Site Map Home Student

All we need is the people of our country to give up their hard-earned money to the poor. Siddhanth Aney's answer to all the problems that India faces. But is it really that simple? Let us dig deep into the leftist theory first.
Karl Marx's theory is based on assumption that all men are meant to be equal. His follower's say that the reason people are made out to be different is because of the system. Let every man be generous. Let no man be greater, let no man be richer, but, let every man be happy. It is truly a great thought, and Marx was in fact quite successful in framing a complete model of such a system. A system where there would be fair distribution of wealth, and 'every man will have clothes on his body and food in his stomach.' But he left out on something, something that Siddhanth often points out himself - the Human Factor - (corruption). Socialism is a theory about how humans should live, but its greatest flaw is the human itself. Socialism cannot work, and has not worked. Russia is a living and breathing example of that. Thus it intrigues me to see how strongly people propagate the implementation of a theory that contradicts itself.
Marx's theory encourages one to be Utopian. It's a theory followed by dreamers and revolutionists. People who follow a life of 'what ifs'. What if men were selfless and actually felt like they owe society something? What if the only reason for poverty today, was the society itself? What if we knew that every penny we give away will be used for something like stopping a mother from selling her child for money and not pocketed by those who we choose to lead the nation? Yes, what if the world was made up of all these what ifs - then it truly would be a great theory.
But, let us snap out of this dream world and discuss reality. There are men out there who have worked hard all their lives to get to where they are. They have done so not only to achieve something, but also to make their and their family's lives better. Why should such a man have to give away his money to a man who did nothing with his life, deserves to be poor, and uses this poverty to beg sympathy off others? A mans wealth should be decided on a system of meritocracy. It would be unfair to ask him to give up something that he has

earned.
Our society does not lack philanthropists. Those who feel they have money to give to the needy get pleasure in doing so. But charity is given to those who deserve it, those who have been bogged down by circumstances, and not sympathy seeking beggars. It is given by those who are happy with life and want to give something back to the world. This is the capitalistic approach. It allows charity and is based on a merit system. It's the practical approach to life. Every man works under the same set of rules. Those willing to work win, and those who wait for the winners to provide for them lose.
Socialism works on 'all men are equal.' But in today's world we do not work towards being equal, but being better and smarter and happier. Such is the human psyche - Excellence is what every man strives for. Thus, our very aim in life is to break the equality barrier. To ask for mediocrity is to ask one to go against his/her ideals. In doing so you are taking away the incentive for sweat and toil, and are depriving man the satisfaction of having achieved something for himself. A hardworking man will be as good as a lazy bum in such a society.
But the purist leftist outlook is one of integrating excellence and equality. It preaches a state free of class distinctions and religious barriers. Where every man works as hard as he can and thus has no regrets in contributing to a society of TRUE EQUALS. Thus, it is indeed disheartening to see Siddhanth Aney, an ardent and impassioned follower of the leftist movement to give up on his utopian ideals of such an outlook, and give in to something as criminal as mediocrity.
This article expresses the pragmatic side of me. But the dreamer inside me believes in socialism, for if this world were utopia, my interpretation of Marx’s theory would be its base, for there (in utopia), everyman will have what he needs and deserves, thus incorporating meritocracy too. This is just a dream, a dream far from reality and possibility, but then its not important whether your dreams are big or small; the important thing is to have one.

Akhil Wable