"our town" - the communist town

[Chronamut 355]

the = town of no name, the communist town where everyone is equal, nobody is special, a hearkening to the much reviled communism that still spooks governments and sends them on crusades to crush it in favour of democracy.

 

What do you think of it? I think they portrayed it pretty well as to how it actually ends up in reality - one person who is NOT equal making sure everyone else IS.

 

In the show the leaders house was set apart from the rest - she still had her cutie mark, although she pretended she didn't to appear as equal to the rest, and all others were forced to not overstep their bounds so that everyone had their place.

 

-----
 

a lot of people like to vilify this concept, but the government system is not evil - it is simply a blank container of potential - what is "evil" is human nature. Human selfishness interferes.

 

In the famous painting where Plato speaks with Aristotle - Plato points to the sky in idealism, speaking of a system of government which challenges human selfishness - people do not own land, and they do not belong to families - everything is communal. Aristotle however holds his hand over the earth saying that one must be rational - discussing polity - politics - where a balance is made using human selfishness as a tool - striving for capitalism etc.

 

 

-----

 

so this concept has been tug of warred for years. Nobody being seen as superior has its merits. As a spiritual leader I see this concept only working if everyone involved understands how they are all collectively connected.

 

Take the roots of a tree. A regular person would take a slice of them across, and see the root "slide" as a series of circles, with no connection to each other, but a communal minded person would also take a slice from top to bottom, showing the hierarchy chart of the roots and how they branch off - showing how all those dots are connected. The fingers are not separate - they belong to the same hand.

 

Ideologically this system is ideal, but only if the people are ideal. If all the people see themselves as the same energy - they then become like a hive mind, working for the common good - knowing to hurt one is to hurt them all.

 

-----

 

I am part indigenous south american native - and my people, before the spanish invaded, were united by one king who had the brilliant idea of free trade of surplus goods and free availability of food for anyone who wished it. In the lean years there was food to feed the old and sick and in good times plenty of food to be stored. Nobody was hungry, everyone had a role, doing whatever they did and trading for things they didnt - mountain towns were connected over vast distances, and everyone was happy. There was no adultery - everyone was equal in their own way. Noone was superior. Even the king was simply a protector, for there was no money. The areas even stopped their quarrelling, as quarrels were actually over fertile land and food.

 

The spanish came in and destroyed all this - their greed for gold made them destroy every village, cast down their monuments to build churches, and take their spiritual relationship to the earth and their gods and cast it aside in favour of christianity. They destroyed an entire continents worth of cultures.

 

-----

 

Thus this concept of being equal can exist - but each person has to be allowed to be themselves, while contributing their talents willingly - and I find this showed how while the concept of communism is great, how it is executed is out of selfishness, where everyone is forced a role they may not particularly want, and is expected never to aspire to anything greater.

 

Your talents should be made to encourage surplus, so it can be shared with all.

 

-----

 

The song I found especially powerful. I like this remix especially.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5Vla_kKU7U

 

Feel free to express your thoughts on all of this.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Chronamut

[Daring_Do 552]

 

 

I am part indigenous south american native - and my people, before the spanish invaded, were united by one king who had the brilliant idea of free trade of surplus goods and free availability of food for anyone who wished it. In the lean years there was food to feed the old and sick and in good times plenty of food to be stored. Nobody was hungry, everyone had a role, doing whatever they did and trading for things they didnt - mountain towns were connected over vast distances, and everyone was happy. There was no adultery - everyone was equal in their own way. Noone was superior. Even the kind was simply a protector, for there was no money. The areas even stopped their quarrelling, as quarrels were actually over fertile land and food.   The spanish came in and destroyed all this - their greed for gold made them destroy every village, cast down their monuments to build churches, and take their spiritual relationship to the earth and their gods and cast it aside in favour of christianity. They destroyed an entire continents worth of cultures.

 

I wanted to comment on this part specifically - I'll admit, I don't have any special kind of knowledge (beyond the common) about the pre-conquistador civilizations. But is all of this really accurate? What you're saying here seems too idealistic, too good to be true. 

[Chronamut 355]

I wanted to comment on this part specifically - I'll admit, I don't have any special kind of knowledge (beyond the common) about the pre-conquistador civilizations. But is all of this really accurate? What you're saying here seems too idealistic, too good to be true. 

 

one has to understand the pre colombian natives role to the earth. Yes some of the civilizations, like the inca and the aztecs participated in blood sacrifices, but their view of the world was SO drastically different from ours. They had a very spiritual connection to the earth, and the earth spirits, through their gods. They harvested gold and used it as tribute offerings to their gods mainly - it was almost seen as a waste product to them.

 

In their world the gods created mankind out of corn and water, and provided the rain for life, and in exchange for this, humans would spill their blood and burn it, and the smoke from that would reach the heavens and nourish the gods, and the cosmos and keep the sun alive, and keep the cosmos in balance and moving. In doing so the gods would continue to provide rain and keep the earth alive. It also kept them from overpopulating the continent by keeping population levels in check.

 

Thus to these people, any momentous occasion was celebrated with blood - the kings offered their own blood as sacrifice on their coronation - a woman would pierce her tongue to spill blood when a male heir was born, and warriers, when captured, were sacrificed on the alters to the gods, their blood being used to keep the gods alive. To the warrior this was seen as a high honour - blood was only spilled on the highest of honours. When a king died their closest nobles were sacrificed with them - it was seen as a very high honour. If a warrior was enslaved it was seen as a source of deep shame, as "unfit for the gods".

 

The natives didn't even see their bodies as their own - the gods made them and thus they were simply giving back. Everything was done in honour and humility towards nature and their gods.

 

The Spanish could not understand this - they saw it as barbaric, and thus they tore down their temples and alters and used them to build what they felt were "civilizing" churches.

 

However the natives, while dying en-masse from the plagues of smallpox dysentery and tuberculosis the Spaniards brought over (about 90% of the entire indigenous populations died from this and warfare) couldn't understand the Spaniards selfishness, and their desire to change them. Why tax what could be given freely? Why steal what you could just ask for?

 

They fought back and lost, and the Spaniards, like most places, sought to eradicate their culture entirely. Many of the cultures didn't have written languages, they used a system of strings with knots to display a wealth of information that the shamans would then interpret - how to interpret this became lost. Only the natives in the most remote areas that the Spaniards could not reach were spared - one of them being one of the tribes in the Colombian regions - I am half colombian myself.

 

Thus the people were no more barbaric than anyone else in the world at that time. They fought each other, but for different reasons. Strength was valued, and sacrifice was seen as a way of life. They did not fight for selfish reasons, they did not kill without spiritual cause, and they did not waste resources or even see property as theirs. Everything belonged to everyone.

In the area of peru - what I stated was correct (think maccu pichu area) If a region became troublesome the empire would conquer it, take the people and spread them out all over the empire so that their town was forever "defeated".

Edited November 11, 2015 by Chronamut

[Jeric 46,867]

The Town more closely resembles American Cultism instead of Communism.

[Chronamut 355]

The Town more closely resembles American Cultism instead of Communism.

 

imo it represents what communism BECAME. China and North Korea are prime examples.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Chronamut

[Kyoshi Frost Wolf 41,934]

The Town more closely resembles American Cultism instead of Communism.

This is what I think as well. When I think of the entire 'Our Town' scene, I picture masses of just walking in the streets or something, like what I have seen here in America. In those masses, everyone seems the same, nothing is different. That is my strange way of looking at it. 

[Chronamut 355]

This is what I think as well. When I think of the entire 'Our Town' scene, I picture masses of just walking in the streets or something, like what I have seen here in America. In those masses, everyone seems the same, nothing is different. That is my strange way of looking at it. 

 

it's cultural sheepism - I look outside and every man looks the same, has the same haircut, dresses the same, talks the same, everything is so programmed it scares me - and then I walk in and they look at me as if I am an alien - like I am neo in the matrix, and the system needs to either ignore me or attack me.

 

also americans have a choice what they become - in our town, everyone is assigned a role, and expected to share equally with everyone else - that IS communism. Hence the word - commune - ism - commune being a village or community.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Chronamut

[SFyr 1,982]

it's cultural sheepism - I look outside and every man looks the same, has the same haircut, dresses the same, talks the same, everything is so programmed it scares me - and then I walk in and they look at me as if I am an alien - like I am neo in the matrix, and the system needs to either ignore me or attack me.

 

also americans have a choice what they become - in our town, everyone is assigned a role, and expected to share equally with everyone else - that IS communism. Hence the word - commune - ism - commune being a village or community.

I think sometimes it really does look worse than it is. 

 

Edited cuz I think I was getting off topic just at touch, haha. Sorry.

Basic idea is, I think outwardly we look more similar than we are. Society operates best when it adheres to a common set of accepted behavior and rules, so yeah, it appears a bit more sheeplike than it is in my opinion. 

 

Lovely pic:

 

 

[Chronamut 355]

I think sometimes it really does look worse than it is. 

very astute picture there

[Jeric 46,867]

it's cultural sheepism - I look outside and every man looks the same, has the same haircut, dresses the same, talks the same, everything is so programmed it scares me - and then I walk in and they look at me as if I am an alien - like I am neo in the matrix, and the system needs to either ignore me or attack me.

 

also americans have a choice what they become - in our town, everyone is assigned a role, and expected to share equally with everyone else - that IS communism. Hence the word - commune - ism - commune being a village or community.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't believe that anyone who recognizes the above figures would dispute the similarities between their American assemblages of individuals and Starlight Glimmers. 

[Chronamut 355]

I think like many things there are many angles and lights one can view things in

 

I think in the end it's simply that both have a shared thread of dictatorship - "our town" is just a silent dictatorship. Democracy can also be a silent dictatorship, where people are gradually conditioned not to fight back.

Edited November 11, 2015 by Chronamut

[Marimo 555]

also americans have a choice what they become - in our town, everyone is assigned a role, and expected to share equally with everyone else - that IS communism. Hence the word - commune - ism - commune being a village or community.

They don't have a choice in what their role is? Is it coincidence that Sugar Belle's talent was baking when she did have her cutie mark, and once she moved to Our Town, they just gave her the same role she had before?

 

Or is it really that Sugar Belle chose to still be a baker even when she didn't have her talent for baking anymore?

[Chronamut 355]

They don't have a choice in what their role is? Is it coincidence that Sugar Belle's talent was baking when she did have her cutie mark, and once she moved to Our Town, they just gave her the same role she had before?

 

Or is it really that Sugar Belle chose to still be a baker even when she didn't have her talent for baking anymore?

 

and what was the snowboarders talent in the town? What of the talents that don't FIT the town?

 

it would be like having a cutie mark in telecommunications and then being put in an amish town and being told to milk goats.

[MLPFanatic34 3,235]

Watching the season 5 premiere and watching Starlight and the ponies marching and singing reminded me of the scene from the Lion King - Be Prepared. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkU23m6yX04

[Chronamut 355]

Watching the season 5 premiere and watching Starlight and the ponies marching and singing reminded me of the scene from the Lion King - Be Prepared. 

 

 

I always found parts of the lion king to be a bit dark for kids... I guess disney was testing the waters with the whole circle of life thing.. trying to make passing on and renewal more.. people friendly.

[Mesme Rize 15,687]

Watching the season 5 premiere and watching Starlight and the ponies marching and singing reminded me of the scene from the Lion King - Be Prepared. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkU23m6yX04

 

Which was also inspired by the Nazi Propaganda Movie "Triumph des Willens (Triumph of the will)" by Lene Riefenstahl.

[Zoraxe 546]

Communism is such a hard thing to really describe, because it’s a word that can have different meanings and interpretations depending on theory and context. Living communally is what communism is, so in essence any communal style of society is communist. Hippy communes, Christian communism, anarchist communism, certain types of tribes, etc. In those contexts, communism = communalism.

 

What marx theorized was that the world would transition to a state of communism, a stateless society. So no communist regime ever created communism, just states with the stated goal of one day transitioning to communism. Stalin and mao were more or less really fascists, basically, but after them the states kinda became Bureaucracies, but North korea now instead doesn't even pretend to be communist anymore (it removed references to communism from itself), and is simply a fascist monarchy that pretends to be a Republic.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juche

 

Marx theorized that capitalism would lead to communism. many communists insist that democracy is integral to communism. Lenin however, because Russia wasn't very industrialized, skipped the capitalism part and just established a dictatorship with a central party. Anarcho-communists just want to skip straight to the communism (libertarian-socialism) part and all attempts at this "anarchism" (arguably minarchism rather) have failed because of fascists or Stalinists destroying them, like Anarchist Spain, Anarchist Ukraine/Russia, and anarchist Korea.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_uprisings_against_the_Bolsheviks#Anarchist_divisions

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Territory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Korea

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_Spain

 

Rojava (The Kurds in Syria) is the closet thing right now to anarcho-communism, and its fighting ISIS and Turkey at the moment for survival.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism

 

So is equal town communist? Maybe, depends on how you look at it.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Zoraxe

[dekutree64 713]

Yeah, the town was a dictatorship in communist clothing, which is the same reason most real life attempts at communism haven't worked out very well. One true attempt at communism in modern times was the hippies in America, but they failed due to the evils of drug addiction.

 

I tend more toward the harmony concept rather than any specific ideology. Communism can be good, but even then it's not for everyone. There is great variety in humanity. People need to have the freedom to move around and find their like-minded group, rather than being stuck with whatever they're born into. And all the groups need to be allowed to exist, rather than certain ones crushing all the others.

 

When the Europeans discovered the Americas, it was a grand opportunity to create a more harmonious world, but they totally blew it and wrecked everything. It should have been the alternative land for people who don't deal well with the "civilized" lifestyle. Let nature types move from Europe to America, and American natives who wanted something different move to Europe.

 

But even with good intentions, the disease problem still decimated the native populations, so it may never have really worked. If only vaccines had been invented a few hundred years earlier. Eradication of smallpox really is one of the greatest accomplishments of humanity. Invention of the internet is another, so at least that's something that resulted from the path that was taken. But so many great cultures and places have been destroyed along the way, and the natural lifestyle is mostly impossible now with all the viable land claimed by someone

Edited November 13, 2015 by dekutree64

[pony.colin 156]

@@Zoraxe, This was a really nice post.  I like want to be able to say something and contirbute, but I have not got much to say.

 

That was a good navigation of things.  I should probably get around to reading Marx's original manifesto one of these days.  The thing is that with terms and definitions, words start to change over time and reference other things. The meaning of words can change and start to reference other things that wasn't really part of its original intention.  If someone were to use communism to reference to China or former USSR, I go, yeah those weren't real communist countries.  No country has been communist at all. Not even close. Just because they use the term doesn't mean they went with Marx (they all reinvented and came up with new methods to try and run the country again after the revolution). But that's not the complete picture either, as one goes through more research and finds out, that we just haven't really surveyed everything that's all out there.  Our data has always been incomplete, its just a reality at this point. I'm detracting a bit here.

 

Getting to the point, Communism, some sort of stateless, classless, (non-private property owning -> communal) is a very far out there step to try and achieve. Or may not really be all that impossible to see existing through out varios times in history.  Some Indigenous groups (anywhere from the Americas or possible some from the Pacific as well), were not highly stratified socieites compared to others.  And might closely resemble something closer to what might be the "Communist" example of a society. Granted, if they did exist, they might be long gone now, since its rather impossible to go back to that sort of pre-contact mode of life.  I'm not really being specific here, since I can't recall specific examples.  But some did exist.  Some might actually still exist because, there are actually still (albeit) slight handful of Indigenous groups that are still in a pre-contact situation (because i think anthropologists have been largely arguing for modern civlizations to stay away from them and to not interfere with their society). But I think a lot of trade of goods still ends up getting through to these small groups.

 

Wow, I've really detracted a lot from the point here -_(\ - short thing is, yes I agree with you on your last point that it depends on how an individual has interpreted Communism before, (from the original Marx to various different theories that came after, and various other break offs as well. And then other theory that was going in a smiliar thought direction with communism).  I'm sleep depreived, there are errors in this, I know. I'm not going to fix them.   (like I said, that was a nice post you made).  (This is horribly written, maybe I should just delete this.)

 

@@Chronamut, - Wait that's a brilliant post for explanation (I'm referring to your 2nd one, or the 3rd one in this thread). That's also a great post too.

Edited November 13, 2015 by pony.colin

[Zoraxe 546]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3u4EFTwprM

 

@@Zoraxe, This was a really nice post.  I like want to be able to say something and contirbute, but I have not got much to say.

 

That was a good navigation of things.  I should probably get around to reading Marx's original manifesto one of these days.  The thing is that with terms and definitions, words start to change over time and reference other things. The meaning of words can change and start to reference other things that wasn't really part of its original intention.  If someone were to use communism to reference to China or former USSR, I go, yeah those weren't real communist countries.  No country has been communist at all. Not even close. Just because they use the term doesn't mean they went with Marx (they all reinvented and came up with new methods to try and run the country again after the revolution). But that's not the complete picture either, as one goes through more research and finds out, that we just haven't really surveyed everything that's all out there.  Our data has always been incomplete, its just a reality at this point. I'm detracting a bit here.

 

Getting to the point, Communism, some sort of stateless, classless, (non-private property owning -> communal) is a very far out there step to try and achieve. Or may not really be all that impossible to see existing through out varios times in history.  Some Indigenous groups (anywhere from the Americas or possible some from the Pacific as well), were not highly stratified socieites compared to others.  And might closely resemble something closer to what might be the "Communist" example of a society. Granted, if they did exist, they might be long gone now, since its rather impossible to go back to that sort of pre-contact mode of life.  I'm not really being specific here, since I can't recall specific examples.  But some did exist.  Some might actually still exist because, there are actually still (albeit) slight handful of Indigenous groups that are still in a pre-contact situation (because i think anthropologists have been largely arguing for modern civlizations to stay away from them and to not interfere with their society). But I think a lot of trade of goods still ends up getting through to these small groups.

 

Wow, I've really detracted a lot from the point here -_(\ - short thing is, yes I agree with you on your last point that it depends on how an individual has interpreted Communism before, (from the original Marx to various different theories that came after, and various other break offs as well. And then other theory that was going in a smiliar thought direction with communism).  I'm sleep depreived, there are errors in this, I know. I'm not going to fix them.   (like I said, that was a nice post you made).  (This is horribly written, maybe I should just delete this.)

 

On your first paragraph, yeah. When people say communists, they generally think of some form of Marxism. But Marx didn't even invent the term communism, that would be some french guy a while before Marx. Marx came up with the theory that the world would transition to communism, so when discussing communism you kinda have to explain what you mean by communism. Liviing communally, or the marxist parties/communist states (Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Trotskyism? ) that want to transition to Marxs communist utopia, or non-marxist communism, or anarcho-communism, and the list goes on.

 

There are still some hippy communes that survived, they survived because they, unlike the others, set rules that had to be followed. Ie, everyone has to work, etc.

[Chronamut 355]

thank you

 

and as stated - communism goes far far back - as I mentioned above - platos philosophical ideal of no property and no individual families is probably the closest thing to commune-ism - however the word communism now specifically references a failed attempt at equal distribution under what eventually ends up being a failed corrupt distribution head.

 

Essentially both are still communism, because the goal is still to have one person oversee that the commune mentality is maintained. In the pre-contact americas these were the kings that enforced this - they assured that trade continued - and acted more as protectors of the resources, and sometimes the providors of it - for example the people might give a goods tax and the king would prepare it and provide them with feasts for said food.

 

Commune-ism does not work in our society for one simple reason - civilization has been built on a lack of spirituality - where everyone focuses on the individualistic ego self - it thus allows those from it to still be influenced by it when they try to form their own societies, and it causes any existing to be seen as a threat, or uncivilized, and those "civilized" people attempt to show these people the error of their ways, destroying their culture.

 

Before we can make something like this work in our own society, we have to tear down our society and start from scratch, building on communal precepts that "everyone is interconnected to each other" - we all use our special talents to help the whole, and any excess is traded or provided to those who need it - then individuality is not squashed, and everyone still plays their part - enough people do the same thing where if one falters the excess of others pick up the pace, and everyone is happy.

 

Until we as a planet or culture can come to this point, no solution we try will work, for the foundations are faulty of the current civilization upon which we stand.

Edited November 22, 2015 by Chronamut

[dekutree64 713]

Before we can make something like this work in our own society, we have to tear down our society and start from scratch, building on communal precepts that "everyone is interconnected to each other" - we all use our special talents to help the whole, and any excess is traded or provided to those who need it - then individuality is not squashed, and everyone still plays their part - enough people do the same thing where if one falters the excess of others pick up the pace, and everyone is happy.

Not quite, because we did start from scratch before, and look where it got us Yes we need to rework the foundation, but we need to rework it from here forward, not going backward and starting over.

 

The internet allows us to be connected with eachother all over the world by real interaction rather than just in the spiritual sense. And as more emotional bonds are made across borders, war between countries becomes less and less tolerable for us as a whole. Not to mention it allows sharing of knowledge vastly more efficiently than by traditional education methods, especially in poor countries.

 

I still have hope for the future, because many of the growing pains of an advanced society are already behind us. We're still in the tough transitional period, but the technology developed in the past 150 years is a big help toward making it possible for everyone to live comfortably, without needing a larger number of poor people to do the life-wasting busy work. And longer life expectancy on top of that is a very good thing. No longer do we need religion to explain away health problems. Instead, we can actually do something about them. Spirituality is a good thing, but now it can be done for the right reasons, and not as a coping mechanism for the bad parts of natural-style life.

 

Another point is that you might think making everyone comfortable and healthy would lead to us breeding like mice until we overpopulate and become miserable again from resource starvation. But in reality, humans seem to operate in the opposite way. The more miserable we are, the more babies we have. Comfortable people tend to plan their lives better and maintain a more reasonable birth rate. I theorize that the current overpopulation problem is because so many of us are still suffering, not because we have too much technology.

Edited November 22, 2015 by dekutree64

[Chronamut 355]

it is true that richer happier people produce less kids - the movie idiocracy alluded to this.

 

however I see a society that is largely controllable emerging - one who feels that venting but not acting equates to doing something.

 

When we started from scratch before we started from a survivalist perspective - there are stories of places of advanced learning like atlantis that were built on foundations of intellect and spiritual growth, which were eventually destroyed by those who sought to undo it - but they still lasted a long time before this happened.

 

I currently believe our mass consumer society kills us inside and makes us react with surface empathy to things and then go back to whatever we are doing.. like observing suffering on the news or in commercials, in which we change the channel when we see suffering because we feel it's so remote it doesn't affect us, or any attempts we do to help won't help. Yes the internet has made for better shared experiences, but I feel it has also robbed us of something too.