எல்லோரும எல்லாமும் பெற வேண்டும் (1)

எல்லோரும எல்லாமும் பெற வேண்டும்"  எனும் கோஷம் கவர்ச்சியானது. சுண்டியிழுக்கும் வல்லமை மிக்கது. ஆனால் சாத்தியமானதா? 

Sounds inspiring, but as a realistic policy it collapses under a few hard truths—this is why it often remains a fantasy slogan rather than a workable plan.

Here’s why it’s more common in rebel or utopian rhetoric than in practical governance:

1. Resource Limits –

Every society has finite resources—food, land, energy, money, skilled labor. If everyone literally gets everything, the math doesn’t work. Even the most productive economies have to allocate and prioritize.

2. Different Needs vs. Same Wants –

In reality, people’s wants are infinite, but needs vary. Giving “everything” means trying to satisfy both, which leads to impossible demands—e.g., one person wants a yacht, another wants a private island, another wants both.

3. Economic Incentives –

If all things are guaranteed to all people regardless of effort, the system risks removing motivation for production, innovation, and service—unless people are culturally conditioned to work purely for collective good (which history shows is rare and hard to sustain).

4. Distribution Problems –

Even if enough resources existed, the logistics of delivering “everything” equally to everyone would be nearly impossible. The process of who gets what, when, and how can become more contentious than the resources themselves.

5. Human Nature –

Inequality often emerges from human ambition, competition, and preference. Even in egalitarian experiments (like communes), differences in contribution and decision-making eventually create new hierarchies.

Why rebels use this slogan?

It’s emotionally powerful—it promises absolute fairness and abundance, appeals to the frustration of the deprived, and paints the current system as unjust. But it’s rarely fleshed out with a sustainable plan, so it remains an idealistic battle cry rather than a governing principle. Let us turn the history very briefly. 

1.Marx & the Manifesto (1848)

Slogan spirit: Marx never used those exact Tamil words, but his core call — “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” — mirrors the sentiment.

Historical path:

Marx and Engels envisioned a classless society where private property was abolished and wealth/resources belonged to everyone.

This inspired the 1917 Russian Revolution, where Lenin’s Bolsheviks promised “Peace, Land, Bread” — essentially “everything for everyone” in a poor, war-torn society. Outcome:

Initially, land was seized from landlords and redistributed.

Soon, centralized state control replaced local ownership, production quotas failed, scarcity reappeared.

By the 1930s under Stalin, instead of equality, there was a rigid hierarchy with party elites enjoying privileges — the opposite of “everyone gets everything.”

Failure reason: Scarcity, inefficiency, human ambition, and power concentration.

2. Fourier & Utopian Socialism (early 1800s)

Slogan spirit: Charles Fourier, a French thinker, imagined “phalanstères” — self-contained communities where everyone would freely enjoy all life’s pleasures, no competition, and no poverty.

Historical path:

Fourier’s disciples tried to set up communal living experiments in France and the USA (e.g., Brook Farm, 1841–1847).

Property, food, and labor were to be shared equally; everyone’s desires (from basic needs to luxury tastes) would be met. Outcome:

Quickly collapsed due to poor economic sustainability, disputes over work contribution, and lack of skilled labor.

When resources ran short, the original “all share equally” idea turned into “some get more, others get resentful.”

Failure reason: Economic impracticality and interpersonal conflict.

3.  “Garibi Hatao” Era (1971 India)

Slogan spirit: While not identical, “Garibi Hatao” (Remove Poverty) implied that the government would ensure every Indian had essential needs — food, shelter, livelihood. Historical path:

Huge welfare promises were made; land reforms, bank nationalization, public distribution systems.

People believed it meant real, equal access to resources for all. Outcome:

Political centralization increased; corruption and inefficiency in distribution meant benefits rarely reached the poorest.

India remained poor for decades afterward; the gap between promise and reality widened.

Failure reason: Administrative inefficiency, political misuse of slogan power, and limited economic growth.