Who is to blame for the socialism, development and corruption?

By Abraham arop

April 4, 2008 — Good intentions but corruption is natural. The socialist society cannot be reached by simply putting up a planned economy and imposing equality on people by force. Only through a state of technological advancement that allows virtually unlimited access to resources to everyone. And this will still take a while. But then corruption will be a natural consequence. But now in our world of limited resources there is no way to achieve equal distribution because some people are more fit and some are less. It’s like in the evolution game. The trickier or tougher animal gets more food than the dumb or weak animal. Only if there is unlimited food available individual ability doesn’t make a distinction anymore. All we can do now, is try to minimize inequalities without ignoring the individual or citizens and to push forward on, to new technologies, new energies, to the country.

Right. There are many people in South Sudan who choose not invest greater time and effort in increasing their wealth, because those people are by and large confortable with what they have and don’t feel the need to have more. Perhaps this helps illustrate the point that people are not inherently greedy. At the same time though there are very large numbers of people who do not have enough to be confortable, or to survive, and for whom the state they find themselves in certainly is not voluntary or a choice. And those people are for the most part powerless to change that state. There are large numbers of people who seeking for job but the state failed to employed them because there is what is so-called corruption and mismanagement.

No, there is nothing fair about socialism, development and corruption. Socialism has not failed miserably and without exception at all. The reasons for its failure, if in fact there are historical example of genuine political, economic, and social principles and policies advocated by our people being out into practice, is because of ruthless and violent repression by capitalist nations and interests, and the economic isolation and stagnation of those socialist nation, as I stated earlier in this thread. For example, I’m walking through France’s great underbelly, Baily street or the Bun Green company etc, I will remember to ask a few people if they think their lives are better than those of people living in the country war. Therefore, Southeren Sudan has nothing to do with socialism. Just because a nation is ruled by something calling itself a “corruption” does not mean that country is corruptist. People still believe this socialist because there are still some of us there or here who believe that human beings are more important than profits.

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that is. Let us first consider the question from the point of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economic; scientists in both fields attempt to discovere laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality people failed to recognized the main principles to change the whole thing in the government. But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have were ally overcome what scientific called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such political tradition as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society. For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overstimate sicence and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of the country.

Furthermore, innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individual feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently disscused with an intelligent and well-disposed person the threat of another violent, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a the government would offer protection from that danger. There upon my friend, very calm and Mr.X. said to me; “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human socialism?

But I say, I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such question, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I was conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contracdictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas. Person is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and social being. Meaning, as a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate ability. As a social being, he seeks to gain there cognition and affecetion of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to confort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the sepecial charcter of a person, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strenght of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a person happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept” society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society in this physical, intellectual, and emotional existence that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society.

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ant sand bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instinct, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. If we ask ourselves how structure of society and the cultural attitude of person should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of person is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic development of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay for long without change.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has be come more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Anyway, thank God for the sake of simplicity in the main top position that fellows I shall call” anyone and all those who do not share in the nepotism, tribalism and corruption within the state government and local authority.

The author is based in the USA. He can be reached at [email protected]