Commonwealth according to Wikipedia was derived from an English noun in the 15th century. The old meaning of wealth of wealth is well-being. Wikipedia further defines commonwealth as "... a state or nation-state governed for the common good ..."
Communism on the other hand is defined as a "... socioeconomic structure that promotes the establishment of a classless, stateless society based on ownership of the means of production."
By limiting the definitions of these two words, we can say that both have a, albeit, common meaning: equally for all.
Both forms of governing a nation has similar flaws. Classes exist under communism while the common good is not sought in commonwealths.
Those who defined these words meant how they are defined. Those who put these words to use, use them the way they believe it may be used.
If communism is implemented as I believe it should have been, the share of the leaders in the production income should be the same as those who labor in the fields.
If there is indeed a commonwealth, then there is no such terms as the privileged few or marginalized group.
I think all forms of governance have been crafted to answer the needs of a nation or state at that time. Implemented properly, it will serve its purpose. It is the implementers who sometimes loose sight of what they are supposed to do. and that is when the flaw is made.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment