thread: 2006-08-31 : I think my expectations are screwed

On 2006-09-03, Emily wrote:

Thanks, Sydney. I very much agree with your "drop any one of these three and you're in trouble" point. Buddha said, "but don't just take my word for it", but presumably he expected that people would read his words first, etc.

Re polyandry: it has been practiced in Tibet for just those reasons.

Ian wrote: I will suggest that there is nothing in commune structures that are innately anti-capitalist, that don't contribute to it. It's a strange comparison, but one that bears considering: many immigrants live in arrangements that are structurally related to 'communes' as Emily used the term. Those people, far from not contributing to capitalism, often play a defining role within it.

(hi Ian!)It is true. Though they are often the ones more exploited, or reaping the least benefit from it.  Shared resources is associated with being lower on the totem pole in this country. The higher in status you are, the more resources you use for fewer people. I just read a blurb about the "jet set", literally about owners of private jets and where they spend their money: an average of $30,000/yr on alcohol, ave of $160,000 on hotels and resorts, the list goes on like that. Millions on art. Contrast that with migrant or immigrant workers being paid sub-minimum wage living 10 in a 2 bedroom apartment.

The nuclear family is a new phenomenon, pretty much unsustainable at any time prior to recent history, and even currently, outside of the developed world.  Communes are really just hearkening back to the social organization still being practiced by extended families living together. Witness the recent trend of more young adults living with their family for longer (so called slackers and others).  It just make financial sense to not have to support separate dwellings and all the related expenses.

But there is a group financial structure that is protected: the corporation. This is how those with high status and high financial class do group their resources.  Corporations have elaborate and strong protections and great tax benefits.  For this reason, many people in (very) non-standard household situations form limited liability corporations. It is a way to take part in those benefits and protections that is recognized by the state.  Nothing to do with the reproductive unit, but instead the economic one.


This makes...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":