Утописты, даже самые образованные, тяготеют к коммуне. Имеют...

Utopians, even the most educated, gravitate toward the commune. They have the right, it must be honestly noted. In such a social system, where everything belongs to everyone (including children), there are many advantages. Let's remember the most TOP. 1. Each person by the fact of birth already has EVERYTHING that you and I are forced to earn by irretrievably spending life: housing, food, clothes. This will be exactly as much as the person himself wants (since the communist upbringing, more than is really necessary for a comfortable existence, no one will ever demand). 2. The only value in society that claims to be absolute is man. More precisely - his talents and potential. Any material resources are called upon to serve man, and not vice versa. If a person is freed from hard labor, which sucks out all his life forces and the desire to live, he (in the opinion of the Utopians), in his spare time, will certainly want to create something unique, will immerse himself in science with pleasure and will move the planet forward. Agree, very convincing arguments. However, I consider egoism to be an equal opponent of this theory. It was EGOISM that brought world civilization to the form that it has today (and Dale Carnegie claimed a place in history until it is possible to read it). Speaking very precisely, civilization is driven by the desire to assert itself, the desire to feel valuable, and in the commune this desire is a priori quenched by the very idea of ​​equality. The scale of "I - value for ..." does not play a role. The desire to feel valuable is developed in us akin to the need to breathe. Man’s attempts to prove that he is not “trembling creature”, but “right has”, just lie in the plane of egoism. For ourselves, the carefree contemplation of the TV in stretched pants and a T-shirt, with a dried-up spot of ketchup five days ago, is quite enough for us. However, something constantly kills us in each of us and pushes us to go beyond the comfort zone, move ourselves somewhere, risk our lives, accumulations, health, and reputation. For what? Who needs this? Only for ourselves. Selfishness is imbued with the goal of proving that in itself we are already a value (this echoes the utopian absolute). Civilization, with its pluses and minuses, is built on the desire to jump out of his pants, and above his head. Most often, a person chooses “horizontal” accumulation and asserts himself that he can buy for money (it works quickly and efficiently, it’s straightforward), but the engines of “vertical” progress are selfish to the highest degree! 40 years to devote to the study of a phenomenon, to undernourish, not enough sleep, with the thought: “I will prove to them all, by all means, that I can change the world!” Why am I all this. Let's remember the ants. Their civilization is clearly more than thousands of years than ours. And what are we observing? It seems to be a streamlined, ideal system that the vacuum itself would envy: everyone should work for everyone. In the name of this, the uterus regulates everything that happens. But even where there is no (or maybe it is not) reason, in the usual sense for us, only THIRD really works for the good. The second third deals with damage to what the "benefactors comrades" built. The third third is completely staggering idle, creating the appearance of involvement. What then would be in people who are devices, a little more complicated than ants? Personally, I am for selfishness. Healthy, constructive, proving and overcoming.