Sharing
is the premise of equality, and absolute equality is the soul to a feasible and
perpetual government – Jill, with every good intention, was convinced of the
doctrine that many, Karl Marx for one, utilized as the basis of the utopian yet
defective system: Communism. Lisa, on the contrary, was fully conscious of the flaws
that were inevitably going to be manifested with sharing. Wealth, power,
commodities – these are not things to be shared with mechanical equality, or to
be owned collectively.
The idea of sharing, of owning things collectively is great. It builds
up a moneyless and classless society – on the premise that we, as a race,
abandon one of our identities – our human nature. Even the novel itself hinted
on that. The children wanting the best toys are a symbolic of the human greed.
Humans, with very few exceptions, are a selfish species. Fairness for the
majority of us is being the top 49%, rather than the unambiguous center. People
would rather work strenuously and strive for the best, and sharing means losing
that stimulating
incentive that has kept many toiling. When Jill had tried to promote the
sharing of toys among the children, many of them became restive because of the
tediousness caused by having nothing worth working for. The situation was
inverted when Lisa assigned the children missions that awarded them with toys
that could actually be possessed. For sharing and absolute equality to work, we
should stop being humans, neglect the lack of personal freedom and the
aspiration for luxury, and work for the common good alone. Sharing simply
doesn’t work – not even among toddlers – for, unfortunately, we are humans.
Jill held firmly the idea of collaborative power while Lisa conceives in
autocracy. The power should not be shared – at least, it’s not up to Jill to
decide, for Lisa is the rightful owner of city. She discovered it, planned it,
and filled it with her supplies. For it to become a community property would be
unjust. Moreover, although the word “dictator” is clearly derogatory, a society
ran by a prominent dictator could function better than a democratic one.
Democracy is, in a way, the autocratic regime of the majority, while a
prominent dictator, Lisa, for one, would be unbiased, and would try to benefit
the whole, rather than a specific group of people. Sharing of power could also
weaken a community’s power, pose a risk to nation’s unity, and impede the
decision-making progress. As Lisa described it, everyone would be squabbling
about how to divide things up, and no one would accomplish anything. The last
fatal setback of sharing of power, especially among children, is that it allows
every member of the society to participate in the process of voting, whether
they understand the issues being decided or not. Autocracy doesn’t always work;
in fact, it often doesn’t, though Lisa has made the right decision by keeping
the power to herself rather than sharing it.
Please don’t get me wrong, sharing is a wonderful virtue. However, it
shouldn’t be instilled forcefully into one’s mind, like how Jill tried to do
with her children. Rather than forcefully demanding children to share, which
only causes the children to develop hate and apathy, children should be allowed to
share things with sincerity, and experience the joy that comes with it. In the
novel, when Eileen offered Missy the location of a can, Lisa exclaimed:”
Now that’s a real kind of sharing.” It’s indeed, how sharing is supposed to be
– voluntary, and not compulsory.
Sharing, done correctly or incorrectly, should always be
respected. It’s a part of us. Love only grows by sharing. You can only have
more for yourself by giving it away to others.
No comments:
Post a Comment