More WWII and Marxism Parallels

So, I just had a few more WWII and Marxist parallels that I wanted to throw out there and get some feedback on. (It was either write a post or write another college essay...I chose the lesser of two evils. :P)

In the beginning of Act Two, Botard is very skeptical of all of the accounts of the rhinoceroses, and he believes that the stories are just being sensationalized by journalists. Even after seeing a rhino, Botard says, "I can't see a thing. It's an illusion." He attributes this illusion to "collective psychosis." This made me think of all those who did/do not believe in the Holocaust. Additionally, in the play, Berenger says that if he were to read about an epidemic in another country in the newspaper, he could maintain an objective detachment. He goes on to say, "When you're involved yourself...you can't help feeling concerned." These statements illustrate the human ability to turn a blind eye to even the most horrific situations. 'Out of sight, out of mind.' This mentality may be used to explain why intervention did not come sooner in the case of WWII. I think Ionesco was commenting on the world's inaction in situations such as the rise of the Iron Guard in Romania and the Nazis in Germany (and surrounding European nations) when he wrote Berenger's line, "We sometimes do harm by simply not preventing harm."

I think another important fascist parallel is Jean and Berenger's discussion on their (in)ability to control their dreams. Jean states that he never dreams, that he is always in conscious control of his thoughts. This reminded my of the fascist ideal that individual interests and thoughts be subverted to those of the state. Berenger, on the other hand, shamefully admits that he sometimes loses control over his thoughts in his dreams. Control seems to be a very important issue here. I think because the world seemed so out of control to the characters, they tried to cling to anything they could control. I do, however, think it's absurd that they tried to control their thoughts even in their dreams. Dreams are subconscious experiences that can't (normally) be controlled by the dreamer.

One last thing. I thought Daisy's comment towards the end of the play that human love was a weakness could be interpreted as a Marxist statement. Communist societies strive for equality amongst members, and human love interferes with this. When people love, they automatically establish an internal heirarchy, ordered from most to least loved. Going by this logic, we can say that Daisy has Marxist tendencies.

Comments on my ramblings?