My ‘Socialist’
Joint Family
Shrutasree
Chattopadhyay
This is not an
expert’s point of view, but mine. An ordinary student is comparing the most
controversial issue with an ordinary joint family. Socialism or Communism,
whatever we call it, is still a tricky subject in terms of definition. Various
sociologists, historians, scholars and politicians have described it in
different ways, or to play safe, in their own way. There are many similarities
with much diversity. There are debates about the coming of socialism in
society, gradually or through revolution. This is not an area of prediction,
but we can speculate on the result of the continuous process of evolution in
society through the minds and action
of the subject of it, human beings.
So when a matter depends particularly on social
animals, we can’t just neglect the most complex element of human character,
his psychological state or pattern.
A person is bound
to act according to his state of mind, and this is the point whence starts all
kinds of problems, misunderstandings and storms of arguments and chaos. I just
feel that my family had a socialist character which is now disintegrating, and
why I think so is the principle theme of this essay. This is not a scientific
research, but a parallel discussion of my joint family with much discussed
socialism. Like any normal society, my family has classes or people of
different positions; some have money and the resultant influence, and others
have neither money nor the influence that keeps flowing from it. So I find haves and have-nots in my family. My grandfather was the supreme authority,
the eldest and wisest of all, and no one could question his decisions. We all
were loyal members of his party since the day we were born; we were his dream
and he was our one and only leader. In his domain, everyone was equal of the
monetary status.
We had common
kitchen where my mother and aunts used to cook for everyone, the same
breakfast, same launch and same dinner for each member, with no class tag
attached. It was no dream, the equality was there and we saw it for years.
But strangely,
equality was given little thought by the rest of the family. As I have said,
there was no one to question Grandpa, but I never said that, there was no
desire of questioning the system. There were occasional sparks and after some
time the odd one sparked a fire.
Grandpa’s eldest
son (no name necessary) had the prestigious job of teaching little kids, but
earned less than his younger brother who was a successful engineer with a huge
salary who made a big contribution to the family. That big contribution
ultimately and unconsciously made him more influential than the elder brother
who was supposed to be the next in line for supremacy in the family after
grandpa. So in this capitalist world, money talks very loudly. There was my
father and two uncles, holding different jobs and monetary status. And more
money means more power. So my eldest uncle and my youngest uncle, who was a
writer (anyone can guess which he belongs to!) were the family proletariats and
Mr. Engineer, my father and the other uncle formed the elite and bourgeoisie
class.
Equality began to
prove as an obstacle for the ‘elite classes’ of the family – Grandpa dictated
that all the children of the family must go to the same school, but they could
no longer neglect the “good opportunity” for their own offspring. Here’s where
psychology or the mind started its work. The same food same lifestyle was no
more wanted by the “influential classes” of the family. All grandpas’ big
decisions began to be influenced by the so called successful sons; he was
getting old and needed support- which is a normal thing for any leader.
And so, the opinion and suggestions of the
‘have-nots’ had no influence on ‘family’ decisions. At this point I suddenly
realized that the balance of my family rested upon economic conditions. Money
now decided status, not talent, in my “equal” joint family. Even my eldest
uncle took initiatives to get more money by leaving his old job, which once was
his dream. But for status and position, reality dispenses with dreams.
First the kitchen ‘separated’, then
home, and “joint” gave way to a “nuclear” family. Grandpa, grandma, my uncles
and aunts all grew apart, divided. My “socialist equal family” gradually
transformed into several capitalist opportunist groups who raced against each
other for a better life, unconsciously losing the essence of “being alive”. But
there was still my younger uncle, the writer, the proletariat of the family,
who didn’t join the race. I asked him once, “Don’t you want to be rich and
powerful?” he said if he became rich then other people would normally became
poorer, so instead of being equal he would create another class.
He was right;
gaining power, money or anything means a loss for someone else. Money is not
infinite, it circles around. The rich can became poor by a sudden stroke of
misfortune and poor can become incredibly rich by sudden stroke of luck. So if
I wanted to get rich someone would have to be poor.
In that way, he
and I or anyone else could be creating classes and differences within society.
I often thought it was very hard to be a pure socialist; I’d have to be
satisfied all the time, couldn’t demand more because in a “dream socialist society” no one was better, richer or poorer
than anyone else. Just like my old home, the same food, lifestyle and status
for everyone. So whether my youngest uncle is a pure socialist or just a wise
man is totally irrelevant. In a way, he stands out as a common man, because he
believes satisfaction brings equality, not gaining more power can solve
anything.
So when a “have-nots”
make good money they can no longer be called proletariat because they have been
transformed into “haves”, while yesterday’s “haves”, without anything, have
been reduces to today’s “have-nots”.
Such is the
vicious cycle of power and money that no man can avoid it, forget the shield of
“satisfaction” – which was missing in my family and I think is still missing in
the common human mind. Gradually my socialist family collapsed. But I still
have a family, still a hope to install peace in my own house. Because I
believe society reflects the way we build our respective families.
(Published
in “The Statesman”/ NB extra, dt-Friday/14th may 2010)
