I don't consider myself to be a political advocate for either side, I don't know enough. I like to study (beginning to) the fundamentals of proposed ideas for societies, i.e. Plato, Locke, etc., but I haven't yet delved into the current political situations as much as I should have. It seems very ostracized and overcomplicated due to scandals and what not, regardless what side has them. So my thoughts are on the general idea.
To me, Communism/Socialism etc. don't make much sense in context to human nature.
1. I feel as if, especially in light of political situations, that it is unnatural. In its purest form it incorporates univeral sharing and equilibrium, which I feel due to natural tendencies of human, it couldn't hold water. Greed in the sense that it isn't necessarily 'evil', it just denotes the survival of the fittest mentality.
2. Marx defined the utopian communist state as the "end of history," in one way or the other. I don't understand how someone could label this as a positive outlook. To me, being a history major, history is the organic progress of societies and their interactions, from micro to macro. To end history, in my opinion, would be detrimental to progress. This doesn't make sense because progressive parties were deemed leftist, which is where communism stands on the political scale, more or less a few pegs. It seems that if there were a monetary equilibrium, if doctors stood to receive the same treatment as a mechanic, there would be no ambition to progress. I feel as if no one (or a much less amount) would strive to become something in order to rise about their surroundings. We all know that putting 50% of the effort doesn't breed the same results.
I guess, in my theory at least, that such socialist and commune inspired efforts seem detrimental to society, at least in pure form, and hinder actual progress. Constructive criticism is very welcome. I only think communism could strive in a perfectly good world, which I don't think is possible due to human nature.
To me, Communism/Socialism etc. don't make much sense in context to human nature.
1. I feel as if, especially in light of political situations, that it is unnatural. In its purest form it incorporates univeral sharing and equilibrium, which I feel due to natural tendencies of human, it couldn't hold water. Greed in the sense that it isn't necessarily 'evil', it just denotes the survival of the fittest mentality.
2. Marx defined the utopian communist state as the "end of history," in one way or the other. I don't understand how someone could label this as a positive outlook. To me, being a history major, history is the organic progress of societies and their interactions, from micro to macro. To end history, in my opinion, would be detrimental to progress. This doesn't make sense because progressive parties were deemed leftist, which is where communism stands on the political scale, more or less a few pegs. It seems that if there were a monetary equilibrium, if doctors stood to receive the same treatment as a mechanic, there would be no ambition to progress. I feel as if no one (or a much less amount) would strive to become something in order to rise about their surroundings. We all know that putting 50% of the effort doesn't breed the same results.
I guess, in my theory at least, that such socialist and commune inspired efforts seem detrimental to society, at least in pure form, and hinder actual progress. Constructive criticism is very welcome. I only think communism could strive in a perfectly good world, which I don't think is possible due to human nature.
