.

People don't leave prosperous mountain towns in Austria, whereas certain coastal towns in other places end up completely deserted.

It’s all about finding that sweet spot between autonomy and connection—balancing small communities against the big ones, where every level, from the individual to the family and beyond, plays its part.

Sometimes, what looks like a connection is really just a one-way street of dependency—small towns leaning entirely on the state.
To stop people from fleeing in search of something better, you need to provide a vision of a better future *right here*, rather than just focusing on current wealth. If people believe their kids will have a better life staying put, they won't feel the need to migrate at any cost.

Amy Bennett said:

I don't really know how to put this into words—it’s a bit awkward to admit—but I feel like I've been stuck in a loop lately. It's that feeling where you're just... wandering? Not quite lost, but definitely not moving forward either. It's like being caught in a constant state of transit without ever actually arriving at a destination. I've been trying to process it all, but everything feels a bit hazy. Just one of those things, I guess. Sam Martinez9 says:
To be fair, some communities have actually managed to figure out how to handle conflict—whether they rely on the pull of a charismatic leader or some kind of democratic process aimed at reaching a consensus.
They tend to last longer that way, for sure—as long as they actually have a clear vision to hold onto. I guess the real question is what their actual purpose is, and more importantly, what someone really gains by sticking around in a community like that.
The author points out that their "success rate" is pretty much on par with what you'd see from a Silicon Valley startup—though, to be fair, I don't think anyone is actually questioning their underlying purpose or why they do what they do.

Is that figure a little too low, though? I can't help but wonder if there’s any more detailed data out there to back it up. It makes me curious—which types of communities actually manage to last longer, and which ones tend to fall apart first? Does anyone know what the average lifespan of a community actually looks like? I'd also love to know what kind of specific struggles different groups run into along the way.

Do you think the Amish count in this? To me, they seem to be holding it together a whole lot better than all these utopia freaks. 🤷

That would require people who are morally perfect. Honestly, I haven’t run into anyone quite like that yet—if I had to pick the closest thing, maybe some of the hardline communists or progressives, but even then, you could argue that's just splitting hairs. There's also the issue that even in those groups, you'd likely see constant friction; any cooperation would probably just be a way to manage the underlying conflict. And that's just looking at the human element. Beyond people, you're talking about a total transformation of the entire cosmos along with us—for all the obvious reasons Flying mentioned down below.

This is just completely nonsensical.

For now, I'm still sending Metcalf...

Preconception: These groups last only a short time with high membership turnover.

I have observed that intentional communities follow a developmental pattern similar to that of small businesses: many more are imagined and planned than ever start. Of those that do start, about half collapse within two years, with perhaps half the remainder collapsing before the end of five years. Most small businesses and intentional communities that make it to five years prosper indefinitely. Just as some businesses become multi-national conglomerates, some intentional communities become large, multi-million-dollar operations, such as Findhorn Foundation (USA), Damanhur (Italy), and Twin Oaks (United States).

So, basically, only about 25% survive past year five—but once they hit that critical mark, they tend to last ages, decades even, maybe even a lifetime.
What really bugs me, though, is when they turn into corporations. Once that happens, the whole point is gone... like some "all-inclusive" tourist trap village... yeah, no thanks.

The author also brings up how a lot of these communities rely on welfare... basically being dependent on government handouts or private donations... which doesn't seem sustainable to me at all.

What actually makes sense to me is partial self-sufficiency—you know, meeting at least some of your material needs within the group... or successfully balancing outside work with life inside, something like Ithaca.

We are wired to raise children in community

It looks like the communities that actually make it are the ones with a rock-solid sense of purpose—the Amish and Hutterites definitely fit that mold—or the ones that’ve figured out how to actually handle conflict.
I mean, fights are bound to happen, but the members actually deal with them instead of just splitting up.

There are massive problems, too—some are mentioned here, but there are much darker sides to these communities... I'll get into that later.

Amanda Jackson5 said:If you happened to actually read the article that Lisa Jackson7 linked in the opening post, you'd see that monasteries are explicitly mentioned as an example of an "intentional community."

1. I’ll admit, I only skimmed those ten pages. Surely you didn't actually sit down and read every single word, did you??

2. Well, I just gave it another quick scan, and I honestly missed the part about monasteries—must have flown right over my head.

3. But my main point was this: nobody else on the forum (except for hiddenpuma75) has brought up monasteries, sects, cults, spiritual schools, Freemasons, or any of that sort.

4. Everyone seems focused on SECULAR communities here. No one is talking about the religious, spiritual, occult, philosophical, or other mystical "mumbo jumbo" types of groups.

Lisa Jackson7 said:For now, I'm still sending Metcalf...

Preconception: These groups last only a short time with high membership turnover.

I have observed that intentional communities follow a developmental pattern similar to that of small businesses: many more are imagined and planned than ever start. Of those that do start, about half collapse within two years, with perhaps half the remainder collapsing before the end of five years. Most small businesses and intentional communities that make it to five years prosper indefinitely. Just as some businesses become multi-national conglomerates, some intentional communities become large, multi-million-dollar operations, such as Findhorn Foundation (USA), Damanhur (Italy), and Twin Oaks (United States).

So, basically, only about 25% survive past year five—but once they hit that critical mark, they tend to last ages, decades even, maybe even a lifetime.
What really bugs me, though, is when they turn into corporations. Once that happens, the whole point is gone... like some "all-inclusive" tourist trap village... yeah, no thanks.

The author also brings up how a lot of these communities rely on welfare... basically being dependent on government handouts or private donations... which doesn't seem sustainable to me at all.

What actually makes sense to me is partial self-sufficiency—you know, meeting at least some of your material needs within the group... or successfully balancing outside work with life inside, something like Ithaca.

We are wired to raise children in community

It looks like the communities that actually make it are the ones with a rock-solid sense of purpose—the Amish and Hutterites definitely fit that mold—or the ones that’ve figured out how to actually handle conflict.
I mean, fights are bound to happen, but the members actually deal with them instead of just splitting up.

There are massive problems, too—some are mentioned here, but there are much darker sides to these communities... I'll get into that later.

A human lifespan isn't actually that long—it's barely enough for one generational shift. It makes me wonder how many kids actually stay in these communities versus how many leave.

The whole point of these groups should be long-term sustainability—they ought to be intergenerational. If they aren't, it means they aren't capable of passing their values and way of life down to the next generation. Passing on knowledge and information is fundamental to keeping a community alive; without it, you're just looking at its end. This feels like a deep-seated flaw in most of these setups—this excessive emphasis on "freedom"—which is actually reflected in that link you shared below. The author's family tries to distance themselves from our individualized society, yet they don't seem truly willing to let go of that individualistic freedom they enjoyed. Reading the article, it almost feels like they just moved so they wouldn't have to deal with raising their own kids as much, and could instead borrow butter from a neighbor they're, well, on slightly more casual terms with.

I get the impression that most of these are just unsustainable, utopian bubbles with no real future. For this kind of lifestyle to actually work in its true, organic sense, people would have to abandon the illusion of individual freedom and independence—that thing modern people cling to as they head toward their own downfall.

The author also mentions the relatively high number of people relying on social welfare within many of these communities... basically, a dependence on government aid or private donations... which doesn't strike me as particularly viable either.

Of course you don't think it's viable—they're essentially living out a fantasy on someone else's dime.

What makes sense to me is partial self-sufficiency—meeting at least some material needs within the community... or perhaps finding a way to balance outside work with life inside, something like Ithaca.

We are wired to raise children in community

That sounds more realistic to me, but even then, that's just one piece of the puzzle. There are still plenty of things here that don't add up, a few of which I mentioned earlier.

It seems communities with a clear, shared vision survive—the Amish and Hutterites definitely fall into that category... or perhaps those who have figured out how to successfully navigate conflict.
Conflicts are inevitable, but in successful groups, members learn to live with them rather than splitting apart.

I’m honestly not sure anyone else can really compete with these kinds of religious communities. They offer—more or less—a realistic blueprint of what all these other utopians should actually be doing. The issue, though, is that most of these groups aren't willing to make the sacrifices their fantasies demand. In my opinion, at least half of them are just degenerate hippies and similar nonsense types who couldn't manage basic hygiene, let alone build a functional society. Unless they realize that their very idea of "freedom" is actually their biggest enemy, they won't achieve anything.

You definitely have a better grasp on the sheer scale of these communities than I do, but my conclusions come from the things I tend to talk about here—basically, my own more traditional worldview. And, looking at the articles you link and the stuff I find myself digging up on Google lately, it seems like my perspective aligns pretty closely with the reality on the ground.

Just to illustrate my point a bit better: imagine a total civilizational collapse tomorrow—everything we know is gone. You’re left with all these tiny little communities, and natural selection takes over. Which ones do you think would eventually become dominant enough to spread and essentially swallow everything else up? Would it be some secular, modern group, or even worse, those hippie communes? Or would the Amish—or perhaps a more militant version of them—be the ones to actually succeed?

Lisa Jackson7 said:The author really went out of his way to highlight certain religious groups—giving this quick little history lesson that basically puts the spotlight on the long-standing ones. And honestly? It’s no surprise that most of them are tied back to specific denominations. Makes total sense.

Quincy:

Always. So there’s always some "supreme leader" type imposing their rigid-as-hell rules on everyone in the group. It’s way easier to control people in small communities—you’re basically under a microscope 24/7, so there’s zero room to just *be yourself*. The only way these groups actually function is by being an outlier to the rest of society. Plus, let’s be real: these tiny setups offer such a limited lifestyle. What happens when a kid in one of these groups actually has talent? Say they want to be a world-class pianist, a microbiologist, or a surgeon—they aren't going to make that happen within the community because the math just doesn't work. There’s no way to fund or support that kind of ambition. That’s just another way they strip away your freedom.

Nah, that’s just not how it works—based on what Metcalf said, which is pretty freaking obvious... we aren't living in the 1800s anymore.
When it comes to nurturing a kid's talent... I'm guessing people just lean on whatever community resources work for them at the time—or whenever their kids actually need it. Once the local schools can't cut it anymore? They're gone. Just like that. Either they head out solo or pack up the whole family and move to a better city. Simple as that.

Don't forget—denying a kid a decent childhood is basically just another way of stripping away their freedom. Real social connection and just letting kids run wild playing with their friends isn't even considered easy anymore—not in most big American cities, anyway.

Quincy:

These male communities are just straight-up deviations from how society should work—honestly. Sure, America is tolerant enough to let them exist, but they're basically just hurting their own members at this point. They're way too weak to cause any real damage to the rest of us. Alright, here’s my take on why small communities are a mess—wait for the next post where I actually say something positive.

Look, some small cult-like groups might be total deviations—they actually end up wrecking their own members—but let's be real, those types are a tiny minority.

I can't—well, I don't want to—live totally isolated... I've got a family to think about. So, what my wife and I have actually decided is moving to a smaller nearby town... just better conditions for the kids, plain and simple.
As for work—you know, actually making a living—we can't just pack up and move anywhere overnight.
But... we might eventually have to... even if the idea of moving overseas sounds exhausting.

So, basically, modern humanity is just a collection of small communities. The only thing separating a tight-knit group from the rest of the world isn't always a hard line. A family is its own little unit, and even within a massive city of 20 million people, everything is broken down—neighborhoods, counties, states, tiny towns, or even niche groups like hiking clubs (or mushroom foragers, animal rescuers, or local bluegrass bands...). A small community is just one layer inside a larger one.

When you look at communities that are more clearly set apart from society, you've got religious groups—different monastic orders, for instance. Personally, I’d point to a Benedictine monastery as a solid example of that kind of separation.

Then you have those isolated villages cut off by poverty or rough terrain—places tucked away in the Himalayas or deep in the mountains of places like Romania or Bulgaria; you find rugged, mountainous pockets like that in almost every country.

That said, you also have mountain villages in wealthy nations, like those nestled in the Alps in Switzerland or Italy.

Or, you know, island towns and villages.

We even have things like kibbutzim in Israel acting as small communities...

For a small community to actually work, it needs strong ties to the larger structures around it. Laws, the economy... they can't just exist in a vacuum. A community can't just make up its own rules; it has to be integrated into the legal framework of the larger society. Same goes for the money side of things.

And obviously, the wealthier the country, the easier life is within those small communities, which means there's less chance of them falling apart or people ditching for a better life elsewhere.

People don't leave prosperous mountain towns in Austria, whereas certain coastal towns in other places end up completely deserted.

It’s all about finding that sweet spot between autonomy and connection—balancing small communities against the big ones, where every level, from the individual to the family and beyond, plays its part.

Sometimes, what looks like a connection is really just a one-way street of dependency—small towns leaning entirely on the state.
To stop people from fleeing in search of something better, you need to provide a vision of a better future *right here*, rather than just focusing on current wealth. If people believe their kids will have a better life staying put, they won't feel the need to migrate at any cost.

You've hit the nail on the head. A family simply cannot thrive in small, isolated communities. And if something isn't conducive to the family unit, then it isn't good for humanity at large.

I view the family as the fundamental building block of society, though I also believe an adult should have the freedom to choose their own partner, which means I have no issue with gay marriage. Whoever loves whom, go for it. Just imagine some dystopian scenario where the law dictates a woman must live with a woman, or a man with a man, under the guise of being a "family unit"... that sounds like a nightmare to me.

But I digress... the point is, small communities often fail to provide the necessary environment for families, and that should serve as a sign that they cannot be the bedrock of civilization. They can exist as a phenomenon, a way for people to organize themselves voluntarily, but they shouldn't be the primary model.

I once lived in a small town myself and it was wonderful; I felt much more fulfilled personally in a smaller setting. However, Washington, D.C. was within reach—only about an hour by bus—so I could still enjoy everything a major metropolitan area offers. For me, that balance is the ideal way to live.

That said, my relatives tell me that the local mindset has shifted and that the small town I left behind, the one I remember, no longer exists. People have become just like those in the big cities. If that's true (and I truly hope it isn't), it’s a profound loss.

I'm not sure what caused this shift. Some think it's due to the fallout from past conflicts and a loss of social trust, while others argue that Western influence has finally arrived—that we're seeing those Western customs we used to read about and recoil from, where neighbors in an apartment complex don't even know each other, or won't even turn to a neighbor for help.

I am glad you managed to achieve at least part of your dream by living in a small town, and I sincerely hope you won't find yourself forced to move overseas.