John Michael Greer just wrote a good article on the establishment of intentional communities.
If you aren't familiar with his work, please ignore what he does for a living and the title of his blog until you've given his writing a chance...otherwise it's easy to judge him too soon.
A major point in the article is that communities need two things in order to work: "The first is an accepted principle of authority; the second is a definite boundary between members and nonmembers."
He says it's tough to get a community to work in the US because we assume any authority is corrupt, and because we assume any criteria for membership are unfair. He gives some excellent counterexamples from US history: egalitarian principles of authority, and fair criteria for membership.
I think this speaks tangentially to Paul's exploration of more-hierarchical, less-consensus-based communities. Specifically, Greer suggests that people have abandoned what now seems kind of wise: excluding from the consensus-building process anyone who doesn't accept the results of that process.
It also addresses part of the motivation behind eco-fundamentalism, or eco-puritanism, or eco-McCarthyism, as discussed on another
thread. The article points out that it's difficult to disagree with the values of the old system, and yet rely on its benefits, but most everyone I know is in that difficult situation, and trying to overcome that conflict. Greer addresses other, related responses, but I think zealotry is an all-too-common one.
I'd recommend the article to anyone interested in community-building, though, and would like to hear what others have to say:
http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/01/this-presupposition-of-passivity.html
"the qualities of these bacteria, like the heat of the sun, electricity, or the qualities of metals, are part of the storehouse of knowledge of all men. They are manifestations of the laws of nature, free to all men and reserved exclusively to none." SCOTUS, Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kale Inoculant Co.