As a matter of fact, every country around this planet possesses apparent dissimilarities in terms of enforcing its political system.
For instance, Indonesia, with all dynamic transitions happened in the past, decided Pancasila to be a main functional layer in tracking citizens and has been enforcing Democracy as a wheel to run the country.
Yet, a strong historical injustice Karl Marx injected towards the society of Soviet Union had made this country unequivocally oppose the existence of capitalism format proliferating at that moment within it.
On a basis of aforementioned lines, it showcases both countries have one thing in common, viz. protection. They are inevitably willing to put their best endeavors by creating a certain ideology only for the sake of society’s betterment.
However, even if these two nations attempt to build an immaculate surveillance, the political mechanisms of conducting the terms are way so diverse at any level.
The case on which Indonesia is animadversion upon Communism since the moment of antebellum, and Soviet Union never perceives any convenience towards Democracy is one of the visible diversities successfully transforming the main character of their nations, that is, culture.
What is the historical injustice difference between Indonesia and Soviet Union?
The commitment of people of Indonesia to the quest of accomplishing their visions is seen when this country was colonialized by the Netherlands and Nippon. In that moment, Indonesia’s political system was still vague.
Indonesia was fully controlled and forced. For one thing, the colonialists were beyond powerful and annihilated the citizens’ prosperity. They did not even have a possibility a picture of a future. Being a bon vivant was faux-pas feasibility.
The nature materialized in the form of strong soldiers murdering innocent people for an invisible cause called ‘nationalism’, terrible misconducted use of budget that actually belonged to poor people, as well as limited freedom of speech over various means, justified merely by the paranoia of the Dutch government officials.
The good news was, those conditions were not given; the products of a concept invented by the emperors and kings of Europe almost four centuries ago finally diminished from Indonesia.
Like any other invention, ‘nation-state’ also has its expiration date. In 1950s, five years after the independence, the former president of Indonesia enforced that Democracy would be accompanied alongside with Pancasila. The implementation was not as arduous as the citizens thought before.
They were respected and considered as human beings. This system emerged the so-called equality and justice amongst people at large. The existence of Democracy created boldness in Indonesians lives and made them easier to propose their perspectives freely.
Today, this process is further accelerated in Indonesia by globalization and technology, both of which have been escorting a larger scale of civil society to be stronger than they have ever been.
Just in the last few decades, transnational solidarity and tolerance have attested themselves to be so powerful it can alter the decisions taken by the leaders.
It is therefore possible that in less than a hundred years, states’ dominance colonialized the inferior nations, e.g. Indonesia, will be replaced by a network of restless efforts and voices of the people.
Democracy is now a face of Indonesia which is affected by the transitional process of its cultural aspect and people’s rational calculation.
History announced that in XX century, philosophy and social issue in Soviet Union were coloured by four enormous dogmas, i.e. phenomenology-existentialism, neothomism, analytical philosophy, and neo-Marxist.
Historically speaking, Neo-Marxian advocated a new theory called economic determination. This move was a move which propelled Karl Marx to be up against this system, for this system gave a birth to a theory known as Capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic system in which a country’s trade and industry are stirred by private owners and not the state.
Karl Marx saw it as a huge loss for the Russian people, particularly for the proletarian, for they had no any credible capacity to fight, but had a great capability in doing what they were capable of. As a result, the proletarian became mendicants.
The capitalists eternally tended to gain lots of perspicuous leverage from the country and the society by changing the economic life. On the other side, the labourers also compelled the proper work-time to be four hours lesser than it used to be and asked an increase wage to the capitalists.
These perpetual motions were the forms of defying the existence of the capitalists in their country. The proletarian purposed to crumble the political system down and the capitalists’ authorization over them. Socialism was inevitable due to a struggle class and the proletarian’s victory was a certain thing.
Nowadays, Soviet Union is not responding to the economic system devastating its citizens’ lives. Karl Marx’s presence was the absolute help for Soviet Union in terms of fighting many indigent people in his country.
He gave a new picture of future to the people of Soviet Union that nature and all things in their land literally belonged to the people’s hands. Even though his pragmatic thinking triggered some negations from the other think-tank community, Karl Marx was, has been, and is the God-father of Soviet Union.
There are uncountable numbers of political, social, or even economic system each country on this earth possesses.
The apparent dissimilarities amongst these nations oftentimes create misunderstandings towards one and another. However, the aim is certain and pure, that is to sustain the betterment and the sustainability for their people.
They would like to make world a better place to live in, a better future with throngs of diversities within their cultural layers.
‘Empowerment’ is to become the main jargon of the next generation’s civilization, as they realize that leaving behind marginalized groups will equal to the beginning of their own devastating loss.
The economy will not be run under forced egalitarianism, but rather constructed upon the essential awareness that—at the very least—one shall not become a burden to others.