The dream of a classless and stateless society and a fixed roadmap towards the fulfilment of that goal may remind one of the genius of the first Marxist Karl Marx. Surely, his interpretations of history and class struggle and social discrepancies were skewed towards economic conditions of those times but one who has studied Karl Marx in depth cannot deny that he was both a realist and a utopian idealist. A realist because he depended his theories around the industrial revolution and capitalism rising scenarios which were quite factual of his times, although he forgo a big part of human motivations like culture, communitarianism, geographical conditions and psychology and changes in those spheres with changed areas of locality or nationality, yet he was quite good at planning his theory of class struggle in the history as well as his contemporary times around two existing classes. But when he talked about and interpreted a classless and stateless society, one could easily take him as a utopian theorist because first of all, state was made for the management of the masses and if there would have been a stateless society, there would have been much despised anarchy everywhere and the discrimination that he sought to end could get elevated; secondly, the means he talked about to reach that end i.e. revolution by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie, somehow after being in power the proletariat could take the character of the bourgeoisie and would have begun to abuse that economic power in their hands, thus still the struggle would have persisted with the places exchanged between haves and have-nots where only the people would have exchanged their positions yet the characters of exploitation by haves of have-nots staying stuck that pattern only. The idea of a classless and stateless society was undoubtedly praise-worthy but in a society where the human motivation is not only determined by economic factors but also by the greed to be in power over others, it was certainly utopian because no matter how many people be egalitarian in their approach, still the forces who want to over-power others sustain in society contradictorily to the former and which can be meted out with the struggle for power since times immemorial.
“Take it easy!”,”Chill !!” – The phrases you often listen to whenever you react to someone’s statements that can offend boundaries set by you in your relation to that person. Such a person might be a total stranger, a colleague, relative, friend or lover. What boundaries you have set in your dealings with that person are not meant to be crossed for any reason whatsoever. They might give you the random chill in your spine by intimadating you or might lead your temper to rise or may make you numb in a way that you stay stunned about what to say or how to respond to such a stimulus.
And when you react to it with anger or even affirm your boundaries again, then they try to teach you how to chill and not to take life too seriously. Sometimes, they affirm you that they have gone through great ordeals that you have no idea about and still they are capable of playing around. Actually, they are just playing around with their words or even emotions but seldom logic. Their pain does not entitle them to offend you. If their words are hurting your emotions or sentiments or feelings or you are plainly feeling misunderstood or made fun of or taken advantage of or manipulated with, it’s an offence to your person and their own pain is no excuse to inflict any pain upon you.
For a moment, you might give them another chance by giving due regard to their suffering as a benefit of doubt but that kind of behaviour might continue if not opposed or stopped at the first instance. They might play hooky under the veil of their pain or anger but it is not acceptable because you are not responsible for that pain and thus, it’s also not your duty to tolerate it for any measure.
For opposing or making it stop, you do not need to play the same. You don’t need to play mind games or get angry or play the blame game or be pitiful in any way. Be sympathetic and neutral simultaneously in whatever you say and the tone in which you say it.
For example; say
- “I have no idea what you have gone through but your pain does not entitle you to offend me and I found your behaviour offensive to my boundaries”
- “I would like to understand your reasons but still your this action/behaviour is unacceptable to me.”
- “I did not offend you, and I would appreciate it if you reciprocate the same.”
- “How would you feel if I offend your boundaries and then give excuse of my pain?”
And, if he or she still does not stop or get even more offensive or aggressive or passive aggressive then be a little more strict and say “Would you understand my dignified silence or you want me to react like you have reacted?”
What you say should be clear, and should give them a message that their behaviour is unacceptable whatever might be the reason behind it. But do not trigger their emotions or do anything to hurt them as it might worsen the situation altogether. Keep calm and be firm and unprejudiced in your approach.
"You will never lose what is not yours, You will never lose what is yours."
Both, absence and presence of something, is always a win-win situation; it was meant to be the way it was and it is meant to be the way it is now.