The past weekend, i completed a relatively unique double of reading through two distinct texts with strong communist influences; The Motorcycle Diaries and Animal Farm. The former recounts the journey carried out by Ernesto Che Guevara accompanied by his friend, Alberto Granada aboard ‘la Poderosa’ while the latter describes the Orwellian tale of an uprising staged by animals of various “classes” in a farm in England in hope of better living conditions.
While “The Motorcycle Diaries” chronicles the formative years of Che’s eventual revolutionary life, these very influences are presented in a very subtle manner wherein Che encounters deep class, societal, cultural and economic divides in his travels across Latin America while he himself battles tough medical and economic conditions. What essentially starts of as a humourous series of thoughts and situational anectodes penned down by Che towards the start of the journey eventually transcends into a soulful recording of the punishing conditions the native Latin Americans are subject to in their own lands. All this, while Che manages to keep the humourous thread running and at the same time, provide a poetic narrative of the mystic and enchanting lands that he visits as a part of his expedition. That the text might be called ‘Motorcycle Diaries’ while ‘la Poderosa’ gave up less that halfway through might appear strange. That is an academic anomaly in an otherwise thoroughly enjoyable book that does not give much of a scope for one to crib through.
In addition to these texts carrying deep socialist undercurrents, i have also had the privilege of reading throught the thoughts of one of the faces of capitalist societies: Ayn Rand. And the distinctions between the two are pretty easy to see. Reading through Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged had left a lasting impact on my thoughts at that time and it was very difficult for me to think in any other terms other than those propounded by those in Ayn Rand’s utopian world. And in hindsight, i must admit that they tend to be quite damaging, especially given today’s glocalization and mass movement of economies world wide to a democratic setup. Ayn Rand’s societies consisted of few men [and women, yes ok!] of strong virtues pitted against a mass society that tended to be parasitic in nature. And this corruption of character manifested itself not solely in individuals in trade but also those who practiced and created art. And her argument against the corruption of such societies was to revolt against them through non-cooperation. And in this manner, it had a very Gandhian edge to the revolt. But while the Gandhian way of life talked about reformation of the instigator, Ayn Rand preferred to profess destruction of the corrupt society in the absence of the ‘prime movers’ of the world.
But coming back to why i felt this outlook could now present damaging consequences, the basic fault lies in the very utopian society created by Ayn Rand herself. The only parameter against which an individual was judged was by his/her virtues to individualism while leaving out a number of very pertinent factors [which are prevalent today] like culture, historical class bias and education. And these are the very factors [or biases] that caused Che to eventually don the revolutionary streak.
History has been witness to the vast social injustice inflicted upon various races by colonialism ranging from suppression to mass extermination of races. These consequences of colonialism are most apparent in some of the most troubled of states today like African states of Zimbabwe and South Africa, contensted territory like Kashmir and vast colonization of Australia by European colonists after mass extermination of native populace.
This note is not meant to serve as a treatise against colonialism; what i am trying to convey is that Ayn Rand’s vision of the world was extremely lopsided and could not account for a number of factors that would eventually present themselves to the global polity and economy in the times to come. And with the divides across the world today brought down to their knees by equalizers like the Internet, free trade and consumerist culture, Ayn Rand’s vision of individualism reeks of a defeatist attitude that would not do the world any good.
The world economy today needs new consumers and new markets. The success of an individual today depends upon another individual halfway across the world; the failure of one also brings down another equally antipodal. So the essential need to is general upliftment of peoples across the world, making them contributors to the world rather than subjects of charity and building a local market thus perpetrating general good. And in this, Che’s vision of upliftment of the suppressed classes makes more sense that Ayn Rand’s vision of their destruction.