Individualism, the bane of society

It is not true that man by nature is motivated to exert best only by selfish ends, more so by monetary interest. Social history proves otherwise. Man by birth is creative and social. However, through a concerted campaign man is made selfish. Full-fledged conditioning for such long has made common man think and behave like a selfish animal forgetting ones own past. Likewise, de-conditioning is a distinct eventuality to establish the historical truth. History of pre- industrial phase does not corroborate that self is a guiding attribute of man. The theoretical premise of such a campaign for capital-based market forces to contend is the virtue these apologists constantly search in individualism. It found a precious base in the earlier slogan of individual liberty; craftily brewing the two to their great advantage, grafting many mythical formulations in trail. Let us recollect the genesis first. As a finished product of individualism, selfish-ends has a history of three hundred years alone. Despite this sponsored lineage, selfish-ends are short, distrustful and itching while social-ends are enduring and satisfying that are more close to the nature of man than animal. Man or woman basically survived in society and learned to work collectively. In spite of gruelling efforts to condition human nature during these later three hundred years by the ruling sections in consonance with industrial-commercial interests, man still does not go by selfish ends alone. Instances are not few when ones natural instinct, ones innate goodness assert at appropriate moments to discard selfishness. The stark truth testifies that Man is not born alone. With him or her many relations take birth. The very moment of such a creation fills many voids. Neither one dies alone. It is a fiction of fine order that one comes alone and goes away lonely. When one goes many tales, good or bad accompanies to the last moment that hangs heavy for many days thereafter. Only mystics want to keep the world confined to self by such half-truths of a lonely soul. The world is poorer by loosing many relationships with the passing away of one citizen. With one such sad moment, hang many tales of rich experiences for the future generations to remember. Even the ones most vilified in their times do have social relations to cherish! It is a vivid world full of relationships in constant interaction with each other. One helps make the other bloom and ethically richer by survival and this vivid interaction in so many ways day and night. Society has evolved that way. It cannot be wished away by mere halftruths to falsify. The striking facet of our existence is that man, barring heretics, by nature remains social. Only in social setting man exists as man and blooms. Without social interaction his or her potent remains stale and sterile. Talent is a product of this social interaction and no one has the right to expropriate this social additive. And money is a poor compensation in exchange for this additive and cannot enrich either in substance. However, in course of history this philosophy of individualism was brought to fore which cuts at the very root of this social law by seeking to make man confined to self and weaving relations to serve the powerful; getting crumbs in exchange. Man is facing this dualism. This is the basic contradiction of social life to resole today. Historical studies substantiate that it was industrial revolution, which had provided the material ground to fashion individualism as a systematic philosophy with individual, in contrast to his family and the neighbourhood community as the focal point of interest. Industry needed an independent worker, free from all social or emotional affiliations and family encumbrances for a concentrated production spiral at the machine to his or her best with least possible obligations in exchange. The basic unit for production was thus crafted as a free individual, though in a chain, still an individual to contribute.

With industrial mode, individualism is a necessary by-product. This society can hardly afford. Let us recollect here that mere stable property in private mode, exercised collectively by family - labour earlier during pre-industrial phase, could not give shape to individualism as a philosophy, different from the importance of individual in a community setting it had. Though it is true that individual or private interest had started taking shape much earlier in human history, but it could not give birth to individualism prior to industrialcommercial nexus. Neither this individualism withered away substantially in Soviet Union merely with the abolition of private property. With industrial mode at the centre of social production for long 74 years of experiment in socialist construction, individualism kept its flame glowing. Rather, individualism worked more perniciously even within the portals of communist party there and almost in all other so-called socialist countries without exception. This aspect is emphasized not to plead in any manner for private property but to clear chaff from the grain and pinpoint the real culprit today in industrial mode of production for this evil of individualism in society.