Do hippy communes work?

[KnightWhoSaysNi]

Has there been any study that looked at the success (or failure) of hippy communes? I think a sociological study would shed some empirical light on the potentials for anarchism to work. One of my political science professors said that there were some hippy communes in Australia that were attempted but they failed miserably due to aspects of human nature.

I guess it goes back to the structure-agency debate. On one extreme end, societal structure and socialization are all that matters and that there are no free agents. But there will always be some who might have ambitions for power, freeriding, or other motivations, hence why utopian schemes won't work. On the other extreme end, the individual is all that matters. It's kind of like the moral of the story for Lord of the Flies or The Mist. It's not the structure of the society that matters but the ethical nature of the individuals behind it.

I don't agree with either extreme myself. While I think human nature has inherent goodness, some measure of rule of law and "checks and balances" are needed to handle the "inconveniences" as John Locke put it as well as abuses of power.

[Christina]

I can only speak anecdotally but I lived in a few in my twenties and there were a lot of very enjoyable things about it but idealism didn't get the bills paid or the bathroom cleaned. It never really worked for me but it worked great for the lazy people.

[Dlx2]

Israeli kibbutzim.

[Ray Moscow]

AFAIK, they only US "hippy" communes that still survive are the religious ones, like the "Jesus People".

[Christina]

There are still lots of smaller ones that I know about sprinkled all over northern California and Oregon, but they're mostly centered around growing pot.

[Pavlov's Dog]

Hippies don't work, so I am going to say that their communes don't.

[Christina]

Hippies don't work, so I am going to say that their communes don't.

That was my conclusion too. Share and share alike works great if you have nothing to share and no intention of getting off your ass to do anything. It doesn't work so well for those doing all the work so that there is something to share. Getting stoned while watching pot plants grow isn't exactly work. The worst part was how they didn't educate their kids in the name of letting them 'find themselves'.

[Jimmy_Mack]

As a cyber-space cyber-culture theoretician the skeletons or structures underneath the sociology of real reality becomes an offset in a duality in which people interact through cyber-reality. In real reality where territory and possession is tangible, there are great hurdles in getting any group to share the same value set and all be true to it on the same level--it always defaults to a "leader" or ruling body to idealistically insist on a totality. That's already a contradiction since they are in a hierarchical configuration which favors their power rather than an egalitarian framework in which they are no more than an equal peer. Theoretically, cyberspace offers the potential to realize the collective ideal in small and temporary collaborations--what's in the way is they fact that no one at least in the western world was raised and orientated to cooperation and/or egalitarianism and is grounded in authoritarianism, territorialism and competition. We have a forerunner of cyberspace now--text-based forums instead of graphical virtual reality constructs and people grounded in 20th Century factory-model educational values do more clashing and ridiculing than cooperating on mutual growth. Places like this off a respite for those escaping the hostility of other more active and generalized forums. I think we're geared to being somewhat more cooperative than the masses who seem to lead with diminishing mockery rather than tempered reservation much less outward encouragement. The Information Technology Revolution will not reach any "revolutionary" status in earnest IMO until technology goes so far as to be designed to change its culture and not just its technique of manipulating numbers and letters. We don't need to share finances as in a true commune but we have intellectual resources which have "virtual value"--potential value which acts as a motivator and facilitator in driving cooperative interactions to favorable or at least developmentally worthwhile outcomes. Communes in the flesh are idealistic but people are animals with flaws. Technology allows us to theortically cooperate without having to smell each others shit and clean each other's sinks.

[damian]

Hippies don't work, so I am going to say that their communes don't.

"You must spread some reputation around before giving it to Pavlov's Dog again."

This is going to be a problem.

[Esocyn]

The problem with small-scale, closed off communes is just that -- they're small-scale and closed off. There's no strong network or federation between these communities, thus there's no real way to trade goods or services. A lot of these people misinterpret or ignore the anarchist idea of communities, free association and federated communities and, in turn, do asinine things that may be well and good for an individual, but couldn't sustain a community. It's especially if your commune is centered around growing pot rather than trying to actually build a socialist community and work in cooperation with other socialist communities -- it's evident that a lot of people missed the fuckin' point with regards to Christina's example of communes being centered around growing pot.

There are a few communes that exist, and sustain most likely because they were able to forge ties with the surrounding communities and engage in trading supplies. The problem with this and trying to "prove" that anarchist or socialist communes work is that when communities have to do this, they're subject to capitalist rules of trading outside the commune. It's futile to prove these ideas 'work' on a large-scale when they still exist within a society that is pretty hostile to such ideas -- there's a very rare chance that communes actually get to practice socialist economics outside of their commune, because a lot of the other communes that are set-up fail because they don't do it right. Either out of some stupid fake idealism or they're just fucking stupid and didn't read Kropotkin and Malatesta right. Or if they're just a bunch of stupid fucking hippies.

A couple of immediate communes, co-ops or whatever, that come to mind is the Rhizome Collective here in Austin (http://www.rhizomecollective.org) and the Dancing Rabbit eco-commune that was featured on 30 Days.

[Fathermithras]

The problem with small-scale, closed off communes is just that -- they're small-scale and closed off. There's no strong network or federation between these communities, thus there's no real way to trade goods or services. A lot of these people misinterpret or ignore the anarchist idea of communities, free association and federated communities and, in turn, do asinine things that may be well and good for an individual, but couldn't sustain a community. It's especially if your commune is centered around growing pot rather than trying to actually build a socialist community and work in cooperation with other socialist communities -- it's evident that a lot of people missed the fuckin' point with regards to Christina's example of communes being centered around growing pot.

Absolutely agree. I'm not a socialist, but it is very true that things on the mirco level could work differently at the macro level. Hell, the problem on the micro level may be wat I think you're saying...That people who tend to want to form these small communes tend to be lazy and just center around pot. If anarch-socialist (or what have you) decided to try and form one around actual productivity, it'd be interesting to observe. I doubt it would work to well, since of my belief in reinforcers and that social loafing would simply be too tempting, but who knows until you see it.


There are a few communes that exist, and sustain most likely because they were able to forge ties with the surrounding communities and engage in trading supplies. The problem with this and trying to "prove" that anarchist or socialist communes work is that when communities have to do this, they're subject to capitalist rules of trading outside the commune. It's futile to prove these ideas 'work' on a large-scale when they still exist within a society that is pretty hostile to such ideas -- there's a very rare chance that communes actually get to practice socialist economics outside of their commune, because a lot of the other communes that are set-up fail because they don't do it right. Either out of some stupid fake idealism or they're just fucking stupid and didn't read Kropotkin and Malatesta right. Or if they're just a bunch of stupid fucking hippies.


Hahaha. Love the ending line. I always wonder though, what is it about these groups that tend to make them fail more often than "capitalist" ones? I don't doubt the fact that capitalists tend to work against them and that its a significant hinderance. But why do capitalist systems tend to be more productive than their socialist counterparts? I really don't understand it. I know you've read a lot about it, maybe you could PM me (or just post them here) some of the ideas?