In the 1960s many groups dedicated to collective free improvisation arose in the US and Europe. One idea that circulated, and that still circulates, among idealists is that the structure of such groups provides a model for society. That is, that people can contribute according to their ability in the process of creating an inclusive and communal entity. There are a couple problems with that.

First, such groups still need leaders. Who gets to be leader? Do we take turns or elect someone? And who decides THAT? Second, even if we can agree on some basic structure, there needs to be thoughtful listening. The musicians have to listen, adjust, know when to bow out and return, how to let others share the stage. And everyone has to be fair, or it doesn't work, it just becomes a shouting match. Finally, is there an audience? Music serves several functions--ritual, entertainment, preservation of culture, and the like--but almost none of the functions we can assign to music remove the aspect of music that it is to be performed in a context. It serves some larger purpose within society. It is a catalyst, a focal point. It requires doers and perceivers. Society on the other hand is the sum total of all actions of a people, none of whom are strictly speaking the "audience." What kind of music is it if everyone performs? The aesthetic of specialness disappears. There is no awe, only competition. In other words collectively improvised music does not constitute any model of society because it relies on an insider/outsider paradigm that if adhered to in society must by definiton exclude someone, or if subverted by including everyone, become something besides music.