Comment on The unAbomber. Otherwise, I agree.
stickly@lemmy.world 3 weeks agoNot necessarily, but one focused on an extreme primitivist lifestyle probably are. People generally don’t coordinate maximum isolation from society without some ulterior motives.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
And why not? Society has lots of problems. If people want to live their lives in some alternative way, why shouldn’t they be able to? Why shouldn’t those people be able to gather in one place and form communities, as long as those communities don’t become abusive?
Abusive power dynamics exist in society writ large. Why do we single out communes and say they’re bad, while we ignore how coercive and manipulative the average corporation is?
This whole idea that “communes are bad because they remove people from society” is based on the capitalist lie that people need to work and produce value for the owner-caste, and that any other lifestyle is a wasted life.
Why can’t people who want to be isolated from society be isolated from society?
stickly@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
The problem isn’t living lives in an alternative way, it’s that a full rejection of society requires an insular and opaque lifestyle. You don’t get qualified inspectors telling you your house is a fire hazard, you don’t have access to medical professionals or diagnostic equipment, any education/information/opinions become warped/inbred/outdated over time, lack of suitable elder care or child care (depending on demographics), etc…
“As long as they don’t become abusive” is doing a ton of heavy lifting in your argument. Who’s getting let in to check for abuse? What recourse do people have to get help when they may not have transportation or phones? Are they really isolated from society if they must submit to our judgement? What measures could exist to correct abusive dynamics without external coercion?
A corporation can be bad (and they might not be punished) but at least that’s in the light of day. Regardless of how shitty things seem, I’d take a public discourse about our social ills over hushed whispers between abused wives and children. We can openly debate about the pros and cons of leaving society but such seditious talk could cost you your livelihood if the leaders of a commune think you’re not all in.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
I’d say the same argument applies anywhere else: companies, boarding schools, retirement homes, psychiatric facilities, nuclear families, churches, the list goes on.
Most inspection agencies are performative at best. They’ll check for a few key indicators which get swept under the rug when the people know the inspectors are coming. If the inspector is buddies with the administrators or whoever, they’re even more lax in their inspections. Whistleblowers get punished, and our legal system quite frequently fails to protect them. And now, even the agencies that are supposed to ensure compliance are being systematically defunded and dismantled, and the remnants are being weaponized for political purposes.
People put a lot of faith in systems that don’t deserve it, when beneath it all those systems are run by fallible humans and are just as prone to abuse as anything else. It just happens to be the dominant system and it jealously protects its own monopoly.
Communes don’t have to be 100% isolated and cut off from society, the fact that most of them are is a result of the stigma. It leaves them with no other way to be, no other option but to either seclude themselves or return to society and conform.
If society itself were more tolerant of alternative lifestyles, a commune could simply provide layers of abstraction. It could still have inspectors and mediators and contractors and medical professionals from the outside world come visit periodically, but it could handle the internal matters like administration, bookkeeping, logistics, warehouse operations, food prep, cleaning, gardening, etc., and all other internal matters as a team effort where everyone has a role and contributes, instead of the norm in our society which is a bunch of isolated individuals and small families who have to do everything for themselves.
And if they weren’t viewed as these inherently scary and abusive things, you wouldn’t have exclusively vulnerable people getting preyed on and recruited to them. Lots of people we consider “normal” would choose to join them, for a variety of reasons: pooling resources for shared expenses = lower cost of living; sharing chores = lower burden of upkeep and more free time. Especially now with the cost of living rising, the job market evaporating, and life just overall becoming more complicated, I feel like that would be an attractive option for a lot of people.
And if they were more common, there would be a diversity of philosophical persuasions / guiding values, so anyone would theoretically be able to find one that aligns with their worldview. So as long as you do your research and visit a couple times to get a feel for the particular community before you join, you wouldn’t have to worry about things like coercive enforcement of ideology.
My point is that there are ways of doing it healthily, but the very real stigma associated with it prevents any healthy communes from gaining any traction. That’s why we only hear about abusive ones. It’s confirmation bias mixed with self-fulfilling prophecy.
That’s why I say we should break the stigma. It doesn’t mean we should allow abusive cults. But by providing healthier alternatives, we’ll actually diminish the appeal those abusive cults have for some people.
It’s like drugs. Decriminalization is one of the most effective ways to reduce demand for the black market. Likewise, destigmatizing communes will reduce demand for abusive cults.