This book examines and compares three communal movements whose origins can be traced, in some measure, to the German Youth Movement. At the outset, let us consider what is meant here by the term ‘communal movement’. Specifically, what does ‘communal’ mean? Moreover, why are these bodies ‘movements’? Taking up the first question, the obvious answer is that all three movements live what could be termed a ‘common life’. However, they do not live the same type of common life. The Kibbutz movement and the Bruderhof communities take the form of ‘communes’. In these communities, the population mainly lives and works together in the commune, where the actual site, buildings and means of production and consumption are owned collectively by the members of the community. There are some caveats to be entered here. The members of the Bruderhof generally take the principle of common ownership rather further than those of the Kibbutz. Also, there is a small but growing trend to the formation of urban kibbutzim. In the urban kibbutzim it is not the general practice for members to work in departments of the kibbutz, but rather to work for outside bodies. (There may be minor exceptions connected with educational work.) In fact a substantial section of the membership of the traditional kibbutzim now also works outside the commune, but this is a departure from traditional practice.

By contrast, the Integrierte Gemeinde do not live in communes; rather, the members belong to small ‘table communities’ which meet to eat and talk regularly several times a week. They also belong to ‘geographical’ communities, with a maximum of 120 members, who meet weekly for ‘assemblies’. Members retain ownership of their own money and other property, but statements by leaders make it clear that there is an expectation that members’ money will be available for the common tasks of the community. Members may live in ‘integration houses’ that effectively form part of the movement, and may work in enterprises that are seen as expressions of the movement's economic activity, although formally these belong to one or more of the movement's individual members rather than the community as such. This is clearly a more complex structure than the fairly straightforward commune system adopted by the other two movements. However, it does allow for the development of a common life that is every bit as solid and real as that of the other movements.