Very little is said about Native Americans these days.  I suspect it's because they are living proof that the "it takes a village" mentality leads to desperate poverty.  Communal life when it is successful requires a "vow of poverty" because of isolation.  Religious communities that try to be self-sufficient tend to fail at that.  There are always significant dependencies on the surrounding society.  

I have heard the term plantation applied to minority communities but in a strange way they are more like reservations or independent native communities within the wider society.  Communism, at least as Marx described it is a kind of universal commune.   It's very much a denunciation of civilization and the desire to live a "natural" Life.  The chief characteristic of a natural life unfortunately is poverty.  

There is a "spiritual" connection between the petite nobility and the idle poor.  A kind of "love hate" relationship.  It's born out of the possibility of living a "natural life".   The petite nobility or lower elites have inherited or in many cases non meritocratic wealth.  That means they have the option to be unproductive.  The idle poor are unproductive by definition.   Given the option most humans will live a "natural lifestyle", one characterized by sensuality.  Sex, drugs, food, vacuous entertainment and ritualized warfare occupy the time of those engaged in the natural lifestyle.  That lifestyle could be characterized as "fast" or one suited for the easy but unstable conditions where productivity is provided by nature.  The concept of virtue is replaced with honor or pride in their person.  Thus the "spiritual" connection between the idle rich and the poor.  It's unsurprising that many communists come from the petite nobility or the unproductive rich.

Virtue is an abstraction of the kind of behavior required to create a harsh but stable environment that civilization requires.  It comes from the same place as honor and pride but it is transformed by the requirements of the social contract.  The recognition that a society built on pride is unstable because of the interdependent nature of civilization.  

Different civilizations have come up with various definitions of virtue depending on their unique evolution.  In the West I think they are best characterized by the product of religious philosophers.  They can be summarized as follows.

Chastity or Purity and abstinence as opposed to lust or Luxuria. Temperance or Humanity, equanimity as opposed to Gluttony or Gula. Charity or Will, benevolence, generosity, sacrifice as opposed to Greed or Avaritia. Diligence or Persistence, effortlessness, ethics as opposed to Sloth or Acedia. Patience or Forgiveness, mercy as opposed to Wrath or Ira. Kindness or Satisfaction, compassion as opposed to Envy or Invidia. Humility or Bravery, modesty, reverence as opposed to Pride.
I would argue that almost all of the problems in Western Civilization stem from forgotten virtue.  I would make the same argument concerning the collapse of the Roman Civilization although their virtues were significantly different.  Virtues as I said evolve to meet the needs of the civilization in the environment they developed in. 

We think of Roman Civilization as very sophisticated but that is because we mistakenly identify civilization based on its accouterments.  Art, architecture, "science", political organization, wealth, all of which are by products of excess productivity.  Civilization is based on the excess production of basic necessities.  It gives the civilized the luxury to develop it's accouterments.  You can trace the beginning of the end of the Roman Republic to the withering away of citizens as small land owners and the virtue that develops in that environment.  The slave economy of Rome actually undermined economic sophistication.  It also undermined traditional virtues as productivity no longer remained meritocratic.  The irony is that luxury which allows for the developments of the accouterments that we characterize as synonymous with civilization are undermined by Empire, slavery and luxus.  When citizens become "welfare" recipients or beneficiaries of empire the foundational "morals" that made it possible deteriorate.

Nature is chaos and those that desire a natural lifestyle chaotic.  All the "monkey" like behavior we see in society today stems from our nature.  Carefully examined of even the elites, which at first glance seem the epitome of sophistication, are "gods of chaos", I offer George Soros as an example.  His entire life has been about the destruction of civilization and order.  His wealth stems not from productivity but the exploitation of  loop holes in the laws put in place to promote meritocracy and productivity.  He has the monkey's concept of fairness that is disconnected from productivity.  More of an anarchist than a communist but the two are closely related.

Restore traditional "morality" from which ethics and virtue descend and most of our problems will go away.  The example here stems from non meritocratic positions in institutions of higher learning, in which high social status has been transferred to individuals without merit, who are hostile to traditional virtue.  

There's a hell of a lot of collapse left in the empire, eh?

My first thought was to laugh at the absurdity, but then I realized that it is actually reprehensible that somebody would say something so outrageously risible, and sad that a portion of the sheeple will nod their heads in empty-headed agreement.