I spent time growing up in a couple of different 'intentional communities', both of which are dying a kind of slow death for similar reasons (as are many others that I am aware of).
These communities were founded by groups with particular sets of shared ideals. Shortly after being founded they started to welcome new members - offering a share in the assets of the community in return for labour and commitment. This generally worked well.
The problem is that as these people approach retirement they begin to realise that the community and its assets are all they have in the way of a retirement fund (sometimes also a modest private fund as well but their share of the land they live on is usually their most significant asset). This realisation is usually enough to stop or slow the practice of giving new members a share in the community's assets. This in turn makes joining the community less attractive.
On top of these financial concerns, there is the lack of shared ideology from one generation to another. The children that grew up in these communities prefer to go off and live their own life instead of carrying on with their parents dreams.
I am only aware of a couple of communes here in NZ that appear to be making this generational transition successfully (most communes here are approaching 50 years old, having been started in the 70s by people in their 20s).
It doesn't have to be that way. There are certain common patterns in communities who stay healthy without losing their ideals.
Does the Chaos Computer Club (CCC) in Germany count as intentional community?
This community is ever growing, and I'd say they changed generations at least twice: the oldest members (1st generation) retired long ago, some meanwhile died. And the now-elders (2nd generation) are making place for younger peers (3rd generation).
To put this picture more into perspective: There are now-middle-age members (age ~40-50) who joined the CCC in their yough, but still know the community's beginning only from the tellings of older members.
And yet there is a strong sharing of ideals and values. Due to their early history (helping and protecting members who got in trouble with KGB) they are still politically active, strong proponents of data protection and privacy, as well as opposed to large data collectors, intelligence agencies, military and the industries around those. They hold these ideals even though hacker communities in many other countries (US, etc.) developed into a totally [1] different direction. Their annual Chaos Communication Congress is breaking records year by year, in terms of attendees but also in terms of quality and volunteer engagement.
And this is just the CCC. I know some other communites here in Germany which are similarily structured and healthy. But these are less known internationally, so I decided to cite those the CCC as my example.
The "trick" of all these communities is that each task is performed by a team - even though sometimes a single person would be sufficient. So there is a decoupling of the task from the single individuals performing them. This means each team can grow, renew and rejuvenate gradually, at its own pace. [2][3]
[1] pun intended
[2] Thinking a that, a similar strategy is also what keeps large code bases healthy.
[3] Thinking even more of that, democracy as a whole works that way, which is why it's easier for democracies to rejuvenate than for most dictatorships, most of which fail utterly after one or two generations - to be replaced with a totally different dictatorship, or hopefully with something that is better for the poeple and more sustainable.
The CCC is most definitely not a community in the sense the article was talking about. There are obviously organisations that exist for longer than a couple generations. I have attended a couple of CCC meetings and I like it a lot. But members don't organize their entire life around the CCC. It's a club. Members can attend meetings once a week, once a months or once a year. It's an entirely different thing. Nobody relies for their food supply, shelter or retirement on the CCC.
Would the Amish be considered an intentional community? They've somehow managed to keep their community together and functional across the generations, and in the face of enormous technological and cultural upheaval.
it's helpful to distinguish intentional community from commune. the amish have private property so there is maybe more incentive to accumulate intergenerational wealth.
they also withhold secondary education from their children and pressure them to marry and reproduce at a young age, so staying in the community quickly becomes their only realistic option if they want to feed their family.
Interestingly, none of the communities I was referring to in my previous comment were based on religion (with the exception of one that was loosely christian-pacifist).
Perhaps where religion is involved the outcome may be different.
I think the article touches on how the Amish avoid this 'problem' - the threat of ostracism from the (probably exceptionally tight-knit) social group keeps younger generations bound to the community.
Barely at times. The attrition rate (not staying within the community) for the Amish can be quite high, and the only way to "share" generation over generation is to subdivide property.
If you tried to start the Amish now it'd never last, it's too large a leap. But the Amish society evolved slowly over time much like others. If you went back to the early days then the Amish wouldn't be that different to others around them. It's just that there was a bit of a split and our societies have evolved in parallel since then under the influence of different values.
It sounds like since they aren't creating more wealth, either through increased productivity or lowered costs, they start to worry about the dilution of community assets?
This in turn makes joining the community less attractive.
That sounds like it just hits the natural limits of a community? Doesn't sound too bad.
> That sounds like it just hits the natural limits of a community? Doesn't sound too bad.
It's not too bad, unless new (younger) members are your primary source of wealth and labor. A commune primarily consisting of retirement aged and older adults will be far less productive, and will eventually reach a tipping point of unsustainability.
> It sounds like since they aren't creating more wealth
This definitely plays a part as far as I can tell. The two communities that I mentioned that are looking most sustainable have an important thing in common - they both operate large businesses (orchards and gardens). Many of the others have devolved to the point where members live on the land but seek work elsewhere.
I spent time growing up in a couple of different 'intentional communities', both of which are dying a kind of slow death for similar reasons (as are many others that I am aware of).
These communities were founded by groups with particular sets of shared ideals. Shortly after being founded they started to welcome new members - offering a share in the assets of the community in return for labour and commitment. This generally worked well.
The problem is that as these people approach retirement they begin to realise that the community and its assets are all they have in the way of a retirement fund (sometimes also a modest private fund as well but their share of the land they live on is usually their most significant asset). This realisation is usually enough to stop or slow the practice of giving new members a share in the community's assets. This in turn makes joining the community less attractive.
On top of these financial concerns, there is the lack of shared ideology from one generation to another. The children that grew up in these communities prefer to go off and live their own life instead of carrying on with their parents dreams.
I am only aware of a couple of communes here in NZ that appear to be making this generational transition successfully (most communes here are approaching 50 years old, having been started in the 70s by people in their 20s).