Natural community is usually formed spontaneously, it has its own inner bonds – direct and retrospective and it works on the principle of natural mechanisms that connect and usually it is itself a certain natural mechanism.
The main conviction is identity with the community, some kind of unconditional belonging to its ranks. Identity is an anthropological constant, it is derived from the human essence and signalizes that humans are social being and without society and its civilization he cannot survive. Identity can be divided into several structural levels – family, municipality, nation but also for example a football club or a political party. It depends on which part prevails. For survival and existence of an individual it is necessary to have a community, where individuals succumb to identical general order and they are raised in it, they can easily cooperate and feel secure, while this community is essential for their life. Identity is necessary mostly for life and if it is not, something is not right; there is chaos of identity accompanied by chaos of cooperation and mutual interests. Because of unnatural ideas, identity with the basic society can be missing, it is realized in the form of substitution (identity with a football club, with a company, a religious group) and causes confusion, because people have to cooperate in their life interests with their neighbours, their children’s teachers, their family members and be the creators of the social environment, take part in ensuring the safety and other functions of the society. Complete loss of identity shows exploitation, people usually do not feel well in such a situation (emigrants), they start getting insecure. A person without an identity is on the verge of nothingness and transition to “divinity” and disjunction from what is natural. They usually explain this with the help of cosmopolitan ideas.
Tribes and later municipalities, city-states and also so-called big society (states) were also natural communities. Even family with its solidary relationships is a natural community. As a whole and as individual members it is then a part of a wider community of the municipality, which then belongs to the state etc. Inside natural communities there are strategic styles that can be of two types: 1. Solidarity, 2. Competition. Above these styles there is an introductory circumstance – belonging, based on identity and controlling the ratio of solidarity to competition according to the needs of the society. Only a part of general belonging, which I call rooting and which is based on the equilibrium of beneficial and virtuous approaches connected to home. It is a minimum requirement. People have to be rooted in their homes, so that the society can exist meaningfully and continually, so that they have enough generalness to be able to assess the ideas promoting solidarity, or a competition, regarding the needs of the community. Both these strategic styles are described by Kabele (see 68) as oppositional values: conflict and solidarity, whereas conflict is solved with the help of competition game (a competition).
I call mutual positive relationship between people simply solidarity, by which I mean the whole set of relationships, not only solidarity with those in need, but also relationships of cooperation – work solidarity, solidarity with neighbours and solidarity within the ideological unity of the community. Solidarity is therefore a part of a wider approach to belonging.
Belonging is a superior idea serving a big society. A typical example is an effort for ensuring safety. Competition is a natural principle and it has its own natural rules based on anthropological constants, however the rules of the competition have to be determined by an order. Community imitating a wolf pack (so-called), in which there is no solidarity and all the members only compete with one another and destroy one another or at best ostracize the weaker ones, does not give people the security necessary for them to fight for common interests. It stops to be a community and usually it is quickly defeated by another competitor. In the better case, which is the current modernity, solidarity is substituted with economical competition – the market. The market exceeds moral limitations and substitutes all institutions that will lose their original solidary meaning. People will be able to buy anything. Voters will let the politicians buy them promises of a material character, politicians will let interest groups buy them, doctors will “cultivate” patients’ illnesses so that they have enough work and moreover they will get money from a pharmacist to which they send the patient for medication. I think that we can all imagine such a society; it is being created right in front of us. Liberal economists and philosophers somehow forgot that if they fight socialism and the hypertrophied function of the state, they make the competition extreme on the expense of solidarity, which is necessary to create rules like laws and moral norms, or at least protect and maintain these rules (we must not change solidarity for egalitarianism). At first glance it seems that competition is a decomposing value, but it is not true. Competition only substitutes other mechanisms that do not work and it seems that it somehow saves the society in crisis from total chaos. Community based only on solidarity usually “drowns” itself in its solidarity, the incompetent become the leaders of the community, there is no natural selection of the healthier and more competent people and the community has a weak chance in a competition with other communities. If there are such communities, such as for example monastic orders, their surrounding society has to help them and maintain them with outer force. Communist regime in theory was basically this model. However it is obvious that in a whole society competing with other communities, this model can never be maintained. The main problem is how to satisfy merit acts that ensure the performance of the society. If the criteria are only nice, they can never be fair. The most important insufficiency is non-system emotive division of benefits, usually in an egalitarian way, which becomes unfair.
Finding the equilibrium of both parts reacting spontaneously to changes of existential environment is an optimistic solution for the community. This equilibrium is contained in the traditional order, which usually is a main external feature of a community. Here the law of natural selection, influenced by solidarity, is realized as a humanistic competition.
There was always a need for some kind of way of agreement in governing a society. There were written agreements, unwritten agreements and also feudal states had Estates Assemblies and municipalities had their self-administration. With more advanced population it was possible to introduce general democracy, which contains the harmony of competition and solidarity with superior national belonging. The flaws of current democracy are showing because there is no feeling of belonging, the parliament is there only to promote particular interests and the rules of the competition are not kept. The traditional law and natural principles give the rules of the competition in a democracy. For democracy, the theory described by Kabele (see 68) called the model of universal competition game, where the players and the judges are in one group, applies in a limited way. However I understand that this model is universal and theoretically it could be possible to create a game with the referees as judges on this principle. A competition needs teams, therefore there has to be a government (thesis) provoking an opposition (antithesis) and democracy is in fact a dialectics without an output (without synthesis), statically working and searching only for middle ways. Antithesis (opposition) has to have its own independent means, therefore there have to be people with independent means, the government must not be absolutistic and totalitarian. If the government and the opposition are given only by very rich subjects, then it is not about people anymore; it is only about the rich competing over the country. Therefore there has to be an independent middle class having their own means, which will create thesis and antithesis and the conflict is then about the problems of the people. Very poor people, who are not able to ensure their own independent means, are usually out of the game and the parties need them only as voters. However there are exceptions, there have been sympathetic revolutionaries, but this can never last long. Another exception is young enthusiastic people, who are temporarily committed. The super rich often use them against the middle class. Stable democracy can work well only when the middle class is extensive enough, ideally when the middle class represents most of the population. But because today the situation is different and most of the people are consumer proletarians (people, who have a sufficient economic status, but they do not have independent means), independent middle class is a minority and does not engage, mafia parties manipulate the consumer proletarians with promises and the democracy does not work. Democracy can never be sustained in a completely proletarian state because there are no independent means to create an opposition. There always has to be an antithesis, because uncontrolled power of politicians and bureaucrats, although originally elected and wanted, is always abused, moreover you need competition forced so that there are good conditions for changes and development.
However all these opposing elements have to have belonging with the society, they have to engage in the interests of the society, not only in the interests of the individuals and groups. They have to be willing to change; they have to have a vision and information. Lack of vision in current democracy signalizes especially lack of belonging, which would stimulate engaging and create moral thoughts for the interests of the society without being dependent on the group interests or ideologies. A so-called discourse, deliberative democracy according to Habermas (see 71) based on a “discussion” between communities and organizations requires moral order, which already vanished. Actually today it means only convincing with the help of money, blackmailing of discredited people and media strategy, eventually leading to government of money. I think that especially after overcoming the current anomy, a democratically elected organ of a sufficient size to have independent means, but also small to ensure that people know about the issues and do not have to rely on media mediation (they were always subject to interest influences), has far greater strength and legitimacy. Then there can be a quality democracy, which can decide about the basic issues right in front of the citizens, easily without manipulating and demagogy. Big, usually international companies should not be given any institutionary function.
Within system controlling it is necessary to create municipalities with their own economic and social competences (taxes), which compete between themselves. Inside of the municipalities there are smaller means necessary for political engagement and then the engaging middle class is formed with people, who would not have enough means for state politics. The creation of centralized state, limitation of the natural community of the municipality and also the family ended the competition between the municipalities and also the competition of the families within the municipalities. In capitalistic states the only competition left was the market. The whole deformed paradigm based on reified idols – freedom and equality that, in a certain form, is the only natural mechanism – market – accompanied by, then leads the European and the whole Western civilization to politically no-win situations. But solidarity will not make this right because itself it is usually not perceived as ideal but only as a strategic style of groups and individuals. It is necessary to strengthen the general idea of belonging with the society and all the attributes that are connected to it, including the traditional order, which then will ensure harmony, not extreme solidarity again.
Family is the smallest natural community, which evolved naturally into a productive element, which is able to exist independently to a certain extent. If the family does not have the features of a community, which makes living independently and lives separately, it does not work well. Economic relationships within the equilibrium of virtuous and merit acting are as important as the emotional ones. Most families do not work on the base of emotiveness, the economic side is also important to the mutual bonds (love goes through the stomach etc.). Women and men are in a way different and their biological specialization is promoted by different upbringing, which was historically proven to be the most productive in a given order of the community. Different missions have good impact in the productivity and mutual dependence in a complementary division of work in the family, and this dependence makes the family stick together to a certain extent. If the couple mutually needs one another, the division of work and different roles do not allow them to exist separately; therefore coherence is more likely to occur. Family as an economic unit is the most natural object and it is a productive and adaptive state for both the family and the society. The best forms of this model were private farms, peasant and craftsman family companies that existed not long ago. In these units usually women made the decisions, they also sold the products and handled family finances. Family is therefore based as static and generationally stable dual set. Internally there is no dialectics, if the aim is not to destroy it.
Family is very important for allocating the earned means to reproduction and therefore it was created as a model in successful communities. It would be hard to ensure healthy reproduction and function of the law of natural selection using any other way (no one has ever come up with a different meaningful model, which would fulfil these functions). The perishing of economic function of the family, in an unnatural world given by deformed values of individualism and emancipation of individuals and by the loss of family economic units with complementary activities of the married couple and their children, leads to implicit inadaptability and vanishing of the competition between families and therefore to threatening the function of higher communities (municipalities, the state). Despite this, I think that the situation in technologies will make us restore the economic activities of families (see section on Autarchy).
The municipality has to be given competences in terms of economic and social areas and also possibilities to change and collect taxes. Such a municipality can become a natural mechanism working on the base of the highest elements of democracy. This is supported by the experience with governing in a small state similar to a municipality – Lichtenstein, as described by Hans-Adam II (see 69).
Of course that indifferent and always moaning consumer proletarians have to become at least the members of the middle class with their reserve means, their real properties and their possibility of independent livelihood. Then there is a municipality, which is an essential part of a future timeless society, but also for a functional state.
T. Lessing (see 52) refused a nation based on race or blood, he called it the community of a common culture, even though it is possible to invoke the common ancestry via myths, which are a part of a culture and help maintain self-respect. A nation is a natural community based on a rather complicated natural mechanism, based on public opinion, information, the public and therefore also on various direct and indirect feedbacks. As all communities (e.g. a family), a nation needs an emotional relationship, which in this case is called patriotism. Patriotism is a transcendental compositional idea directed towards creating a community based on belonging. Without this relationship the nation has zero social capital and it falls apart.
The nation is a priority for timeless humanism. It means cooperation of people within a natural community. This cooperation is necessary for survival, especially if the existence of the nation is threatened (today not usually by another nation, but by the behaviour of the nation itself). Therefore absence of national awareness is also a dangerous element, which questions the possibility of cooperation on a timeless society project. I have stated the seriousness of this danger in the section on Individualism. Decomposing forces influencing the vanishing of communities have the same essence, it is a process of disjunction given by ideas created from disjunction from the natural world and it decomposes the family as well as the nation and the municipality. Only in a few cases the individual aspects do not necessarily have the same intensity and occurrence.
In higher communities, such as the state or a nation, the natural emotive relationship given by human essence is not enough; it is necessary to base the existence of the community on some kind of unifying idea. Such idea is usually contained naturally in the culture of the nation and in its traditional order. The existence of a community then depends on the balance of unity in diversity. Unity is based on emotive solidarity and diversity allows competition. Introductory circumstance of equilibrium is again belonging with the community. The state of this equilibrium is important, to ensure that unity does not limit freedom and that diversity does not promote decomposition. The definition of this equilibrium says that in a community, there cannot be decomposing elements, elements destroying unity and threatening the community, however at the same time there have to be enough unified but diverse elements so that the competition and therefore development is ensured. Tolerance of the inner elements is determining the limitations of unity. What is true for a community is now true also for organisations and associations of every kind.
For the unifying idea to secure and increase the function of the community, it is necessary to raise the children with this idea, usually at school, and claim and advocate unity – all this with a healthy dose of tolerance. Unity then becomes an introductory circumstance for social life.
Unity however does not mean refusing skew ideas that have something more, something harmless, but otherwise correspond to the idea of unity. These people can be for example ecologists, who unlike others carry out activities beneficial for the society. The same applies to religious ideas that correspond with the state idea or the national idea.
Emotive enthusiasm caused by diversity with common values, which usually happens to people, who reunite in a new house or in a New world, has its own natural limits given by common culture and common education. The ability to compromise one’s values in order to maintain unity has also its limits. Therefore the community usually agrees on a common culture and states the range of tolerance, which is uncompromising.
In current modernity there is an effort to extreme the tolerance towards individual behaviour within individualistic thinking. Therefore it is necessary to find out to what extent is the tolerance of individuals a constructing value – to what extent this tolerance makes the individual a part of the unity, and to what extent is the tolerance a decomposing value – causing aversion of the majority and it would be violent to make the individual a part of the unity. We need to have a democratic approach, not extreme values of tolerance imposed from outside. A community has the right to determine its limits of tolerance within its order and democratic mechanism.
Therefore in many communities that somehow “united”, there are problems with the less adaptable members, who do not honour unity. It is usually very necessary to set a tolerance of outer interference, as I mentioned above. Outer influences of bigger extent disable the function of the community and this community has to know the tolerance and require it. It needs to know, which outer influences are harmful and which are not. That is why the rules have to state clearly, which acting is against unity, which is entropic – decomposing the society. Leasing reminds us: “Who gives up the law, is giving up the nation” (see 52). The nation is by the way given by traditional values and laws that it keeps (see crosses in Polish schools and Christian rules of life).
While the state, a municipality, a company or an association are natural communities based on a certain common interest that are able to exist individually, unnatural communities are those that have no natural mechanism. These are the communities that were created by someone without a common feature. They are for example homosexuals, the disabled, people of a certain skin colour, people with no common municipality or a community, united only with a political purpose. Their existence and behaviour points out to the decomposition of the society and breaking of the society into interest groups without general belonging. Identity with such a group is usually very weak, often artificially created. These anthropological groups are not natural communities, they do not work autonomously and they are not able to exist individually. These people usually belong into other natural communities based on something completely different. In a municipality, there can be a Jewish businessman; Ukrainian workers, women and men carry out their activities within the division of work. Complementary activities of individuals of anthropological groups ensure the unity in diversity in a community. Artificially created anthropological groups destroy this unity.
An unnatural community is also a so-called community, based on communitarian principles. These can be purpose-built or religiously focused. Usually there are only emotive and normative relationships, merit is refused and property is common or under control. Because property means freedom and the members of the community must not be free to maintain the integrity. Those, who – usually voluntarily – enter such a community (e.g. a sect), do not realize that they lose freedom with the loss of material property. They are usually confused by various modernistic ideals about property being unacceptable. Such a community does not have the right balance between merit and moral behaviour. Inside there are no rules determining a natural community, mostly the balance of solidarity and competition, the balance of moral and merit acting is missing (see 11). Harmful sects cannot exist in a natural environment, where they would work to earn a living, but only in a modernistic environment, where there is possible to acquire means a different way than by complex economic activity. If former religious groups having the character of a sect moved to wasteland (Puritans, Old Believers), their theses would be immediately selected and most of them have already been overcome.