Utopian Dreams

The Proletariat and the Individual      

 Introduction: Part 1 of 2

J. A. McCreery

It is a common thread of the social-theorist community to dream of a world in which equality has been realised, the stratification of society levelled to the point of no return – the point of safety, the point of ineffable protection provided and regulated by the state.

It is an ideal that harks back to communism, the so-called ‘Red Claw’, yet seeps into even the most liberal and conservative parties, simply hidden under the guise and innuendo of labelling, socialism. The Nazis even fell within the socialist remit, they were, after all, The National Socialist German Worker’s Party, a titularly socialist group at least. Contemporary Australia also works towards social equality; welfare and government spending is reallocated and redistributed  resources for the collective. Consider the definitions:

• Socialism is “a political and economic theory of social organisation which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

• Communism is “a theory or system of social organisation in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.”

The difference is nominal at best, yet one is taught to disparage communism without remorse, in a ‘righteous’ attempt to validate the capitalist tenets of society and the individual freedom, and liberty, they apparently support. A particular example comes to mind, twenty unlearned Year 10 students in a room coming up against a teacher who broaches the question of why communism and socialism, is bad. Twenty feeble-minds batter at communism, without hesitation, attempting to affirm the existing system they have so benefited from, yet are unable to make a dent in the, admittedly much more learned and prepared, teachers’ argument for socialism. The thought was not even conscious but the judgement was distinct and swift. 

So, is socialism or liberalism the better form of societal order, the collective or the individual? It is a question at the heart of much of the conflict throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, with the Cold War and the Vietnam War pertinent examples. 

At the heart of this battle lies the conflict of the individual vs the state. Is the individual a slave to the state, promoting its purposes at the expense of self, or is the individual free to make the best of a system that has a marginal commitment to them?