During an animated discussion between a friend and I, I reached the conclusion that socialism, on a sociological and psychological basis, leads automatically to a dictatorship even though the best intentions might be there. Even then, it’s only a perspective matter since in modern socialist and communist societies, like China or even Cuba, the nature of undertaken actions aren’t regularised or decided in order to establish a dictatorship but rather under an idea of collective consciousness of needs and resources available to said community.
It’s easy, while being a stranger to the situation, to expose facts leading to believe that this or that is bad, even more within our Western consciousness where the corruption of the capitalist system has sunk so deeply within our souls. While we’re fighting against that way of thinking which is nothing more but a reflex, the critical thinking resumes being harder and harder to reach. Those who have read the title of my article are probably feeling attacked and ask themselves: “But Sabrina…how can you think something so absurd! The people’s liberation can’t become true and lead to a dictatorship, because it’s together that we will choose our future.” And to that, I will answer…yes, it’s together that we will become conscious of our ways and we’ll use the necessary means in order to live in a society that we will build free of monetary rules, instead replaced by our humanitarian laws.
The human, by nature, can be just as good as it can be bad. In the deepness of my mind, I must, as in I can’t believe otherwise, that men are good as a species, that the situations lead them to be become evil but is it really? Isn’t it naive to believe in such utopia? Yes, yes!! I’m naive. Within this infinite circle between good and bad, where relativity is subjective, men learn and develop. The human, in endless evolution matches to the complexity of the system he grows within.
At birth, we are nothing more than a white sheet, where the words “I want to understand” are inscribed. The paper’s fibre is dense and represents our assets. The nervous system, the senses, driving force…all those things that we don’t learn but that are inherent. A pencil at hand, sometimes a little too sharp, we write the first lines: learn what hurts, what feels good, to walk, to talk, etc… If we shred a part of my sheet while there’s not much written, I will still be able to understand I will use the rest of the space more carefully, just like the child who has a defective part of his brain. An accident could happen while he’s only 3 years old, in a part of his brain where speech data is usually stocked, and as surprising as it can be: he will use another part of his brain in order to develop his speech capacities, without necessarily possessing any lack speech-wise. Amazing, is it not?
Is it normal, that we must tell people to take action when they see something unusual happen in their neighbourhood? Well yes, it is. By nature, men are individualistic and believe that someone else will take care of it. That seems unreal yet studies have proven it: situations have proven that we aren’t conscious of the needs of others, while when we find ourselves in such situation, we will yell for help hoping that someone…somewhere will hear our suffering call. Around, people will hear but they will rather think that someone else will take care of it. Are we unable to take responsibilities, unless we are taught to at a pretty young age, while the page isn’t blackened by a mess of writing?
Therefore, if we do manage to create this society that we all dream of, how would it be possible to break the individualism cast? How will we be able to teach men, that his brother is just as important as himself? I find myself pleased, thinking that it will be through the education that we will reach the next step but it goes much further than that….it will be at the household’s foundation that these values will have to take place, so the parents’ education is extremely urgent, for the survival of the next generations.
In society matters, be it socialist, communist or even capitalist. It is imperative that the whole population participate in its emancipation. However, the argument that we hear often is that there will always be “slackers” who will do nothing, who wants to do nothing. To that I answer: “Men, aren’t “slackers” by nature. They refuse to feel useless. It’s the sum up of actual and past circumstances which creates more and more of that kind of people. How, while being members of the lower part of the poorer class, who don’t earn much more than well-fair, who don’t manage to pay for bills, rent, food, leisure activities and so on, can we actually want to get involved in a society that represents nothing more than a slow but gradual destruction of our beings?
There isn’t only the worker who is an asset to society and that’s one of the problems that we refuse to understand as a group. We need to give people unable to find a job or to work, things to do so we do not lose them and see them fall progressively in an endless tunnel where depression and fear surrounds their prey like hungry wolves.
But, even if every single one of us would finally understand the importance of one another, of their implication toward building a better world, did you know that a single greedy person could destroy the work of a whole society? Yes, a single person could start a wave that would bring us back exactly to where we are today. Stupid creatures that we are, we have to live within a set of laws that keeps us from becoming greedy, that wouldn’t allow such actions in order to protect what will have taken decades to build up.
Hence, isn’t that a dictatorship? To tell a man, you will not act this particular way? You will live forever for one another? After all…everything is relative. If we take for example, Cuba, where it wasn’t allowed to possess a microwave, unnecessary energy-eating tool, while they were about to enter an unbelievable energy crisis? China, that doesn’t allow more than one child per family is in itself a dictatorship in the eye of one, but to the other, it seems evident that with the population density of that country, it wouldn’t be logical to promote reproduction. Shouldn’t a society live within the restrictions of its own capabilities? Therefore, is it a dictatorship to impose a structure within which everyone, as a community and not individually, is able to live without reaching the auto-destruction point of non-return?
- Sabbi
