Foundation Life ParkPractice concept “Concept of Integral Society” in the Tollense Life Park, GermanyIn the year 2006, this project was founded by 10 people as a community project in this historic place to live human, socialand economic as they see fit.After 6 years of practice, research, the collection and evaluation of theoretical and practical experiences and insights,the comprehensive practice concept "Concept of Integral Society" was developed.In cooperation with the Foundation Life Park, the implementation of this practical project started on 01/01/2012 in theTollense Life Park in Alt Rehse, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany, in the north of Berlin.This pilot project should also prove in practice that people solidar economic and with a basic income be able to take thefreedom to design for the own life in a responsible and self-determined manner and that a social and economiccoexistence in the sense of a human-oriented and substance-based economic activity is possible and makes sense.Combined were the focus areas:• buildup of community / community development• deep ecology• values-oriented democracy• Solidarity Economy / Social Entrepreneurship / Economy for the Common Good• regional and sustainable circular economy• basic livelihood• partial autarky and self-sufficiency• common property / common land• existence, assets and old-age security• substance-based and interest-free investment• educational and orientation workIn a further step, it was planned to introduce a regional complementary currency (ReCom), which should function asmonetary system according to the interest-free principle of flowing money.From the flow charges arising from the transfer of money through the exchange of goods, a basic income should thenbe generated and paid monthly to all participants in the same amount.It was initially created for two years and designed for up to 100 people.Project Management, Fundraising & Public Relations - Foundation Life Park: Martin BeseckeRésuméThis project has yielded numerous insights related to a fundamental sustainability and practicability of such projects,in particular with regard to their objectives.So revealed here too the relationships of value creation possibilities in connection with the buildup of a necessary internalcommunity and social welfare services.Almost all of these projects are rarely able to fully finance themselves or through their own economic power. This basicallyworks only under very specific framework conditions, which, however, as a result of self-preservation, in practice meana strict limitation of size, a social exclusion and separation as well as a strict selection process for potential participantsaccording to specific selection criteria. And in turn, this selection process produces an internal society that, of course,can not be compared to the plurality and diversity of an overall society.Because of this in principle homogeneity of the project community, then also the aspects of the development of democracy,especially from the point of view of a pluralistic overall society, must be clearly questioned.Likewise, the assumptions that such projects promote the development of personal responsibility, public spirit, solidarity,cooperation and a political interest and commitment can not be confirmed. But on the contrary, in order to be ableto maintain the internal functioning, it is necessary to introduce a tight set of regulations with sanctioning mechanisms andpractices, which are often more stringent than is necessary in an overall social system.Such projects do not cause, so to speak, an automatic awareness raising, (further) development or transformation of thehuman being, but they even focus especially clear the limits of the reality of the human.It can also be seen that the smaller the community or regional units become, the greater the likelihood that forms ofnationalism as well as dictatorial views to a specific homogeneity of the society will evolve.For these reasons, such projects are not suitable as experimental laboratories, in which any (development) results can beobtained, which are transferable as knowledge or application in an overall societal context.Also, one must rate the idea of substance-based and interest-free investment as failed.The reasons can be summarized in principle in one sentence: An investment with the risk of total loss, which of coursealways exists, is simply uninteresting with a zero return. "Since I can put my money right under my pillow, there it isat least safe!"Furthermore, these projects lack the ability to create necessary new systemic structures as well as the overall system-changing potency and impact.It has been confirmed that projects of this kind can only work and operate in the framework conditions that are setor permitted and allowed by the overall system.These projects do not work as a disconnected, so to speak independent and autonomous parallel system.Because they do not have the possibilities of being able to form a parallel or subsystem that can disconnected andindependently operate, exist and survive of the overall system.Nor do they have the capacities and the potency to undermine the existing overall system, but they are even assimilatedin a relatively short time by the superordinate overall systemic relationships of functioning and mechanisms of action.Basically, projects of this kind in their philosophy of independence, diversity and freedom of ideas are only able to developtheir full potential and, in the case of a systemic conflicts, such as at the beginning of the 20th century (1), survive whenthe superordinate overall system is changed of prime importance and that, in its new content, legal, institutional andstructural design, can then projects of this orientation embed as well as protect and safeguard their existence.Because such projects are without a superordinate and regulativ overall system, ergo, so to speak, as a solely overallsystem, in a pluralistic societal context with all the associated tasks and responsibilities, unfit, not viable and impractical.In summary, these projects can always be understood and operated only as a complementary to the overall system or justas a pure community project, and that regardless of how an overall social system (in the end) looks and is designed.They can only develop their full potential and fulfill a socially meaningful task if they are integrated in a constructivesynthesis into the superordinate overall system.(1) At the end of the 19th and at the beginning of the 20th century, there were numerous such projects in Europe,especially in Germany and Switzerland, even considerably more than today. They were then closed in a systemic attackby the overall system almost overnight.This attack is not reasoned by the fact because these projects have got a system-changing or threatening powerto the existing, but exclusively only from the paranoia of the systemic order and its elites, which at that time had beenfundamentally eroded.With such systemic weaknesses, this attack was to be understood as a pure, typical and usual exercise of poweragainst all change-wills.There were two reasons why it was so easy to eradicate this movement with their projects:1. due to the relationships described prior under RÉSUMÉ, and2., because the protagonists remained in an ideology of the base, of an “only from below” and in an irresponsibleunderstanding of freedom, paired with a very undifferentiated and fundamental rejection of an each from aboveand of an each superordinate systemic order, which necessary shaping and regulating the overall society or theoverall system institutionally, structurally and legally, with a fundamental rejection of a necessary functioningstatehood. They did not understand and above all did not want to understand that if they want to save themselves and above allto preserve themselves, the prerequisite for this, as a matter of priority, a new superordinate overall system isabsolutely necessary.An existential thought and understanding mistake, the followers and representatives of today's grassroots,community or regionalization movements and projects commit again!Because of this "only from below"-ideology and this lack of differentiating intellectual capacity and ability to think,this movement was ultimately even so weak that as well already the next day the population did not even know thatthis movement with these projects has even existed.Due to this one-sidedness and one-dimensionality in understanding and thinking, this movement naturally lackedthe intellectual abilities as well as the competence, through the then erosion of the overall system the followingfurther development of the liberalism as well as of the economic and social system contentwise, institutionally,structurally and legally constructive to help shape.