We The Benefactor Analysis

1471 Words3 Pages

While examining the seven works of literature, various critiques were repeated throughout multiple works. Some particularly interesting examples of these critiques include claims that life is monotonous and that communism continued the process of reification while possessing an emphasis on perfection. Obviously, this supports the argument that intellectuals possessed similar critiques regardless of their nationalities and time periods and made their shared critiques apparent in their literature. While various critiques were reoccurring between the sources, there were two major critiques which were evident in all the studied nationalities and time periods. These two universal critiques were the intellectuals’ claims that the communist state …show more content…

In We, the Benefactor, the leader of the One State and the one in power over the ciphers’ happiness, is chosen through an election. All the same, the election is merely symbolic. According to the narrator, D-503, the elections are predictable as the Benefactor is reelected each time with a unanimous vote from all the ciphers. However, in this election D-503 witnesses thousands of ciphers voting against the Benefactor, thus going against the previous trend. This provokes a panic and confrontation between the dissenters and the guardians; however, the state, which is inferred to be communist, refuses to acknowledge the fact that there was any dissent. This is most evident from the article in the State Gazette the next morning. In it the state claims that “FOR THE 48TH TIME THE BENEFACTOR, WHO HAS PROVEN HIS UNSHAKABLE WISDOM MANY TIMES OVER, WAS UNANIMOUSLY CHOSEN.” This clearly demonstrates the power that the state holds over how events are presented. As a result, the state has control over what is considered true. In this case, the Benefactor is claimed to be unanimously elected despite the thousands publically witnessed dissenting. By including this event in We, Zamyatin makes a statement about the corruption of truth due to the communist state and how it decides to depict …show more content…

He simply states that “the center of power is identical with the center of truth… the highest secular authority is identical with the highest spiritual authority.” Given that the center of power was the communist state, Havel readdresses the universal critique that the state held power over the truth. However, he extends this by suggesting that, as the highest secular authority, the communist state also possessed the highest spiritual, or moral, authority. This was made possible due to communism’s aversion to religion and emphasis on salvation on Earth rather than in a religious afterlife. With religion no longer prominent as a determining factor of morality, the communist state was able to directly control what was considered moral. Havel expands his critique of communism as a “secular religion” by claiming that people turned to it for answers and a sense of belonging, but “the price is abdication of one’s own reason, conscience, and responsibility.” By detailing what those under the communist state lost, Havel displays that the state takes not only thought and accountability from the people, but it also takes their conscience. As a result, individuals cannot determine morality on an individual basis according to their own conscience. The communist state takes control of morality and maintains it as the highest secular authority.

Open Document