past expiriences with communes

I was an only kid,so communes were real attractive as alternate families. I learned,by 1970, that the ideal was not....most places I landed at were feeble attempts at getting laid or impressing someone with a specific "position" on coolness. After Seeing the workings of some buttheads like Mike Metellica,for instance,("Spirit in Flesh") or the Renaissance Community which i was an original to show up at the first treehouse....and their total hypocracy, I went back to druggin' and travelin' because it was HONEST.
RockBottom Farm in So. Strafford Vt. was all about organic growing and WORK,which was a hell of a surprise after the other idiots. Yeah,I tried to starrt a free-love commune in Boston in '68....asshole....visited the Krishna's tryin to get laid, all the stuff at the bottom of the learnin' curve. I digress....Rockbottom was work from 5 in the morn until 4 or so at night (afternoon chores) We sugared,plowed,cleared new fields,delivered critters,raised 'em and butchered 'em. ah....the list would bore y'all. With all the work,we were hard pressed to find time for spiritual seeking. other than work.We thought work was a spiritual reward of sorts;gettin' inta the yoke and pullin' that plow,boy. But,y'know? That just seemed like hard pullin' up a rocky road and then i watched the couples that came there break up and re-align within the group.....damn the whole idealistic crap!
So I come to search for an answer to "lonely old hippy" which I "Googled" out of deep funk....anyone wanna play?

 

My experience must be the exception. Maybe because it was unintentional community. It started with a few people renting a great house in the country and accepting new people with an interview. New members were accepted according to their vibe. We all got along great. Some of us were very together, others somewhat fucked up. We all tried to help each other to the best of ability. Acceptance of who you were was the way. If you were self destructive or unconsciously causing harm to others it was worked out in an informal gathering. I don’t remember anyone being forced to leave. Only a few of us lived in the house, most of the rest were in trailers, tents and teepees. Once guy lived under the porch.

I was just separated from my wife and had our one and a half year old daughter with me. When I first arrived I was miserable and down. My daughter was clingy and scared. Within a few months I was able to feel joy and was happy with life. My daughter would go off with any member of the community happily and was feeling secure and adventurous.

There was work to do, the house was always clean and neat. The gardens were weeded, the grounds were taken care of, and the meals were always great. The chores were mostly done with laughter joy or meditation. We still had time to make music, dance, make love (relationships were respected and there wasn’t a lot of deceit although it did happen.) Our material possessions were safe and respected. We shared a lot but no one was coerced to share. Those that had more had more, but nobody went without. Those of us who smoked dope smoked as much as we liked. Sometimes we did mushrooms or acid together.

It is possible that all this is my experience and others in the group had a totally different experience. Since the house was a rental we disbanded when the house got sold. I don’t know what would have happened if it would have gone on longer.

I believe that a replica of this could exist again today. It would be important for everyone to have their own houses. And be able to support themselves. This would be much more difficult now. Things are more expensive, values have changed. If I won the big lottery I would try to buy a hamlet and set up a community of folks somewhat like the one I lived on in the hills of Santa Cruz Ca. in 1976.

Or maybe I should just relish the memories.

 

This is the most interesting thread I've read on this entire forum. I've always been envious of the tribal lifestyle, even as I understand why it's very difficult to make it work in current times.

I think it comes down to the difference between a tribal community and a city ... and I happen to think that urbanization was one of the biggest mistakes the human species ever made. It's certainly true that cities have economic advantages, but at the cost of the sense of community.

I think human beings are tribal by nature, and that's why so many people are wistful for that life. But the mistake that most of the communes make is to assume that anyone can come together to make a tribe. I don't think that's the way it works ... tribes are tightly-knit groups, most of whom are related by blood or marriage, and therefore they have very strong motivation to make things work out. I don't see how that's ever going to happen again ... the closest thing to it now is probably something like the Amish people, so in that sense, the Amish are a much better example of the tribal lifestyle than the hippie communes.

So anyway ... given all that, we would have to create "artificial" tribes somehow. With my "free-love" tendencies, I always think that a group of about four men and two women would be ideal. In my idealistic view, no one would get jealous or shirk their responsibilities. In a true tribe, of course, peer pressure is the strongest motivator, and anyone who disrupted the harmony of the group would have strong pressure put on them to get back in line.

At my age, I'm not going to have any more children, so paternity is not an issue. The biggest threat to the tribe's solidarity would probably be influences from outside ... do we continue to have regular jobs? Do we keep our cars and microwaves and happy hours? If so, have we really gained anything? And is six people enough to really get the benefits of shared labor?

I don't know the answers to any of those questions. Not to belabor the point, but the Amish probably have it right. They've been largely successful at rejecting the values of the world bustling all around them, and maintaining their tribal structure.

I don't know if they accept new members. Probably not. And anyway, I dunno about wearing those bonnets ...

 

I lived in a commune in the Haight Ashbury, San Francisco, CA in 1969-71. One of main requirements for family members was you had to contribute in work and money for food and rent. Also, there was a strict policy about no hard drugs - heroin or speed. If you didn't meed those these basic requirements, you were told to hit the road. It was always difficult dealing with people we called "energy rip-offs." They were the types that liked to play music, party, and not work. They just could not understand why when they were told to leave. I believe that these are the basic tenants of successful communal living. Of course, you have to be able to get along with people too - no weird trips.

I migrated north to Oregon to live in another commune (an outgrowth of the one in the Haight). This was a "back-to nature" type of lifestyle, but had the same basic tenants - work, money, no hard drugs, and get along with your brothers and sisters.

From my perspective, communes can be successful if you have the right mix of people. Not everyone has to work for money. It's good to have an open mind and not get too frustrated with people. I like Caliente's viewpoint on what works. With my "free-love" tendancies, I would prefer to be the only male with four women - kind of like the old mormon days. Now, that's communal living!

It don't mean nothing,

Spud

 

With my "free-love" tendancies, I would prefer to be the only male with four women

 

Here's another thought on communal living. The Haight was full of communes during the 60's and early 70's. Most communes were started by individuals who assumed leadership roles in their respective families. Some were psychos (Jim Jones and Charlie Manson). Others were saints. Take Stephen Gaskin. He moved his commune from San Francisco to Tennessee and started the "Farm." This is probably the most successful communal venture since Brook Farm in West Roxbury, MA (Boston) (circa 1840's) which was a transcendentalist utopian experiment in communal living.

The commune I belonged to had more of a hierarchy leadership. There wasn't one clear leader, but several "elders", who made the financial decisions for the family. I never really knew what was going on with those guys. I tried to keep out of their way (didn't mess their ol' ladies).

There were many communes that were started in the country in Oregon during the 70's. Some of these communes lasted many years and some just faded away. The communes that faded away really didn't have a "vision" like the Farm. Most were started by an individualw that had a boat load of money (drug-dealer or trust fund) and they invited folks to live on the land. When "push-came-to-shove" the owner of the land could send people packing as needed (since no one else had any ownership rights to the property).

The more successful communal ventures involved groups of people with similar backgrounds, e.g., college degrees, had skills in a trade like carpentry, bricklaying, auto-repair, etc., and each couple or individual paid their share of purchasing the land. This type of communal experience is more equally-based where family members have equal shares in ownership of the property.

More thoughts later....

"It don't mean nothing"

Spud

 

What about gender roles, Spud? Were there women elders too?

 

I don't really have anything to add...but I needed to say this is a great conversation, thanks for sharing...it's so interesting getting to hear different people's experiences. eace:

 

Interesting that you ask about the gender roles. In the communes that I lived in (Haight Ashbury and Oregon), it was pretty much a male dominated family social structure with the women bearing the children (being the old ladies) and the men doing the physical work (earning the bread). Of course there were exceptions to the case.

In our commune there was a women elder that was the "old lady" of one of the male elders. She bore the children of the male elder. She was like a queen and was treated like one. She could attract any man she wanted (which lead to some jealousy issues with her husband/partner). For the most part, she played the mother role and lived pretty well. She eventually split up with her partner. I thought about being with her, but she had three children and I didn't want that responsibility.

I really respected her for what she had to put up with. She was a great lady! I think that a lot of people looked up to her the way I did. Guys would fall all over themselves to have the opportunity to be with her or do things for her.

Commune gender roles had more to do with being in an "old-man - old-lady" relationship and having kids. Each couple would have their own cabin to live in and everyone would convene in the "main-house" in the morning and go from there. Being single was really frowned upon. The men cut fire wood, worked in the garden or the woods while the women took care of the kids. It worked for a while....

 

It was hard to have a family unit when everyone was switching partners. I know you were talking about Kitten aka Mama Kat, Spud. Who else would it be. She was/is a great Lady.

The only relationship that lasted that I recall is Bernard and Judy. They are living in NY.

I lived with the Diggers before I moved over to GE commune 1966. I had been in the Haight for 6 yrs when I moved to GE, 1971. The Diggers were insane. The hard drugs had taken over, heroin, to be precise. The GE did not condone the use of hard drugs, mostly phsychedelics weed ect.

The streets were getting rough and it was getting where the Ladies had to have escorts or more ppl with them when they went out at night or went downtown to cash your welfare check.

When you were in a commune (city) you were safer, safety in numbers. Ppl didn't fool around with the women most of the time bc there were like 500 of us in the neighborhood.

It started getting bad around 73', real bad. The ladies were getting attacked walking down the street. The vibe was getting nasty, black and discusting. There was no more Love on Haight Street.

We moved our families to the country. Someplace safe, someplace we could be together, a place where we could grow our own and teach our children the true way of life.

We stuck together, it was ours, we owned the universe. We lived, loved and lite up the night with our joy. We trusted each other with our lives, bc we were a family.

But like all things, this too came to pass. The land was sold out from under the commune and ppl scattered. Some stayed in the area and are still there, like Spud.

Spud and I are bro/sis from the same commune,The Church Of The Good Earth, back in the very early 70s. We were all Stardust and Golden, we were the champions that survived.

We paved the way for the ones that were to follow. We cut the path from rocks and hard unbroken ground. We did it in numbers, we did it with love and freedom. We did it together. We are still here. We still commune together as in the days of old timey rocknroll. We were a huge experiment and we passed the test.

It was our beginning and here we are in the now, still loving and being together in spirit if not in the physical. Our bond is still strong and I know that we will survive what is to come bc of our faith in ourselves and what were learned from The Happening.

The communes were our shelter, the ppl our brothers and sisters. It's amazing that we connected after all these yrs gone by. But it was like Coming Home again to be able to regroup the family. Love You All.

Bright Blessing and Happy Holidaze
sh aka Nailcakes