What are some positive attributes of communal living? What are the negatives?

Collective ownership is a central tenet of the Lebensborn Program. What are some positive attributes of communal living? What are the negatives?

Having never lived in such an environment it seems very foreign to me. But I would imagine that having someone to discuss problems with and someone to rely on would be a positive aspect. Negative for me would be not having any truly alone time or a place to go and be alone. I value that very much, especially getting some peace and quiet time every day.

Sharing the work load would be a benefit. Lacking privacy would be very difficult.

I can not imagine living in a communal situation for myself. It would be very negative for me. The lack of privacy and always having people around would make me crazy, but for the right person it could be great! I agree with the other two comments about the positive and the negative.

In my opinion, communal living could only work if the human race were perfect. And since it is not, you will always have greed, jealousy, selfishness and laziness. In other words, not everyone would contribute as much as they can and this would cause problems. Eventually, disagreements would cause a major conflict among the people involved.

Communal living is successful in some circumstances but certainly not all. Take the kibbutz concept in Israel in the early days of Statehood when it was necessary to band together to survive. But over the years many of the kibbutzim have modified themselves to include home ownership, offering rental property to outsiders and ways to reach the larger community with the fruits of their labors , in other words they changed when they needed to. Children lived apart from their parents in a communal dormitory because they HAD to to free up the parents to work. Over the years this concept was replaced. The key to any communal living concept is to be able to change with the times which was not the case in many communities that failed.

I believe privacy is achieveable within a communal atmosphere. I have lived and worked within this lifestyle and found it rewarding and satisfying. We all have areas that we flourish in..i.e. gardening, cooking, building, teaching and some we do not enjoy and to have the opportunity to focus on your "gift" while others do the same with theirs is limitless in its rewards. In this lifestyle, personal history in the areas of cooking, gardening and such can be shared and carried forth through the sharing attained in the communal living. In this way, ones "private" history becomes a "shared" history. It's life continues through sharing.

I find many "positives"...the opportunity to keep our personal "gifts" living through others. To privitize our knowledge is to deny others the ability to step aside of hurdles that have already been "jumped" by you.
Negatives? To not carefully oversee the members (if this is possible) admitted. If forced communal living is at issue then we "change" and accept and mold the grouping we find ourselves in.

The negative side would be lack of privacy. The positive would be sharing your problems with others and forming bonds.

If you CHOOSE communal living that is a way of life that can be very liberating. Each person does what they do best or enjoy doing (I HATE to iron, my mother LOVES to iron: I'm terrible at bookkeeping, my business partner is not only good at it, she likes it.) I didn't find this to be the case in the Lebensborn Program at all. This felt coercive and brutal.
Communal Living can only succeed when everyone involved has a say and choice in the activities of the group, how and when those activities take place and who decides. When decision making in the hands of a priviledged few, only division and unhappiness can be the result. The Lebensborn Program reminded of the Jonestown cult and others that ended in disaster.

I think that from the other's comments the key is whether the communal living is forced upon one or is the result of a choice one makes. For some people a very structured and shared environment is a comfort and blessing but for some one like myself I think it would be totally limiting and frustrating.

I don't see the Lebensborn Program as a commune, but rather enforced labor in many forms. As I understand communal living, members usually choose to participate, sharing responsibilities and dividends. The Lebensborn Program had one purpose - to provide children in the image of the Aryan race and perform other chores and work as assigned. Any dividends were small and actually insignificant.

It's so hard to say without being in this position but personally I love my solitude. It would drive me out of my mind. Then again, as others have said, if labor were divided evenly that would be a positive. Still, it has a forced component I'm not so comfortable with.

I'm an American, though, with personal space issues! It's different in Europe. If you've been there you'll know what I mean. That would be a huge negative for me, unless the commune was the size of, oh, Montana...

I Agree with Ann S. The Lebensborn Program was not a commune by any stretch of the imagination. I was especailly horrified to see that children were taken away from their mothers and given to others with the birth mothers not knowing any more about the children or the families where they ended up. Also, the "mothers' in the program were expected to act as prostitutes for the benefit of the higher ranking officers. Actually the "mothers" could be considered slaves.