People are not chocolates.

You knew that the world consists (‘is made of’ might sound more fluid) of bastards. So why are you surprised? After all, every fucking day pass you pass these bastards. They differ only in the eye(their eyes). In someone's eyes you can see the unreadable sadness. There are (is) boredom, aggression, or just a complete misunderstanding(not very fluid, maybe 'confusion' would be better) in other's. But even the much-suffering eye(I dont' know what suggestions to make here ... but it sounds somehow wrong. Possibly change the sentence structure entirely? "But even seeing an eye full of suffering does not change the fact that it's possessor is a selfish bastard"?) does not change the fact that its possessor is a selfish bastard. In this world you can not survive (by) being someone else. You have to bite and to protect your territory (until?? someone else will )("so that no-one else will" might be what you meant) occupy it. You must be a selfish bastard, otherwise you will not survive. Who cares about your snotty senses? Who asks "how are you" not out of politeness, but out of interest? Maybe there are such people, but they do not linger long in our world.
This is justice. Man, which have not made in his life nothing wrong, (A man who does nothing wrong in life) will live in poverty and misery, and die an agonizing death.
A scum, which is fed by the pain of others, (But the scum who feed on the pain of others)will be so happy that if someone wanted to break this happiness into small-small (I'm not sure if you intended this repetition for emphasis but you may want to use the word 'tiny' instead) pieces, he could feedby them the whole world.
Although luck is too controversial(I don't think this word fits well here ... maybe the word 'unreliable' would be better). Does it exist at all? The man has never felt(Man never feels) fully satisfied. We always need more. We want to get everything in one life: to live several lives, to be all right,(= 'to always be correct' or 'to be okay'?) to love and to suffer together, to laugh and to cry. I really like that line.
When everything is fine, you want (to) suffer. You do not have enough adrenaline... Not enough nerve in your life. Why can not (Either 'why can't', or if you don't want to use contractions, 'why can you not') you forget about this fucking nerve, about all of these feelings, to shut people's mouths, and say, "I am happy. Eat it!"?
Nobody can be happy because people are conceited bastards, which will be primarily lick their wounds.
[color=#0080FF(whose only concern is to lick their own wounds.][/color]

kidashka wrote:I'm sorry to be so ruthless, but I know that you've asked for help with your English so I went full grammar-nazi mode ... Hope that it helps! If you have any questions about my alterations then just ask; I was a bit wary of changing your writing style so some bits were kept as they were.

After all, every fucking day pass you pass these bastards.

They differ only in the eye(their eyes).

There are (is) boredom, aggression,

or just a complete misunderstanding
(not very fluid, maybe 'confusion' would be better)

But even the much-suffering eye(I dont' know what suggestions to make here ... but it sounds somehow wrong. Possibly change the sentence structure entirely? "But even seeing an eye full of suffering does not change the fact that it's possessor is a selfish bastard"?)

In this world you can not survive [color=#0080FF](by) being someone else. You have to bite and to protect your territory (until?? someone else will )("so that no-one else will" might be what you meant) occupy it.

(I'm not sure if you intended this repetition for emphasis but you may want to use the word 'tiny' instead)

to love and to suffer together

[color=#8000BF]I really like that line. [/color]

Despite all of that correcting, I do think that you've done quite a good job - there is powerful emotion in this!

Did you originally write it in Russian and translate it?

Also, is it menat to be so formal? I noticed that you didn't use any contractions (ie. 'can't', 'won't') at all, which is quite uncommon in speech (as it's a monologue). But then I thought, maybe you aren't very comfortable using them? If you do more monologues maybe you should use contractions as it makes speech sound more natural

And this definately does have alot of his cynicism in it!!

I wanted to say something like: beside you or past you go... I may write just pass?

And here I wanted to say not eye as an organ but eye as a look. Is it wrong?

or just a complete misunderstanding
(not very fluid, maybe 'confusion' would be better)
Incomprehension fits?

Does "small-small" look OK in the terms of English grammar?

to love and to suffer together
I should write "at the same time", yeah?

I feel not very comfortable using the full forms. But I write this way because all teachers of English, whom I was taught, said that in literary English I shouldn't use contractions.

And what about punctuation? We haven't learn it at school and I don't know it at all...

kidashka wrote: I was a bit wary of changing your writing style so some bits were kept as they were.