I think of shame as little different from stress. Shame is a motivator for changing behavior, while stress is a motivator for accomplishing tasks. You’ll have to be more clear on how shame is a pessimistic ideology that brings self destruction. Is it pessimistic in the sense that it assumes that people are not going to accomplish much in the way of systemic change without it?
People bored in a perfect society are free to make improvements. I really don’t see your opposition here. Do you really need the system to provide inherent challenges? Without the copious amount of challenges provided by the system, people would be free to pursue real challenges. Such as science, spiritualism, academia, and content creation. Most of the greatest artists in history would have never reached their potential if it weren’t for circumstances that released them from the burdens of the system of their times.
I don’t think improvement would end under a perfect system. People would be free to pursue real challenges rather than artificial and unnatural challenges faced in the current economy. Do you know how many Aristotles are held back from greatness because they have to buckle down into wage slavery?
Well, communism isn’t the stated goal of Marxism. Communism is just the central-governance stage meant to stabilize a socialist state into a freely associated economy where the workers own the means of production. What happens after central governance under communism looks much more like anarchy than what most consider to be communism. The communist state is always meant to deconstruct itself as society gains its own independence.
I’d argue that there’s always change no matter what system you’re operating in. Saying that change is always going to be an improvement is too optimistic for reality. And you recognize that there’s always going to be people who seek improvement under whichever system, so once again, where is your disagreement?
Because people are curious creatures and cannot help but learn. Learning is one of the essential meanings to life. I assure you there’s going to be plenty of people actively learning no matter the system they are under.
Yes good things come out of bad, but where do we draw the line and say we’ve reached far enough to have a healthy civilization beyond war? We’ve reached a stage where the major advancements are being lead by people not motivated by war, but the advancement of knowledge and species itself? Sure many of them have to appeal to war interests to get the funding for research, but that goes beyond the point. It’s been like this for a while now.
I’m going to have to hear the details on your connection between war-driven advancements and the impossibility of peace. And I don’t recall anyone claiming that peace is to be obtained through shame, or anything to do with accomplishing peace for that matter. I think war can be healthy if the war-interests are in check, which they aren’t.