Socialism and Individualism: Antagonistic or Complementary ?

From the numerous number of "isms" that are prevalent in the English language, the two most controversial and seemingly opposed ones are socialism and individualism. Socialism, and its violent cousin communism, place the state higher than an individual. However, individualism has placed the individual at the apex, paying no heed to the needs of society at large. China is the leading example of relative success of socialism; USA is the same of individualism. Still, the question remains about the surety of success of either one.

Throughout the history of mankind, it has been proven that man' s wants are limitless. Each and every person has a desire to obtain what he considers is the best. But these wants always seem to be increasing exponentially, whereas the means to obtain them are scarce. This is the root of all struggle between men. And any society is nothing but a collection of individuals: it paints a collective picture of the vast majority. Hence, each society faces the same problem of trying to satisfy the peoples' unlimited demands with the limited resources available.

Socialism tries to solve this problem by removing all the social and sometimes even religious Independence of the people. It wants to ensure that all are treated fairly. In order to maintain an all round equality in society, there is a flow of resources from the rich to the poor. But it has been seen that the poor are still poor and the rich remain rich by using their clout and through corruption. The hapless middle class eventually turns into the poor as well. There results a pure lack of effort to do any work. Such a society will not be able to sustain itself for long.

Individualism, on the other hand, puts the onus of everything upon the individual. Each person is responsible for his betterment. There is a heightened sense of competition among the people of the same society. The proponents of this system make a case that this system is rewarding only for the worthy, and thus there is an extra desire to work. However, even this system has its pitfalls. The rich, owing to their existing wealth and access to resources, tend to get a better chance to realise their dreams and hence are bound to get richer. Of course, their 'connections' are ever present to aid them in case of any troubles. The poor don't generally have such opportunities, and hence, by the law of averages, are less likely to achieve their dreams. Even this social system is bound to become corroded and eventually crumble to pieces.

The solution to either of these systems seems to be a hybrid variety of the two. The state should adopt socialistic means to ensure that every individual gets an equal and adequate amount of resources, which will lay a foundation on which one can work towards the realization of one's dreams. There should be special concessions made to the underprivileged sections of the society in such a way that they learn to become and remain independent. The entire society has to go under a paradigm shift of sorts. People need to understand the fact that the State is there to lay the groundwork for success, not for spoon feeding the good-for-nothing ones. Meanwhile, the rich need to be made aware of their duties as fellow citizens to help raise the overall economic and social status of the underprivileged. This hybrid of a socialist government and an individualist society may just do the trick. I hope the statesmen of China and the USA are reading this.......