Vanilla Socialism is non-sense

             I came across a very simple definition of socialism. For a very long time it was very tiresome to understand this societal concept. It is not that I have become a specialist at it. It is just that I know it as a single line which tries to encompass the whole concept of it. "The entire ownership of the means of production is with the state". If this is the case what do individuals own in a pure socialist setup? Does the means of production also include the people. All the big socialist tryouts in the past have made it very clear that the state owns the people, their livelihood, their actions and their style of living. Yes, I understand that we are now looking at Dictatorship of the state. But, isnt socialism just that. Are all humans on the planet inherently self motivated and all work for the common good. Are all the individuals ready to take in the same salary and live in same sized houses, same rations, same clothes, same everything. By birth every individual is unique and always tries to be his own. Every individual wants his place under the sun in a unique way. It might be in a good or bad way, depending on how the society decides what is good and bad.

                  If everybody works the same amount and produces the same quantity and quality of goods, there is no question of state deciding it, it is already there and done. The world is so complicated. How is the state going to innovate if all its people go out and do the same job for their entire life. How is the state going to reward the extra-ordinary. Innovation, design and related activities are creative. How is the state going to ensure that creativity also is equal? But, all humans are not creative. The creativity among humans varies from near zero to a level where some people cannot sit quite for even a second. What is the motivation for this sort of creativity. Will the state take this ownership and create a creativity department. No, creativity is not a factory. What if some people dont accept this societal setup. Will they be forced to accept it or banished to an other planet. One more important question is what all will the state do. Since it owns all the means of production, that means all the activities have to be managed by the state. What will the constituents of the so called "state"? Will the state be questionable? Will there be "questioning" department? If there is one there definitely should be an answering department. How beautiful. You ask the question and you answer it. It cannot get better than this. Which people are the state. How will they be chosen? How big will the state be? Will they live in the same houses and lanes. If you want true socialism then the there should be vast expanses of houses with eerily the same design what so ever. For dinner the entire society will be eating the same food, irrespective of their position in the state or out of it.

                If such setup does exist, how do you ensure that it stays that way? Now, we are entering into dark waters where nobody wants in. Will you use fore to ensure that the society stays this way or do you depend on the human tendency that he is a "social" being and will accept this intrinsically. A person who works hard will not do so. A person who wants better food, better facility by hook or crook cannot do so. A creative idea when it comes into any person, he should be having that "socialist" yearning for disclosing it, otherwise it will stay locked and die with him. But then we are humans, not ants and bees. We are an evolved species. Creativity has flowered in toughest dictatorial setups for want of recognition and better living conditions. Yes, they do suppress creativity aimed at the common good, but it gives out routes for creativity in lanes which would not have opened in a more free setup. The lack of recognition and the redtape involved in the socialist setup will again inhibit creativity for the common good and support creativity for controlling strategies.

Any society if it tells itself as socialist, should come out with the percentage. Pure socialism is non-sense even for a textbook explanation, because we are talking about humans.

Is the society killing individualism

society is a collective of rules, laws, culture and what not which have been cultivated all along its existence. Yes they do differ in their rules, laws etc. But, they have a common thread of hosting a collection of human beings bonded by rules, laws and practises. So, all individuals who adhere to all these blah blah end up being an "integral" part of that society and he becomes "the" society taking them forward for the next generation.

Now, where does the individual stand here. Can an individual do whatever he wants? Can an individual comment on the rules, laws and culture? Can an individual have his own rules, laws and culture. Whatif an individual cant fit in the societal setup? How will the society treat them? Why doesnt the society be recognised by their individuals. Why doesnt the society tell stories of "every" individual. Why is the societal system so dogmatic in pulling all the individuals into following its rules? Is the societal setup afraid of it being destroyed and the makers afraid of losing their "individuality"?

Does the human race owe its loooooong existence to this hardwired societal setup formed by a few "individuals" who framed all those rules? Will the individual ever get his due? When will one size fits all concepts change? Is a tramp not important in the societal setup? Is a beggar not included in the societal setup. Why has money become the sole requirement to announce individuality. Why cant a musician be one just like that? Why should he learn the rules of the music set by predessors. Music being a continium, is also restricted and put behind the bars of rules, what of the individual? Why should a grownup be one always? Why is this burden on him to follow a set rules for a grownup. Why should the children act like what we like. Why shouldnt the children do what they want. If they want to play in the mud, then let it be so. Why is everybody here through generations affixed to a certain procedural life? Why should the doctor be at his clince only. Cant we have a doctor who creates music in the night and he learns only by living at the morgue? How will the society take him? I am not talking about the "best" doctors and musicians, I am talking about all the individuals wanting to do music or treat human beings in their own way beyond allopathy, homeopathy and other set rules?

This exactly is the problem plaguing every field of education in the society. Every education is given out in so much a planned way that nearly all are equaly good or bad. There is no creativity to create the same creativity. When will every individual feel the whole expanse of the universe not the space in the apartment or city or country or continent or planet or galaxy or .......Why arent individuals fighting this very limiting access to the freeing or losing your mind.? Why cant we just walk on and on without worrying of food, death, life, when will we know what is really around us, except air and light.

When will all the individuals freak out, when will everybody be mad, when will everybody be living beings, when will we know that we have one of the heaviest brains in this planet, when will we honor all individuals along with ourselves ..........................

When will we "Be"........................