I shall or you shall or we shall, whatever it may be called it will have a greater effect on the lives of every one of us. After reading the book Anthem by Ayn Rand, I was a little surprised at the view of the dystopian society. It was impressive how this was written and I admire it but the ideology of the book, the points to claim it "dystopian" were unimaginable for one reason and were needed in another. This book is a complete opposite of the phrases of everyday children as had learned: "Unity is strength", "Sharing is caring" etc. It portrait's collectivism which in my opinion is needed most of the time.
As the book had ended with the words of how Equality 7-2521 being as one who brings his fellow brothers who are suffering from the disease of "we", it also shows how in a community, one cannot live by himself. It would not be considered into effect when one claims to perform every action in the society by themselves and it would be unjust also. In my opinion, this book is a bias which only portrayed one vision of the socialist government. I ask to the author, are we not socialist also in some sense?
Let us take a recent action by American government which I could declare socialist but necessary. When the bail out money of the tax payers were distributed among the corporations, it was not for us, the tax payer's direct benefit but the corporation's. Then we are helping others, we give other as if we would say "sharing is caring." A child's mind is built that way when we are taught that but as time progresses, we forget everything and what else? We care for our own, me and myself. Is it what we were taught by our kindergarten teachers or is it the environment around us that caused us to the change? Or is it that our teachers were wrong to teach us this? If so, then they shall be taken out of teaching and put outside of public schools, but are they? Is the principal giving them chances to do whatever they think or is the principal also affected to this?
We are not depended among the others, how would the world that we see today be? For example, I do not know any job of a carpenter, thus it is required for me to bring a carpenter and if he is one of my friend, we develop the relationship that it is not required for me to pay him much. But in individualism, it would be that every men is for themselves and would not work for any other. Thus it can again be proved that individualism is needed just like the combination of unity is needed of there would not be words such as 'unity is strength.'
In kindergarten, we learned how our teachers taught us: sharing is caring, unity is strength and much more but as we get older, we forget what our teachers taught us. We prove that if we follow what our teachers taught us, we would not be able to live in this fast growing world. Therefore, it is needed that we look at only ourselves and only for our benefits and none others. Shall this be called individualism? Shall this be compared to be good when even though we can look up on another human being for their survival, we should not because it would be against the morality of 'individualism'? If so, then individualism shall not be followed as it is against humanity, just as unity is against humanity in certain cases which would require for us to develop the theory that nothing in the world is perfect but can be thus perfected and this shall be our thought.
I am no socialist, no communist but only saying neither pure socialism or pure individualism can ever be created or shall work out fine. A bit of both is needed from both ends as if it was both the body and the soul/mind that is needed for a complete human. It is not my view at the world that I think it shall be considered only one, but all or combination of all. It shall be pure in the sense that it accepts all and none, both so that it shall form the outside world or else there would not be any nature and the nature, even if it existed, it would not claim a bond with us.