There was a famous hippie one, the Rainbow Family, that outlasted most. Most of the ones that had a work ethic and really believed in sharing did better than the ones formed out of discontent and rebellion.
It wasn't the pot. Most group arrangements I remember failed because of arguments over fairness. If one person is holding down an outside job to bring in money, is he/she more valuable to the group than the one nobly volunteering to do all the cooking? What if only one has a car, and the one with a job depends on the car to get there? The more successful groups planned labor division and group reliance without outside influences.
A quick search indicates yes, but also turns up a lot of "communes." For instance, during the French revolution that term was used, Maybe the earliest were the Essenes of Dead Sea scroll fame. Here is a description of one that still functions: http://america.aljazeera.com/multimedia/2014/12/communes-still-thrivedecadesafterthe60sbuteconomyisabummerman.html
There was a famous hippie one, the Rainbow Family, that outlasted most. Most of the ones that had a work ethic and really believed in sharing did better than the ones formed out of discontent and rebellion.
Thanks for the link. The fact that they had a work ethic surprises me. Most hippies are pot smoking lay abouts.
It wasn't the pot. Most group arrangements I remember failed because of arguments over fairness. If one person is holding down an outside job to bring in money, is he/she more valuable to the group than the one nobly volunteering to do all the cooking? What if only one has a car, and the one with a job depends on the car to get there? The more successful groups planned labor division and group reliance without outside influences.