Intentional Communities: The pursuit of a modern utopia

Amy Bennett said: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?

Drug cartels. They’re already conditioned to kill for any reason or no reason at all; they wouldn't hesitate to wipe out a neighboring settlement just to secure some shelter or a few scraps of food.

My guess is they’d eventually just tear each other apart or succumb to some sweeping infectious disease.

Nobody has actually touched on the topic of communal cooperatives—those massive, extended family units of over 50 people that were everywhere in America until the end of the 19th century, before they just abruptly vanished. But maybe that’s out of scope here. They were essentially communities born of necessity; once that necessity faded, so did they. Then again, isn't every community, in some sense, just a product of necessity?

I'll get back to you guys properly in a couple of days—just keeping it brief for now...

"Quote:"

Amy Bennett said: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?

I just can't get behind this... Look, neither you nor I actually know the Laloux family from that article about them moving to the New Harmony community—we don't know their real motives at all. But man, speaking as a parent, I can totally relate to the situation the author laid out.

"Quote:"

Sam Martinez9 said: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.

???

There’s this whole "transition cost" thing when everything shifts—but let's be real, it hits everyone differently. Single people vs. families? It's never a level playing field.
That whole "cost" thing—it’s gotta be outweighed by the actual payoff... and you're talking about dumping serious time, cash, and hunting down info that's usually total garbage—so yeah, it's a massive headache.

"Quote:"

Look, I’ve stepped back from that whole idea... basically, small communities just don't offer enough for families to actually thrive—and honestly, that should be a massive red flag that they can't serve as the backbone of humanity. They might be one way to organize things voluntarily, sure, but they shouldn't be the foundation.

What humanity’s ultimate way of organizing itself will actually look like? Honestly, who knows—we can only guess at this point... though I guess it could be one of the ways we end up living.

"Quote:"

Glad you managed to pull off at least part of your dream and end up living in a small town—honestly, I really hope you don't end up having to move out West.

Thanks for the kind words... 🙂

"Quote:"

Ethan Gomez82 said:Nobody has actually touched on the topic of communal cooperatives—those massive, extended family units of over 50 people that were everywhere in America until the end of the 19th century, before they just abruptly vanished. But maybe that’s out of scope here. They were essentially communities born of necessity; once that necessity faded, so did they. Then again, isn't every community, in some sense, just a product of necessity?

I mean, you could definitely throw them into the mix too—co-ops and all that stuff.

Yeah, any community is gonna have some level of necessity baked right in... you nailed it there. But the real question is just how much? That’s where things get messy—it depends on the setup, what's happening in the world around them, etc.

When looking at the communities that came closest to actually achieving a utopia, one standout example has to be New Harmony—the project launched by the wealthy industrialist Robert Owen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Harmony,_Indiana

Before this venture, Owen ran a textile mill where he pioneered several innovations that we basically take for granted in the US today—he was even one of the first to implement a version of worker self-management.
He essentially tried to scale up those factory principles and apply them to the entire social structure of New Harmony.

As for the community itself—if my memory serves me right—it was open to everyone and operated without private property. It managed to draw in about a thousand people, but it ultimately collapsed just two years after it started, largely due to the issues already mentioned in the thread. There were just too many "strong personalities"—lots of armchair theorists who preferred debating reality rather than actually working—and those types quickly overwhelmed the group. So, as a pure socialist experiment, New Harmony lasted roughly two years.
The movement continued afterward, though likely in a different form, and I believe Owen’s sons played a significant role in keeping his vision of public service alive.

Joseph Bailey41 said:True, especially when you talk about communal living. In the US, the only media-exposed experiment of that sort I remember was "gold coin." Out of the ten people living in that rented house, I only met three of them after the "experiment" ended, and yeah, they were pretty quirky. But there’s another factor at play here—this way of life doesn't just attract those types of people; after a while, all that internal pandemonium that was suppressed by social norms starts bubbling to the surface. That might be useful in a therapeutic setting, but in everyday practice, it's just chaos. 😁

I know from firsthand experience. I wouldn't do it again.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "know from experience"? Are we talking about actually living in a commune like that, or just meeting the people who did? And in what way were they "eccentric"?