This is a comment on a comment on my one poem on individual v/s collective freedom. I thought to share it here.
The existing liberal "freedom", which we also call the bourgeois freedom, is freedom not in association with others but in separation from others. The institution of private property creates inequalities that leads to relative freedom and unfreedom. One is sole owner of of ones' possessions and can dispose of as he/she wills without consideration to others. A is not slave and master as natural individual but in and through a society under certain social relations which he/she has entered in the process of historical development independent of his/her conscious will. One sees not realization of his/her freedom in others' freedom but its limitation.
I'll explain it with an example: A, B and C are 3 individuals. A is, let us say, a university professor like me or Dhirendra bhai. He/she has modestly very good income from public money. He has quite congenial atmosphere around him a 'happy' family; has reasonably good friends and followers, people take him seriously on fb. Though would not mind a palatial accumulation on Pandit Pant Marg and also won't mind owning a helicopter but is happy in his British period modest bunglow in the University and a Hundayi i10. Would not mind having his own holiday home in Mussoorie but is quite happy to find a place to holiday in LBS Academy or Advanced Srtudies (Shimla). He is free to write or not to; to speak or not to on any6thing; on capitalism/Communalism/communism/gender... . as long as it does not become dangerous for the system. If you ask A, is he free? Instant answer is, "of course. Is there any doubt?"
B, is let us say is a CHHOTU or BAHADUR working on a grocery shop or a Dhaba. His morning begins at 5-6 AM and day ends at 9-10 PM. He has a shelter in the shop to spend the night and something to eat. His knowledge is his acquired moralities like sex unpalliated marriage is sin; obedience to master and eldersd is virtue. His only source of entertainment and education is TV in the shop. He has no time to think aboput freedom or unfreedom. His only worry is that the Master might get angree on his some word/act and kick him out and he would be on roads again.
C is an honest, educated, unemployed man/woman with a PhD degree in his/her 30s. He/she is free to do anything. He can write/speak on communism/capital;ism/disasters in Uttarakhand/deteriorating academic level in AU and so on... But we al know he/she does not do any of these things. He feels angry with family who think he is good for nothing. He feels bitter against better off friends. .... And one evening he hangs himself from the ceiling fan for which he is absolutely free.
If you ask A that if he is free then are B&C also free? His answer would be no. Then are unfreedoms of B&C unrelated to the freedom of A? How can they be made free? By raising them to the level of A and that needs nothing less than a revolution which we seek. If B&C are unfree, is the society free? Can an individual be free in an unfree society? My answer is no. To be free, society has to be freed. Freedom in an unfree society is an illusion.