Intentional Communities and Capitalism
Challenges and strategies for anti-capitalist community design
Capitalism isn’t just an economic system we live inside. It is a culture that lives inside of us. It influences our psychology, how we design our communities, how we relate to each other, the kind of culture we create, and what’s possible for us to do together.
Capitalism is one of the most harmful aspects of mainstream society, and is deeply entwined with white supremacy, patriarchy, colonialism, and imperialism. Societies, including micro-societies like intentional communities (ICs), are a mixture of structures and culture, and economies are a key aspect with implications for both. Capitalism is a structure that encourages individual finances and embeds commodification and transaction into our relationships with each other and the world around us. This fosters and reinforces a culture of hyper-individualism, privacy, competition, objectification, and entitlement. It creates an experience of separation, isolation, loneliness, and fear, and normalizes inequality, oppression, exploitation, and violence.
ICs are idealistic responses to the problems of society. We see and experience the harm caused by human civilization on people and ecosystems. We want to live in a way that is healthier and more satisfying, where we can have a different relationship to people and place. We want lifestyles that are aligned with our values and help make the world better. But as much as we want something different, we are susceptible to recreating the problems we want to solve.
It’s all about sharing
At their core, ICs are about sharing. As places for sharing lives, resources, land, and purpose, they provide and maximize an interconnected set of ecological, social, and economic benefits. ICs integrate aspects of our lives that are usually kept separate. The experience cultivates belonging and accountability, which inspires us to act from a deep understanding of our interdependence. ICs are spaces that allow for experimentation and learning about ourselves, relationships, culture, and systems in a unique way.
The more we share, the more opportunities we have to practice this.
An essential task we face as a species is to learn how to share resources equitably, democratically, and peacefully, within the bounds of what our ecosystems can support. But sharing is hard. Mainstream society does not prepare us for living in community, and we don’t magically know how to do it simply by stepping into it. We underestimate how deeply the culture of capitalism is ingrained in us, and the extent to which we make choices that are antithetical to our desires for community.
Because of the trauma and enculturation, the lack of experience and availability of alternative models, as well as the unavoidability of operating within capitalism, the gravity will always be towards capitalist ways of doing things. Unwittingly trying to live our values using capitalist vehicles makes things more complicated and less satisfying, but we don’t understand why.
Alternatives that would align better with our values, but would involve being more economically entwined, if we’re even aware of them, are mostly rejected at the outset for reasons we don’t fully explore. Even if we understand the benefits intellectually, we have to believe that it’s possible, and that it’s worth the risk and discomfort to do the work to create an experience of it.
The problems with capitalism
(I offer this brief analysis as a basis for what I’m advocating. Please see the references section for more in-depth works on the subject.)
When I say capitalism, I don’t mean the use of money as a medium of exchange for goods and services, which is separate from and predates capitalism. I’m talking about the modern, dominant, global capitalist economy, largely established and perpetuated by the US and Europe starting around the industrial revolution.
Inherently unsustainable and unjust
Capitalism revolves around capital, defined as “anything that confers value or benefit to its owners, such as a factory and its machinery, intellectual property like patents, or the financial assets of a business.” It is based on a central mechanic: The control and investment of capital to make a profit, which is then reinvested to make more profit, and so on.
A system designed around the perpetual generation of profit depends on infinite growth. This growth comes from the extraction and exploitation of natural and human resources. Infinite growth is fundamental to capitalism, but the resources needed for this growth are finite, which makes this system inherently unsustainable.
Capitalism perpetuates inequality because it relies on it. There must always be people who rely on wage-earning jobs. Through their labor, these people create value for those who own the means of production. This owning class is able to make money by doing nothing more than investing money. In this system, wealth will tend to consolidate into fewer hands, who will have an outsized influence on government, causing it to pass laws designed to benefit them, which are protected by the threat or use of violence and imprisonment by the state. This is inherently unjust.
Capitalism has become what it is today because of imperialism, colonialism, genocide, and slavery. It is based on laws protecting private property ownership, which are based on racist, dehumanizing ideologies like the Doctrine of Discovery, and the subjection of nature characterized by mechanistic philosophy. A core assumption embedded deep in our collective psyche is that I should be able to do whatever I want with my property regardless of how it impacts others, and that I should get to keep people off my property even if there are people who don’t have access to the basic resources they need to survive.
All wealth is stolen or based on stolen wealth. It is accumulated by some at the expense of others and in ways that are unsustainable for the ecosystems on which we all depend with no possibility for meaningful accountability.
Scarcity and competition are built into the financial system. Money is created when debt is issued, but the money needed to pay the interest is not created, which means there is always more debt in the system than there is money. Any amount of wealth we gain comes at the expense of someone else, and some people will always lose the game regardless of how well they play.
Internalized capitalism
Capitalist culture is highly aligned with what are widely discussed as the characteristics of white supremacy culture, and we internalize it in various ways.
We subconsciously believe that we deserve to be where we are in the class structure, are entitled to whatever level of wealth we have access to, and that if someone makes less money than us it's because they haven’t worked as hard.
One of the central deceptions of the American Dream is the idea that anyone can make it. While it may be true that anyONE can make it, this is unconsciously interpreted to mean that EVERYone can make it, which is not true. But this drives people to unrealistically pursue success in capitalism and even defend it against their own best interests.
Capitalism tells us, “you’re not enough,” “there isn’t enough,” “you’re alone,” “you’re not safe,” and any problems or failures we experience are because there’s something wrong with us. It ingrains a connection between production and our sense of self-worth, and turns busyness and material accumulation into badges of honor. It exacerbates our tendency to compare ourselves to others and see ourselves as separate. Everything is seen through the lens of private ownership and its monetary value as a commodity in a marketplace, including our own identities, extending into the need for “personal branding.” Cooperation is portrayed as risky, inefficient, and counterproductive to the goal of individual security.
Capitalism robs us of our ability to get along and our sense of belonging. It’s no accident that it's hard for us to be vulnerable, to trust each other, that we’re emotionally fragile, terrible communicators, and conflict avoidant. We weren’t raised knowing how to work things out with each other or even to feel comfortable being close. But more than that, we’re traumatized by the lack of connection and belonging we experienced growing up. That trauma interferes with our ability to experience belonging by making us avoid or even sabotage situations that would foster it but are unbearably uncomfortable.
Capitalism is designed to keep us separate from each other so that we can be the best consumers we can be. It trains us paradoxically to operate in a hyper-individualistic way within a system that we are utterly dependent on for survival. An increasing majority of people around the world do not have the skills or access to resources for self-sufficiency. We don’t have access to the social or practical skills to be able to get along with each other, nor the resources to have a reasonable shot at collective self-determination.
The only game in town
There is no way to avoid participating in capitalism. To whatever extent ICs create a semipermeable membrane that allows for an internal self-sufficient economic system that operates differently from capitalism, the community and its members still have to make some amount of money.
Since it’s the only game in town, if we’re to have any hope of creating systems that disrupt it, we need to know how to play it, regardless of the moral dilemma that represents. This includes understanding financial and business management, along with dealing with the baggage we have around money because of our class background and financial circumstances.
What are we going for?
It would be wonderful if people could simply live simple lives that do no harm to the world. However, in society’s current state of oppression and exploitation, death and destruction, there is no neutral ground, no option to "step to the side, live well, and be absolved.” To some degree we have no choice about whether we participate in capitalism. But we do have a degree of choice over how much we work against it and create alternatives.
Ultimately the question becomes, what are we going for with this crazy thing called intentional community? What do we want? What do we think and say we want but find deeply uncomfortable and don’t actually pursue? What would we actually find satisfying if we did the work? How do our choices support or undermine that?
Active resistance to harmful systems is crucial. The creation of alternatives that allow people to get their needs met outside of harmful systems is also crucial. And this needs to happen at scale. If we don’t seek to affect change in the world at a scale that can have a meaningful impact on the direction society is heading, even alternative systems will get run over. At some point simply creating nice places to live that buffer against the worst of mainstream society will no longer be tenable.
Sharing is an important part of the strategy. In our struggle with capitalism, sharing is power. Leaning into greater sharing, and being in solidarity, can generate greater capacity. This can be used to make our ICs more supportive and accessible, and can be leveraged to support the equitable and democratic development of just and regenerative local and regional social, governance, and economic systems. This will require getting comfortable with being uncomfortable, letting go of whatever sense of entitlement we have, and leveraging whatever privilege we have for collective benefit.
It’s not just that it is in our self-interest to participate in this effort, it is morally imperative.
Reconceptualizing economics
The focus of economics in capitalism is on money. But the root word of economy, eco, comes from the Greek word for home. The word economy essentially means, “home management.” If we expand the notion of home to community, and if community is the place where people come together to get their universal human needs met, economics takes on a character more analogous to ecology. An ecosystem has been described as a community of contributors who take what they need when they need it. Or, as Marx said, from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Economic systems would be designed very differently if a core principle was the collective responsibility to fulfill the needs of all people equitably and sustainably.
There are still certain realities we have to contend with for getting our needs met within capitalism. The question becomes, what kind of solutions are we pursuing? Are they more in alignment with individualistic culture, or are we seeking collectivist solutions that can help expand systems that can undermine and replace capitalism? And if we say we want more collectivist solutions, are we actually devoting the resources necessary to develop them effectively?
The economics of intentional communities
The economics of a five person urban collective house, an 80 person suburban cohousing community, or a 100 person rural commune are very different. But because of how capitalism works, any IC is basically a business.
Looking at it from that standpoint makes it easier to navigate the legal and financial systems we are required to participate in. In addition, what we want to do will take a certain amount of capacity. How much capacity will it take, and where is that going to come from? Knowing how to write a business plan, do financial analysis, and having a basic degree of financial literacy are ways we can make sure we’re collaborating effectively.
Expense-sharing and income-sharing
The finances of any IC revolve around the same account categories as any business. Putting aside assets and liabilities, the more pertinent categories are income and expenses.
Every IC practices some degree of expense-sharing. Common shared expenses are things like rent or mortgage, property tax, and insurance, as well as maintenance and supplies for common facilities. It might also include shared food, cleaning supplies, tools, toilet paper, utilities, and internet service. In rarer cases it could also include vehicles, clothes, toiletries and medical supplies, or even health care.
This brings us to income. In the vast majority of ICs, individuals are personally responsible for paying for those expenses, either equally or proportional to use. They are also personally responsible for generating whatever income they need to pay for their share of community expenses, plus whatever individual expenses they have. This usually comes from jobs or business activities separate from the IC.
Some ICs have community-owned and operated businesses, where some or all of a member's compensation may be housing, food, a stipend, or more. But the individual is still earning personal income to pay for their share of those expenses. Some amount of this exchange is just happening through the community’s internal accounting.
A small number of ICs practice income-sharing. In income-sharing ICs, most if not all expenses, including many things that would normally be personal, are considered community expenses. Income earned by the members is pooled and budgeted democratically.
Functionally, income-sharing might look similar to a high degree of expense-sharing, and you could look at these as being on a spectrum. But there is a fundamental difference in approach, with major implications. In expense-sharing, you don’t assume a given expense will be shared. In income-sharing you do, and members take responsibility for meeting their needs collectively, including responsibility for generating the labor and money needed to meet those needs. This creates a level of security and a feeling of togetherness that is not as readily found in expense sharing.
Income-sharing is challenging, but has distinct benefits. More on this later.
Labor
Even in ICs that practice a minimal amount of resource sharing, there is always some amount of labor needed to keep the place going. This comes up particularly with financial and legal management, as well as maintenance of utilities and driveways servicing the whole property. Groups then vary in how much additional infrastructure and activity they have and how they manage the labor needed.
The design of labor systems in ICs mostly boils down to a couple key questions: What needs doing, and how is that work organized and distributed? Labor systems are commonly based on an hours requirement. Some groups focus more on tasks, or chores. Others lean on roles, teams, or committees. Many use a combination.
The degree of complexity and formality of this system correlates to the size of the IC, the kinds of activities it’s engaged in, its level of economic involvement, and is also influenced by the culture of the group and the skills and personalities of the individuals involved. Finding the right balance can be tricky, and there aren’t really any right ways of doing it. Ultimately, if it works, it works. But there are common pitfalls.
Groups often struggle to make sure everyone in the IC has a complete picture of what needs to be done, rendering some essential tasks invisible to many. They may struggle to come to clear agreement about what needs to be done as opposed to what people want done. Even if what needs to be done is relatively clear, there is often disagreement between what people want to be considered community labor, often related to disagreement around what kinds of labor people consider valuable. This lack of clarity and agreement can make it hard to distribute labor in a way that feels fair to everyone. It’s also easy for some to default into a capitalist mindset of just clocking hours instead of looking for and doing work that needs to be done.
To address these difficult issues takes familiarity with different models and work to design and implement an effective system. Most don’t have the time or inclination. This leads many groups to create arbitrary requirements that are usually insufficient for what’s needed, which is a set-up for resentment and conflict.
These issues are usually related to underlying disagreement about the purpose or mission of the group, the culture they want, their priorities, and how functional their governance structure is.
Key choice-points
We have lots of completely legitimate needs, but the options capitalism gives us to meet them mostly revolve around individual financial independence. Some of our needs related to economics are autonomy, privacy, and security. These are not antithetical to community, but how we meet them can be.
If we are clear about the underlying needs, as well as our ideals and principles, while recognizing where we may need to compromise, particularly in the short term, we can work creatively with the models and resources available to meet our needs while undermining the dominance of and dependence on capitalism.
Economies of scale
Living in an IC should be cheaper than in mainstream situations with a comparable standard of living. If it isn’t, it is probably because you’re not sharing enough. And more intensive resource sharing is more practical in larger groups.
A problem with many ICs is similar to a problem with many small businesses. They’re too small. This isn’t necessarily a problem in itself. It’s because capitalism, beyond its focus on the individual, rewards scale, because scale maximizes profit.
Food, transportation, and renewable energy are important parts of our lives that cost a lot but get cheaper at scale. Scale can also mitigate the inconveniences of sharing. For example, it’s much easier for 25 people to share five cars than it is for five people to share one car, and bulk food purchasing and community means makes it cheaper and more efficient to meet a diversity of dietary needs.
It may not be practical for an IC to expand their population, but in many cases it is possible to extend resource sharing systems beyond the people who live on the property. While it’s up to each group to decide what’s right for them, it’s also important to remember that the interconnected set of social, economic, and ecological benefits are greater the more you share.
Privacy and control
People frequently say, “I want to live in community, but I want my own place.” This isn’t necessarily bad. Regardless of the reason, some people just need to have a living situation where they can eat, sleep, and go to the bathroom without needing to interact or negotiate with others if they’re going to live well in community. People also tend to have different needs at different points in their lives. Families in particular often need different living spaces than single people. But the attachment to having our own place makes us gloss over an analysis of how welll our designs align with our values or the culture we want.
Tiny houses certainly have their place, but the enthusiasm for tiny houses, which has evolved into its own small movement, seems suspiciously like a green-washed version of American hyper-individualism. In general, five free-standing, one-person structures are going to cost more to build and maintain, and use more energy, than one five-person structure. Individual dwellings, particularly if they are individually owned, are the obvious way to meet our needs for privacy and autonomy. But they are less financially accessible, ecologically friendly, or conducive to connection.
For many, the need for privacy can be met by designing larger residences with rooms or apartments that have outside entrances and really good sound insulation. And while privacy is important, the more we replicate the isolation of mainstream architecture, the less opportunity we give ourselves to develop our comfort being close.
There is also an assumption that I need to own my home to have control over what I can do with it and who comes into it. This isn’t necessarily true.
For example, in a housing cooperative, you don’t own your residence, even in co-ops where the residences are apartments, townhouses, or even free-standing. You own a member share, the value of which may or may not be based on the value of the residence. Owning a member share grants exclusive use of your residence within certain membership and use agreements. Privacy often tends to be more of a cultural question anyway. Some people are happy to have their friends walk into their homes unannounced regardless of whether they own or rent. And even in a typical Homeowners Association (HOA), where people own their homes, there are still limits to what people can do to its exterior.
In other words, ownership is not required for privacy and control. An IC is free to make whatever agreements it wants.
Equity and decision-making power
Models with multiple owners revolve around making investments that confer equity: A proportional share of ownership, the value of which goes up or down depending on the value of the property. This is core to the concept of private property ownership that drives the speculative real estate market, which is a core driver of capitalism. It carries an assumption that the property could be sold at some point and dictates how any profit would be divided.
This is based on a view of land as a commodity, and usually translates into benefits regarding profit generated on the land and decision-making power. It is focused on maximizing benefit and minimizing risk for the individual, and inclines us to focus on our individual perspectives. Interpersonally and culturally, this has real implications for how we relate to each other, to the community, and to the land. Governance, or decision-making power, in an IC can be based on other things, like the degree of responsibility and accountability a person is willing to take on, regardless of their financial investment.
From a justice perspective, individual ownership of property is a privilege that fewer and fewer have access to. If buying-in is a requirement for an IC, it favors people with more privilege. Even if it isn’t, but being an owner confers certain decision-making powers, that also favors people with privilege and is likely to lead to power dynamics that create tension and alienation. Ownership as a strategy for wealth building within the speculative real estate market is also a major driver of the lack of affordable housing.
Mobility and long-term care
We have a need to feel reasonably confident that we will be cared for when we can’t care for ourselves, particularly at the end of our lives. Whether or not there is an inherent need for mobility related to our need for autonomy, mainstream culture instills a very strong desire for it.
The main options available to meet these needs in capitalism are personal retirement savings and property ownership. Owning property has arguably been the best place for people to park their money so that it will increase in value (though that is less of a guarantee these days), and if you own it you can sell it and move somewhere else if you want to.
But attaining this level of financial security in capitalism is an illusion for most people. The amount of money needed to comfortably retire is upwards of $1.5M. The average person approaching retirement age has about $400K in savings. If you’re fortunate to have even that much, as long as you have enough passive income from pension or social security, you might be able to get by as long as you remain relatively healthy until you die, and die quickly.
And yet, even with little hope of actually achieving this level of individual security, we will still try and set things up to allow for it. This is largely because we are afraid of being stuck in a particular place with particular people, or perceive the risks associated with collective security to be too great.
The benefits of collective ownership
There are models for community property ownership where investment does not need to confer individual ownership, and that remove property from the speculative real estate market, allowing for collective stewardship for community benefit in perpetuity. Instead of creating an equity stake, investments in property (either up front or to make improvements) can be treated as repayable loans, managed with capital accounts. If the IC is able to generate enough income, something like a profit sharing agreement can be added to this.
This can support people in being able to leave if they want to, help them generate a nest egg, and support them in dealing with situations outside of the community, like caring for an aging parent. If the IC owns itself, it can have more flexibility in setting its financial requirements for membership, and is more conducive to democratic decision-making that focuses on the good of the entire community.
For those considering different models, it's worth noting that you can still have home ownership in ICs where the land is owned by the community. Creating an internal housing market addresses some of the problems of being embedded in the mainstream real estate market, but it can also recreate some of those problems and should be approached thoughfully.
Purpose and relationships
Most ICs are based on individual ownership models and do not have community businesses. Individuals are required to have their own income sources, or be independently wealthy, in order to live there. For those with easy access to income or wealth, this is certainly the less risky way to go. Many people with the resources to help start or buy-in to ICs also want to maintain their own careers, in part to maintain individual security.
I’m in no way saying all ICs should have community businesses and no one should work outside of them. That is neither practical nor desirable in many cases. But the more focused the members are on their own spaces, their own financial situations, and on other individual strategies to get their needs met, the less time and money will be available for community endeavors, and the less opportunity there is for solidarity and mutual aid.
Lots of groups make lofty vision and mission statements, and talk about wanting to be a model to impact society. Even for less idealistic groups, creating an IC is usually driven by a desire for greater closeness. But most groups don’t design their economic systems such that there is enough capacity to fulfill this, which can lead to conflict. Many find that there is not as much of a sense of community as they wanted. And trying to do even relatively simple things together, like putting solar panels on the common house or carpooling, let alone more complicated things, like creating affordable housing and increasing diversity, are virtually impossible.
Intertwined with all of this is how we relate to each other. Privacy is core to capitalism, which it perpetuates to keep us isolated so that we don’t organize in a way that would challenge it. We struggle in capitalism, but we think it’s our own fault, we keep to ourselves, and don’t talk about what’s really going on for us. We don’t trust each other, we’re scared of commitment, and we keep relying on capitalist solutions.
When we withhold from sharing about the challenges we’re experiencing, including our challenges with each other, it perpetuates isolation and leaves us with a scarcity of economic and emotional resources. This keeps us from learning how to relate to each other and creating systems that would get us out of that trap.
By being vulnerable with each other, being there for each other, and being willing to say and hear hard things, we’re challenging the socialization that keeps us from becoming more economically intertwined. By being more involved in each other's lives, we create more opportunities for us to work things out and learn how to get along. But the more we continue to avoid intimacy and conflict, as well as economic involvement, the more the social side will feel hollow, the economic side will be more fraught, and we will fall back to capitalist practices and culture.
I’m not saying it’s easy. There’s usually a major hump a group needs to get over to effect meaningful change, and it can be challenging to stay motivated. Exploring and experiencing existing models is key. We need to believe that things can be different to feel like it’s worth putting the work in.
Beyond the property line
Even if they aren’t based on individual property ownership, ICs tend to become insular. The state of the world is calling us to do something different.
Global warming, climate change, natural disasters, and mass extinction are going to increase. Large scale, particularly global, economic systems will become less and less tenable. People will be increasingly reliant on local and regional systems. But at this point, most do not have the capacity to accommodate that shift. As is already happening, people will come together for mutual aid. But this is mostly happening on very small scales that would be overwhelmed and fail in the event of significant systems collapse.
ICs by themselves, as we currently conceive of them based on existing models, are too small to be sustainable. We need scales of human organization that allow all people in a region to meet their basic needs equitably, maintain a degree of comfort afforded by modern technology, and sustainably integrate human habitat and activity into the natural world.
ICs can play a role in that, but we need to be thoughtful about what that is. People talk about making a “totally self-sufficient community” or “growing 100% of our own food.” This is not realistic, and even if possible, it would mean a degree of isolation that can be dangerous.
The ability of local and regional systems to respond effectively for the mutual benefit of all people and the ecosystems they live in will depend on their governance, economics, and culture being cooperative, equitable, and regenerative. And this is what needs to happen even if things don’t get much worse, because things already suck for a lot of people.
Through direct participation with and support of other kinds of cooperative groups as well as local government, ICs can be an active player in helping their local communities move in this direction.
Risk and sacrifice
Being part of a community that we can count on to care for us may be our ideal, but can seem impractical or unattainable, and feel terrifying. What if I end up hating it and want to leave? What if I get kicked out? What if things fall apart and I lose everything?
Being part of any IC is going to involve some level of risk and sacrifice. This is part of sharing, which is where the benefits of living in ICs come from. The more you’re willing to risk and sacrifice, the more you’re willing to prioritize collective solutions to meeting individual needs, and the more potential for benefit you’ll have.
The design of a community is strongly influenced by the priorities of the individuals involved. Capitalism socializes us to prioritize ourselves and, sometimes, our families. We can see living in an IC as expanding our notion of family, or the set of people with whom we choose to engage in mutual aid. This can happen within an IC, and can also happen between ICs and beyond.
Prioritizing collective solutions does not necessarily mean sacrificing individual needs. If a group of people hold their individual needs as collective needs, because the individuals are integral to the collective, then the question becomes how to reasonably meet individual needs within the context of collective solutions that support the larger goals of the IC.
ICs are places where we can support each other as we inquire into our choices and practices, see the discomfort as being worth it, and nudge ourselves towards greater sharing. Key to this is having courageous and vulnerable conversations about our backgrounds, beliefs, experiences, and ideologies, as well as being transparent about our financial situations and addressing tensions that will come up around any wealth disparities that exist in the community. We need to be willing to work together to uncover what drives us, and generate the empathy and compassion necessary to explore collective alternatives.
Why do income-sharing?
Income-sharing as a term, while being somewhat self-explanatory, is also an obtuse and scary concept for many, even those familiar with relatively functional models.
There are lots of variations in how income-sharing can be practiced. But there are very few examples of ICs that have had success with it, making it appear that those are the only ways to do it. If you don’t like those ways, it can be easy to reject the notion out of hand. Or, if an income-sharing IC struggles or fails, it is tempting to place the blame on income-sharing as a model. Part of our work is to experiment with different models that embody the principles we want, and create practices that move us towards our ideals, even while sometimes needing to make compromises or accommodations because of the realities of the world we live in.
Beyond the property lines of a given IC, there is a whole world of organizations and movements focused on solidarity economics and mutual aid that are furthering a range of strategies for creating a just and sustainable world. To whatever extent ICs contribute to this by creating collective economic benefit, income-sharing can take this a step further.
One of the most powerful things I saw as a long-term member of a 100-person income-sharing community called Twin Oaks, is that it expands our perception of what’s possible, and helps us see problems in our communities, relationships, and the world that we otherwise take for granted.
Maximizing the benefits of sharing
The more you share resources the less money you need, and the less time you need to spend making it. Community businesses can provide flexibility that typical jobs don’t tend to offer. And if most of the needs of the members are being met through collectively managed resource sharing systems, people have to spend less time on the mundane tasks of managing their lives. If members only have to spend, say, 20 hours a week making money, and less time on daily tasks, they can focus more on things that are good for themselves, the community, and beyond.
It also enables an economy that is based on labor instead of money. In capitalism, only certain kinds of work can earn you a wage. If the IC is successful in reducing the amount of time people have to spend making money to 20 hours a week, the group can still set a 40 hour weekly labor requirement and then choose to value certain kinds of work that tend to be unvalued or undervalued.
This is particularly notable around care work. It allows for more support for people who are sick, injured, or struggling with mental health, as well as for families and elders.
At Twin Oaks, all costs of pregnancy and birth are covered, including a substantial reduction in labor requirements during pregnancy. Childcare budgets are 40 hours a week during the first two years (gradually decreasing after), which can be claimed by parents or other caregivers.
Many elders have been able to die at home, sometimes after months of around-the-clock care from the community, with support from hospice services. This is often stressful and arduous for those managing the care. But it is still a profound experience of togetherness that is not as readily available outside of an income-sharing IC.
These things in turn can make it easier to create an inter-generational community, which is an important experience that is not available to most.
Income-sharing can provide an avenue for financial security not possible for most individuals. A group of people can have proportionally less in savings to guarantee that care is available for those who need it at any given time.
A labor system inside of income-sharing can also value social and cultural activities for fun and enjoyment that help make it all feel worth it, as well as support for conflict resolution. This helps reduce the need for escape or material gratification, which connects to benefits around self-sufficiency and reducing ecological impact. The community can also include food production and things like building and vehicle maintenance in its labor system, so people can learn skills as well as further reduce the IC’s monetary needs. One thing people particularly like about living in an income-sharing IC is that they see the impacts of their work more, instead of mostly working to make money by doing something they feel, at best, neutral about, to pay for necessities.
Just like in the mainstream, in most ICs, where individuals are responsible for generating their own income, if you can’t afford to live there, you have to leave. By creating a shared responsibility to meet the income needs of the whole community, a successful incoming-sharing IC eliminates housing insecurity for its members. This doesn’t mean that problems can’t still arise around people not doing their fair share that could result in someone being expelled. This is rarely simple and straightforward, and is always painful and divisive, but is generally dealt with in a much more relational and human-centered way than a typical eviction.
Income-sharing simplifies accounting by reducing or eliminating the need to track lots of transactions between individuals and the community. But more than that, because capitalism sees every relationship and interaction through a transactional lens, income-sharing changes how we experience things like sharing a community meal or hosting an event in a community space.
Money stress
Capitalism creates a hopeless dependence on itself and an overwhelming sense of personal and financial insecurity. Being part of an income-sharing IC can create a level of collective security and self-determination that challenges this. It is a profound experience to be part of a community of people who are contributing and receiving without the intermediary of money, particularly when there is an emphasis on egalitarianism.
The centrality of money, the way it drives so much of our interactions, and the constant stress of needing to make money to survive, is pervasive and taken for granted. People become inured to that stress because they’ve never experienced anything different and have no idea anything else is possible. There is an incredible amount of human potential suppressed by this stress, and it is hard to convey how it feels when it is relieved.
Sharing is hard
ICs face a number of common challenges. The strength of the challenges, and the work needed to address them, do tend to increase the more an IC shares, the larger it is, and the more complex its governance and organizational systems are.
Developing and maintaining trust is key. To join an IC is to join a set of intimate relationships. ICs often don’t do enough to integrate new members so that everyone involved has the sense of safety needed for the level of communication and engagement required.
There is an epidemic of unresolved conflict in ICs. Things happen, people don’t address them, they generate negative stories and judgements about each other, which leads to self-reinforcing interpretations about other things that happen. Over time it becomes impossible for them to talk about anything without triggering each other, which makes it virtually impossible for the community to address issues and evolve.
Most of us carry baggage from our experience of mainstream institutions, where harmful patterns of power and privilege are the norm. While these patterns do show up in ICs, it is not usually to the same degree. But it is usually tremendously difficult to talk about, which can lead to disproportionate reactions, driving people apart, and making it that much more difficult to address the actual issues.
Groups tend to lose their sense of shared purpose over time and fall into maintenance mode (which usually amounts to gradual deterioration) and lowest common denominator politics. Once this happens, they tend to lack the capacity to change and adapt, which makes regaining a sense of shared purpose even harder. Without a sense of purpose, it’s much easier to let apathetic, passive-aggressive, conflict-avoidant, manipulative, or abusive behavior prevail.
Many communities get stuck in various polarizing dynamics. A common one is between people who are resistant to change and those who demand it. Resistance can come from unchecked power and privilege, and also sometimes out of real fear of being left destitute if things fall apart, but leads them to be obstructive and controlling. The demands can come in the form of people who often have less to lose, attacking others or the community as a whole in generalized and exaggerated ways, without offering anything constructive or being willing to take responsibility for making things better. Both sides usually come with various kinds of trauma, legitimate unmet needs, and an underlying sense of entitlement, which capitalism instills to some degree in virtually everyone. And neither side tends to bring enough accountability, vulnerability, or compassion to allow for a constructive conversation.
Mitigating scarcity
All of the solutions I’m talking about assume a level of success that is certainly not guaranteed. Any economic system only works if there are sufficient resources. If there aren’t, the stress can foster or exacerbate conflicts without the group realizing it, which can make it harder to generate the resources needed, and lead to a doom spiral.
When collective resources are insufficient, people will tend to try to get their needs met outside of community systems and agreements, which can highlight inequalities in the group, fueling more conflict. It can also make it harder to recognize and value a diversity of contributions and maintain a sense of shared purpose, which can be divisive and demoralizing.
Many decisions a group makes have economic implications; if everyone isn’t operating with the same information, opinions are more likely to conflict. If hard choices have to be made, different priorities (e.g. the need to have an efficient labor system and the need to foster an enjoyable culture) can become points of tension instead of being synergistic. It is common for some people to be more familiar than others with the group’s financial situation and with all of the things that need to be done to keep the place going. This disparity can be very polarizing. It can aggravate, or even create a false semblance of personality conflicts, values conflicts, or power dynamics.
You can’t always control how much money you have coming in, but there are practices that can mitigate the problems with not having enough.
Along with clarity of purpose and agreement on prioritization, groups need transparent and accessible financial information, which require good practices around budgeting and accounting. It requires people who are good at presenting financial information in a digestible way to people who have a hard time with numbers and spreadsheets, and it also requires that everyone make an effort to understand the financial situation even if they have a hard time with it. Groups need a labor system based on a shared understanding of what they need and want to do, and realistic assessment of what that will take and what’s available. Governance systems and decision-making processes also need to be transparent and accessible, and be reasonably effective and efficient. All of this needs to be accompanied by good systems and skills for communication and conflict resolution.
Many groups want to be more equitable by allowing different levels of contribution based on past experiences of privilege and oppression; this only works if the total amount of contributions are enough to sustain the community, and it’s better not to have to guess at what that is.
If compromises or accommodations need to be made and everyone is well informed, it’s more likely a group can make mutually acceptable decisions. Capitalism is based on secrecy and competition, which means that we come into cooperative groups with a baseline of mistrust. Transparent and accessible systems are a key part of the remedy.
Systems are important, but culture is perhaps more so, and on some level, culture is simply the sum of individual behaviors. Self-awareness, vulnerability, care, compassion, and a willingness to give and receive feedback and have other difficult conversations, are necessary to develop the culture of trust, commitment, responsibility, accountability, and integrity needed for systems to operate effectively. This isn’t something that you can legislate. Written policies and agreements can be helpful, but it still requires a critical mass of individuals in a group to take it upon themselves to show up in this way.
Sharing is hard, and that’s the point
You could interpret all of the problems as meaning that Intentional Community doesn’t work. But the whole point of it is to address the problems of society. Of course we’re going to have a tendency to recreate those problems, either by how we design our communities, or through the behavior we learned from mainstream culture.
ICs are microcosms, but they are also more than microcosms. By trying to do something different, we create the opportunity to make different choices, but this takes work. The problems that arise are simply pointing out work we need to do to get out of the trap of capitalism, which is part of the work of creating a livable future on this planet for all people.
Change is uncomfortable, but needed
The sense of belonging and togetherness that we’re deprived of in mainstream society drives us to seek community. We want it, we believe in it, but we’re not used to it, don’t know how to do it, haven’t had an experience of it, and have a lot of baggage that gets in the way.
Relative to the mainstream, all ICs share a lot, but most are sharing less than they could. We’re missing a range of models that would help people see what’s possible, and the dangers are apparent. Sharing is hard. Change is scary and uncomfortable.
While I am certainly advocating for more sharing, I recognize that we’re all stretched thin, and there’s only so far we can push ourselves before we get triggered and resist. I don’t want ICs to get mired in conflict or even fall apart by trying to push too far.
At the same time, the more economically entwined we are, the more we will have to work things out, and if this is taken on as a practice, the better we’ll get at it. And if we consider the state of the world and where we’re heading, what we are being called to do, and what we will need to do to respond effectively is not going to be comfortable. We need to get more practiced at making change. And one of the best places we have to practice is in our communities, together.
Thank you for reading!
In community,
Sky Blue
About the author: Yes, my name is Sky Blue. Yes, my parents were hippies. They met at Twin Oaks Community, a 56-year old, rural, income-sharing IC in Virginia. I went back and joined when I was 19, raised a kid (who is now 21) in a poly family, and put in 14 years of membership.
I am 43 yo, gender-fluid/non-binary, socialized-as-male, white, able-bodied, and come from a counter-culture, working-class background. I am on a life-long journey of learning how to recognize & leverage my privilege, and practice anti-oppression in my life.
I’m a massive intentional community nerd, and this movement has been my world for 28 years. I’ve lived in 7 different intentional communities, including a Cohousing community, a Student Housing Co-op, a Coliving house, and several places that could be called ecovillages. I’ve visited over 130 in North America and Europe. I’m a networker and movement builder, most notably serving as the Twin Oaks delegate to the Federation of Egalitarian Communities, as the Executive Director of the Foundation for Intentional Community for 4 years, and as the primary representative of the FIC to the New Economy Coalition. I also spent 4 years as a community organizer in Charlottesville, VA.
Suggested content:
Definition of capital from investopedia.com
’We the People' - the three most misunderstood words in US history - “The son of an American woman of Dutch heritage and a Navajo man, Mark Charles offers a unique perspective on three of the most misinterpreted words in American History. Written in the Papal Bulls of the 15th Century, embedded in our founding documents in the 18th Century, codified as legal precedent in the 19th Century and referenced by the Supreme Court in the 20th and 21st Centuries, the Doctrine of Discovery has been used throughout the history of the United States to keep ‘We the People’ from including all the people.”
White Supremacy Culture Characteristics
Roots Deeper than Whiteness - Includes a look at how the upholding of capitalism by non-owning class people helped the creation of racial identities.
Economics for Emancipation - online self-paced curriculum
The Limitations of Black Capitalism - article, podcast interview
The Problem with Green Capitalism - podcast episode
Crises of Capitalism - “In this RSA Animate [video], celebrated academic David Harvey looks beyond capitalism towards a new social order. Can we find a more responsible, just, and humane economic system?”
Pathways to a People’s Economy
Richard Wolff's observations about the definitional debates on capitalism:
https://truthout.org/articles/critics-of-capitalism-must-include-its-definition/
https://truthout.org/articles/on-the-meaning-of-capitalism-we-don-t-agree/
Capitalism dehumanizes people by reducing them to their economic value:
https://monthlyreview.org/2020/07/01/colonialism-migration-pandemic/
Universal Declaration of Human Rights - Whose responsibility is it to meet these needs? International human rights law makes three distinctions: in some contexts, states have the obligation only to respect human rights; in other contexts to proactively protect human rights, and in other contexts to fulfill them. Capitalist thinking does its best to limit state obligations.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-and-mechanisms/international-human-rights-law
https://climateandcapitalism.com/2010/07/28/un-declares-water-a-human-right/