Nietzche’s Eternal Recurrence

Nietzsche's concept of Eternal Recurrence posits that if one has lived a good life, he or she would want to live it over again.  In my mind, wanting to live life over again doesn't necessarily mean one has lived it well.  Neither does it mean that not wanting to equates with having lived a bad one.  There are things that happen to a person which they have no control over.  Living a good life is more about adjusting positively to negative influences and not about always making the right decisions, as Nietzsche seems to be assuming.  Bad choices are necessary to make better ones; without them we don't learn anything.  Regardless, the quality of one's life can't be judged by their personal choices alone. 

In my case, I think I have generally made good choices in life, but I would not want to live it over again due to several circumstances which were beyond my control (family life, social pressures, etc). 

I'd be willing to bet there are people out there who have led bad lives that would want to live them over again, and other people who have led good lives that wouldn't.  A person living a good life likely believes in progress, and if he or she was forced to live their life over again, no progress could be made in the next one.  It's only in a next life that they can become better souls, therefore no progress would have been made between lives.  Likewise, someone who led a bad life might want to live it over again, because they aren't interested in changing themselves for the better.  He or she likely experienced many pleasures at the expense of others or got incredibly lucky by being dealt a wealthy hand.  Then again, they may not even be conscious they have led bad lives.  As such, they would consider their lives "good" and want to live them over again. 

Due to these different contexts, I think the question really depends on the person you're asking.  Such a generalization as Nietzche's can't be taken at face value because there are many subjective ideas about life that we don't all agree on. 

Synchronicity

A vibration rises from the base of my spine, 
Spiraling heavenward vortexes of energy, 
Where chakras burn like the aortas of stars 
Shimmering through arterial nebula, a chorus of creation. 
It engulfs my stomach, my navel, my heart, 
Bridging the gaps between constricted spaces, 
The geometries which designed the tree of life. 
Slowly it moves up my neck, through my mouth 
Into the temple of thought, where the third eye 
Illuminates the crown of enlightenment, connecting 
Each node in sequence on a spiritual staircase. 
 
This is where space is infinite, time is lost, 
Details become whole, memories merge  
Into an ocean of stories.   

Every story becomes an ethical wheel,  

Churning each virtue that opens the eyes 
Upon pastoral scenes of white sands and cyan shores, 
Cities of biomimicry flanking the beaches 
Of a world far removed from our own. 
A distant whisper calls, coming from nowhere, 
Smooth as the aerial wind of a wispy dream. 
Such visions are lost among scientists, 
Who scour the Earth searching for answers, 
When the only answer they need is right before them. 
 
Now I let go, release my thoughts into silence, 
Shed my body of its rigid skin, expose my innards 
To the stormy forces of the world, losing all hope and reason, 

Retaining no sense of self, 
Boundless, weightless, floating in a cavity of ideas, 
Of dreams unearthed from the unconscious, 

Of archetypal images 
Rolling through the screen upon which inner reflection 
Projects every secret of God, supremely alive, 
Wholly enraptured, blinded by appearances yet fully aware. 

Capitalism Didn't Defeat Communism, Globalization Did

     Communism is an idea that's become highly distorted in the eyes of the American people.  Much of this comes from a point of view that demonizes it as being responsible for the rise of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia.  There are many forms of communism, but the true form as Karl Marx saw it did not involve tyranny, gulags, or concentration camps.  The parties that created these diabolical governments didn't even call themselves communist.  Rather, they referred to themselves as socialist yet more accurately fit the definition of a totalitarian state, a repressive dictatorial regime that institutes massive surveillance with an intolerance for outside opinions.  It is necessary to split hairs about these ideologies because there are socialist states that have worked in the past, and even communist ones.  The ones that failed ultimately did so because of worldwide trade embargoes set against them by capitalist countries like the United States.  Globalization in a broader sense has almost put an end to both ideologies, with a few lingering countries still clinging to the isolationism required to keep them running.  However, it wouldn't surprise anyone if they soon succumbed to the global order of free trade in our increasingly connected world. 

Nowadays Ronald Reagan is frequently championed as bringing down the Soviet Union by the right, which in turn is thought to have crushed socialism all over the world.  Though if we examine the facts, this is hardly the case.  The Soviet Union fell due to its own inner turmoil, not because of any outside forces.  During the rule of Stalin, its population was urbanized after many agrarian workers were forced into gulags, creating an imbalance in the economic supply.  The lack of agriculture crippled the Soviet Union's development, because it was forced into trading with foreign countries in order to supply itself with the farm crops needed to feed people.  A similar trend was seen in China during the 1960s.  Intense urbanization, coupled with a worldwide embargo on trade (lead by the United States), lead to an enormous imbalance between urban and rural growth.  The communist giant was forced into submission by its own inability to keep up with foreign technology in a world surrounded by free trade.  The isolation required by totalitarian states like the USSR and China was like a suffocating blanket of stagnation; their growth was so dependent on their output that they fell behind in a capitalist world that was globalizing right before their eyes.  A radical shift was needed to keep up with globalization, one that forced them into adopting capitalist paradigms in order to embrace the rise of world trade. 

An example of a successful communist state would be Cuba.  This small country has managed to survive both U.S. sanctions and the fall of the Soviet Union, meaning it has functioned without any aid from capitalist countries in a globalized world.  Nor is it as totalitarian as many its predecessors, as many Americans have been led to believe.  While it's true that Fidel Castro ran a revolution that didn't show any tolerance for alternate political views, he had succeeded a dictatorial government that was far harsher in its views on civil rights than his were.  Then after he gained power, Cuba became one of the most progressive nations in education and health care, things that don't usually come to mind when you compare them to traditional totalitarian states.  Despite the lack of freedom in that country, we must still call it a successful communist state because it never had to immerse itself with the capitalist agenda behind globalization.  Would I rather live in Cuba than the United States?  No.  But just because it's a worse place to live doesn't mean it's a failure.