Who will bring about socialism?

You say that socialism will come when capitalism is fully developed. But who is going to bring about socialism?

We think that certain things come only when they are brought about by someone or the other. When I say that as a child grows, youth comes in, you don't ask as to who brings it about. When I say that as youth grows, old age comes in, you again don't ask about the agent who brings it. The growth of childhood turns into youth of its own accord. And similarly, the growth of youth turns into old age. It is not a question of being brought about through some agency. As there are natural stages of life, so there are natural stages of social growth. If capitalism develops, it turns into socialism on its own; nobody works as a medium. And when you talk of the medium, it means that capitalism is not ripe enough and so the question of the medium arises. A medium is thought to be…

What about socialism not as a means of creating equality but only as a means of providing everyone with the basic necessities of life?

The less successful capitalist countries and the undeveloped countries, the poor countries that have no capitalism at all, have become more and more socialistic, while America has not become socialistic. According to Marx, socialism is a natural outgrowth of capitalism so America should be the first socialist country. It has not been so. Socialism exploits the jealousy of the poor. To me, it is the greatest exploitation that has happened on earth. Capitalism has exploited the labor of the poor and socialism has exploited their souls. It is through jealousy that socialism steps in. But through jealousy, no revelation, no transformation can be achieved. It can kill, it can destroy, but it cannot create. Socialism is a fiction. It is not scientific. To me, only a capitalist society is a scientific society. I am not saying that capitalism will remain as it is. It will go on growing and changing…

Our efforts should be to raise the workers to the height of the capitalists. On the contrary, we are trying to pull down the latter to the level of workers. We have to strive to turn the small houses into big houses. And to do so we will have to construct bigger and still bigger houses. Then alone we can attain to socialism, and not otherwise. But very often false reasoning comes in our way. This is happening in communist China. They think that by destroying the big houses, they will raise the height of the small ones. This is not possible. Surely the big house will go, but that will not help the poor. If the poor people, with small houses, could build big houses, they would have done it a long time back.

So all that is unnecessary to teach and waste time, should be optional. Or for what libraries exist? People should go -- if they have an interest in geography and history, they look in the library. But more basic things... And whenever you create something, when your rose bush brings beautiful roses, you have a certain happiness that destruction cannot have. So education should be divided. A part we certainly need, but that too will not be a slave. But the major part should be made creative, he should not be dependent on anybody. Students should be supported in making communes, not factories owned by one individual. The commune owns everything and the commune provides everybody's need. This is my conception of an authentic socialism. VEDANT: SINCE YOU MENTION SOCIALISM, I HAVE A QUESTION. IS SOCIALISM VIABLE, AND IS SOCIALISM RELEVANT TO INDIA?

Osho, where are this country’s politicians taking the nation? What became of socialism?

This country can be healthy, prosperous, abundant. It has everything, and its people have great talent. But our assumptions are wrong. Then you weep and worry and ask: where are politicians taking the country? Ask yourself: whom did you choose? From that, you’ll know where they’ll take you. Politics should be in the hands of the young—fresh minds who still have the courage to experiment, the capacity to try, even the guts to make mistakes. But whom do you send into politics? Seventy-five-year-olds, eighty-year-olds, eighty-four-year-olds. Everywhere else retirement rules apply—at fifty-five, fifty-eight, or sixty. Why? Because after sixty, people generally go senile—everywhere else. But in politics? After sixty, suddenly they’re deemed wise. What a joke. Until you’re senile, you’re nobody; who will even recognize you? First question: have you gone senile? If yes, you’re fit to be a leader. Morarji Desai left the university sixty years ago. Whatever he learned…