It occurs to me that the "you need to do some physical labor" part of that might be an effective parasite-repellent. All cooperative endeavors need some method of handling the occasional parasite, because otherwise they will tend to accumulate. If they have to do physical labor, they would, I'm guessing, tend to move on quickly.

The Farm in Tennessee as far as I know is a counter example. They definitely interact with the outside economy and have some specialties, but there isn't a centralized business they all contribute towards.

Another counter example (though not from the 70s) is Dancing Rabbit. It is 25 years old and doesn't have a centralized business, though people there often do cited difficulty finding work as a problem, and a leading reason to not stick around.

Also Earthhaven in NC has no central business and is 23 years old.

Usually, in the communities movement, “commune” is a term-of-art for “an income-sharing community”. So, your list doesn’t really reference surviving secular communes.

The Farm stopped being an income-sharing commune many decades ago. Now it’s more like a co-housing community, with private ownership or control of most things.

Dancing Rabbit’s founding income sharing group disbanded many years ago, but it’s core mission wasn’t about being income sharing, and the community continued just fine without having an income-sharing subcommunity.

Earthhaven was never income-sharing, to the best of my knowledge.

So I don’t think any of these are really counter-examples; a business that new members can plug into (and a mechanism to exclude free-loaders, which The Farm didn’t really have) are both really important for a long-term successful income-sharing commune.

Thanks for the clarification, i missed that distinction at first.

These are all very different types of entities than communes. The Farm, DR and Earthaven are all important collective living situations and historically important intentional communities. None of them are currently communes, as in shared income situations. This makes their operations much easier. People can have different and separate financial situations, there is no need for a shared cottage industry. Members can work straight jobs in the outside world and bring money home. All the FEC communities pool and share income, often there is a cottage industry new members can plug into (this is not the case with Compersia in DC, Cotyledon in NYC or Cambia in Louisa however). It is much easier to build and sustain communities which are not communes and not income sharing, largely because it is easier to find people who are willing to join.

This is an interesting point because it reminds me of something much older. Monasteries now (and I assume historically too) had a business to cover their expenses. The monks are supposed to work enough at the business to keep it going in addition to maintaining the monastery and doing everything else they do.