the ideal village

There's no such thing as the Ideal Village. Too often eco-villages, communities or organizations are founded on ideology. What you get with ideologies is people who are less willing to do the work to feed the families that live there and more interested in quibbling over the finer points of consensus and ethics. Through eons, the foundation of successful human villages has been caring for the Grandmas, Grandpas and grandchildren that live there.

http://trackerspdx.com/blog/posts/2010/05/18/the_ideal_village

I disagree with what makes a successful village. As I see it what has brought us together and kept us together is the recognition that we depends on those around us. Is several hunter gatherer civilizations the especially old or weak or sick were set adrift on iceflows or left in the wilderness for death to take them. We have to recognize the importance of those around us for our own sake, and have a system where we can all rely on our own importance for their sake. That way we become mutually dependent on each other and we escape the logic of the zero sum game, and start playing nice with each other.

As for the idealism I agree.

Pre-civilization peoples HAD to work together for survival.IMO As soon as humans abandon their relationships with their landscapes(anamism)and became ideological beings the squabling started.

I sort of agree. I think squabbling started many, many times throughout history, but our recent, more comfortable situation allows the same sort of squabbling to go a lot farther before it exhausts the space available.

Now that so many of us live so far from the knife-edge of survival, there are survivable niches for a colorful and mind-bogglingly diverse ecosystem of interpersonal conflicts, including some incredibly specialized ones. The few niches in pre-civilization would favor squabbles that more resemble a frozen tundra than a coral reef: abundant tiny squabbles that keep their heads down and grind away come hell or high water, and a few large no-nonsense conflicts that moved fast and could overpower almost anything.

Very well put!A great read is Archeology of Violence which looks at the function of primitive war-to maintain each community in its political independence.Tribal warfare brings the tribe together in its defence.Nation States go to war to rally their citizens.Fear of Other reinforces the bonds of the tribe.The acceptance of anonymity within this culture allows people to abandon their communities.

Community and culture.. It's hard to start separating the two, they are not the same. If we look at Eurasian cultures many have a culture that shows great respect to not only elders but respect for deceased family members to a far greater degree than what I see as modern mobile western culture.
It's not uncommon for four generations of a family in say India for example living within the same house. It's something that I see reversing here  recently with grandparents raising grandchildren and families starting to take care of elderly parents, but it is currently more of an economic necessity than a reverence for children or the elderly in my personal geographic area.
Modern mobility and melding has definitely exacerbated the the number of different cultures and conflicts that  occur at a much greater pace than previously possible.
Now lets reverse the words  a bit to the Culture of Community
With that combination I think it narrows the scope to the successful village that sees value in its members. Anonymity in a community encourages or allows that disconnect or apathetic acceptance of non participation. A successful community exists because of interaction with the members. Without interaction and  shared responsibilities it is not a community but a housing tract.