GUEST BLOG: Ian Powell – Why Socialism (why not New Zealand)

27
581

When people think of the German born Albert Einstein (1879–1955) usually this would as the theoretical physicist who is widely held as one of the most influential scientists in the world.

They would think of him being best known for developing the theory of relativity. Some would also be aware of his important contributions to quantum mechanics.

More people perhaps would be aware that he received the  Nobel Prize in Physics over 100 years ago (1921).

What many would not know, however, was his commitment to strong commitment to humanity generally and to socialism specifically.

He lived in the United States for several years where he developed strong relationships with American socialists.

- Sponsor Promotion -

Albert Einstein’s feature article in foundation issue of ‘Monthly Review’

In 1949, six years before his death, he wrote the feature article for the first issue of the new (still going strong) socialist publication Monthly Review. Its succinct title was ‘Why Socialism’.

Sixty years later it was republished in the May 2009 issue of Monthly Review: Albert Einstein on why socialism. It provides insights that are relevant to Aotearoa New Zealand, even in 2024.

Trying to summarise Einstein

In summary, his argument was that:

  1. Societies in 1949 had not yet really overcome “the predatory phase” of human development.
  2. Socialism is directed towards a “social-ethical end” which science on its own can’t create (it can help enable).
  3. Individuals are dependent on society. While they are able to think, feel, strive, and work by themselves, they depend so much on society. It is impossible to think of individuals outside the framework of society.
  4. This dependence on society is at the heart of an existing state of crisis.
  5. Consequently “The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil.”
  6. Private capital becomes concentrated in a few hands. An “oligarchy of private capital” is created with such “enormous power” that it can’t be effectively checked even by formal political democracy.
  7. A planned socialist economy is needed but with the proviso that just being planned is not enough. Without an educated and participatory society, a planned economy on its own can lead to “enslavement”.

Profound conclusions that stand the test of time

Among his concluding paragraphs were the following:

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his [sic] future career.

His short opening sentence says so much: “Production is carried on for profit, not for use.” Profit arises from exchange values.

I have previously discussed the respective roles of use and exchange values in the context of capitalism in Political Bytes (12 August): Towards an economy based on provision of human needs.

“Crippling of individuals” 

Einstein’s emphasis on the role of education systems contributing to the “evil” outcome of the “crippling of individuals” is pertinent in the context of the didactic Minister of Education Erica Stanford.

In effect she has banned the use of meaning to teach literacy to children by compelling schools to follow the rigid untested ‘structural literacy’ programme.

I have discussed this in two earlier Political Bytes posts (10 June and 9 July:  Hegemony, meaning and structured literacy  and How literacy rigidity flows from ideology.

In the process Stanford has also stopped the training of reading recovery programme on the grounds that it is inconsistent with ‘structured literacy’.

However, reading recovery is individualised teaching targeted at children with low literacy standards for their age.

Unfortunately even a successful remedial programme as reading recovery, which of itself was no threat to ‘structural literacy’, did not fit in with Stanford’s didactically crippling mindset.

Einstein 1949 and New Zealand 2024

In 2024 Einstein’s article remains as insightful as it did in both 1949 and 2009, both for the United States in particular but also capitalism generally.

As in 1949, in 2024:

  • human development remains predatory;
  • individuals continue to be dependent on society which is driven by the same economic system;
  • “economic anarchy” prevails; and
  • private capital remains concentrated in the hands of a few who still possess “enormous power.

Although Einstein was living in an economically developed country where the destructive impact of raw capitalism was most pronounced, it remains relevant to the understanding and future direction of Aotearoa today.

New Zealand needs a transformation from an economy served by its people to an economy planned to serve its people.

 

 

 

 

Ian Powell was Executive Director of the Association of Salaried Medical Specialists, the professional union representing senior doctors and dentists in New Zealand, for over 30 years, until December 2019. He is now a health systems, labour market, and political commentator living in the small river estuary community of Otaihanga (the place by the tide). First published at Political Bytes

27 COMMENTS

  1. Although Einstein was living in an economically developed country where the destructive impact of raw capitalism was most pronounced, it remains relevant to the understanding and future direction of Aotearoa today.

    New Zealand needs a transformation from an economy served by its people to an economy planned to serve its people.

    Absolutely spot on point Ian.

    A point ALL RIGHT WING THINKERS FAIL TO ACCEPT.

    • Right wing thinkers – an oxymoron? And further thinking, going forward to left-wing thinkers, still a bit that way – say ‘oxygenmore’ needed. Hahdehah? – but only a hollow laugh there.

    • Einstein was good with the hard sciences but poor with the social sciences.
      If he was alive today he would change his thinking on capitalism in the face of the evidence of its success in eliminating poverty. China, Cambodia, Vietnam, South Korea.
      Cuba is the best example of a “pure”socialist nation that history has produced – and few would choose to live there.

      I like the balanced economic and social mix that we generally enjoy in NZ.
      Successive democratic governments have blended the wealth generating power of capitalism with the wealth distributing power of socialism and the constitutional power of liberalism.

      • China is not a good example for your disingenuous points. China uses capitalism, but it distributes the wealth to its people. Thereby lifting 900m of its people out of poverty. America the doyen of capitalism on the other cant even do that to 4k of its own citizens. Thats the the real difference between Socialism and Capitalism…it seems you have already been on Stanfords didactic education already.

    • Yes Xenophobe capitalism and the trickle down theory has been rejected by ordinary people for over a century now, and which has failed everywhere it’s been tried.

        • Yes, but you made the silly generalization that socialism “has failed everywhere it’s been tried”. People tend to do that in lieu of a serious analysis, which must start from the definitions of “success” and “failure”. They make a similar generalization about prohibition as in “Prohibition never works”. They do not explain what “working” might mean, and they feel no obligation to come up with evidence to support the claim. They just hope that in all its absolutism it will be accepted as a truism. The fact is that every society has some prohibitions, prohibitions generally serve a purpose and some of them are more or less enduring. Similarly every society has elements of socialism. I have never seen a whanau which does not operate on socialist lines and struggle to imagine what one would look like. Perhaps mum asking for a credit note from pepe before she puts him to the breast?
          You may dispute this, but I would suggest that elements of socialism made New Zealand society strong and resilient through the middle of last century and the loss of those elements are associated with its present decline. Socialism in the twentieth century laid the foundations for China to become a great power in the twenty-first.
          In our kainga, which I do know about, the cooperative spirit keeps the wheels turning and the fires burning. Do not belittle it. One day you might even have need of it.

          • You were doing so well with your defence of anarchist socialism until you got to this point…
            Socialism in the twentieth century laid the foundations for China to become a great power in the twenty-first.
            … where you revealed yourself as being just another Big State Command and Control Communist.

            What foundations could have been laid with 60 million dead? Sure makes it hard to build factories, roads and stuff, as they found. China did not take off economically until all the socialist economic crap was dropped after 1980 – which also meant severely restricting the central planning of government and allowing markets to flourish.

            Aside from the economic success since 1980, including lifting hundreds of millions out of the poverty Mao had consigned them to, is the ultimate tell in that the old commie “businesses” have only been kept on lif support by Chinese banks, simply because they supplied everything to the old workers and the CCP couldn’t risk the disruption of shutting them down.

            But they weren’t the future and even the CCP knew that. Even so, that model is breaking down following Xi “taking command” again of businesses – followed by the entirely predictable collapse of new business formation that was entirely predictable. And all this before we get to the demographic shock of running out young people – another result of a central command and control policy, that one being the “One Child Policy”.

            They should have gone with millions of little communes and no central control, but socialists/communists must control everything.

            • I wrote: “Socialism in the twentieth century laid the foundations for China to become a great power in the twenty-first”.
              Perhaps I should have elaborated further by pointing out that communism (of the Marxist variety) delivered a high standard of health, education and social discipline to the Chinese lower classes which perfectly positioned China for a successful transition back to capitalism. The Russian oligarchs benefited in the same way, and when or if Cuba reverts to capitalism it also will reap the benefits of a healthy, trained and disciplined working class created under the conditions of state “command and control”.
              The point is that although I am a longtime critic of Marxist-Leninism, I appreciate the importance of objectivity. You wrongly equate that ability to be objective with being a “Big State Command and Control Communist”. If capitalism in China is progressing while the US is falling behind or falling apart, part of the explanation is to be found in the effects of forty years of communism.

          • Oh, and the measure of failure with socialism is the same as that for Prohibition; neither theory achieved the primary goal for which it had been conceived; in Prohibition’s case the reduction in drinking alcohol, in socialisms case, making people better off and happier than they would be under capitalism.

            • You have missed the point. Prohibition can apply to many things – heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, gambling, rape, murder – as well as alcohol. Does it “work”? Well, it never works perfectly. If it did work perfectly it would not be needed. (Think about that one). But it works well enough in certain circumstances relating to certain substances or behaviours. Socialism also “works” up to a point and in certain circumstances as I know from personal experience. I am also aware of the difficulties and the limitations which reflect human nature.

    • I thought your pseudonym sounded interesting so looked up and here :
      What is the meaning of the name Xenophon? The name Xenophon is primarily a gender-neutral name of Greek origin that means Strange Voice. From the Greek word “xenos” meaning foreign/strange and the word element “phone/phone” meaning voice. Xenophon of Athens was a Greek historian, philosopher, and soldier.
      Xenophon: Name Meaning, Popularity and Info | https://babynames.com › name › xenophon

      Definitions of Xenophon. noun. Greek general and historian; student of Socrates (430-355 BC) full general, general. a general officer of the highest rank.
      https://www.vocabulary.com › dictionary › Xenophon

      So battle is it? Greek Xenophon versus – I present Sun Tzu in contest – who was pretty smart.
      Avaunt >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your system is not necessarily better than mine, just strange.

      (These were set to be general rules of war in Sun Tzu’s time I think. They stand scrutiny, more than knee-jerk put-downs by lesser generals as in Xenophon’s case. And this war has a purpose; to establish a good method of living and distributing resources, not just be a set of aggressive ploys for winning against a rival.)
      What are the 12 rules of war?
      principles of war – Selection and maintenance of the aim;
      maintenance of morale; offensive action; surprise;
      security; concentration of force;
      economy of effort; flexibility;
      co-operation; and administration.
      These principles are not listed in any order of importance.
      Principles of war – Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Principles_of_war

      • I suggest you read his work Anabasis, well described here:

        Once the Ten Thousand, as much a “marching democracy” as a hired army, left the battlefield of Cunaxa, the soldiers routinely held assemblies in which they voted on the proposals of their elected leaders. In times of crisis they formed ad hoc boards to ensure that there were sufficient archers, cavalry, and medical corpsmen… councils were held to debate and discuss new tactics, craft new weapons, and adopt modifications in organisation. The elected generals marched and fought alongside their men – and were careful to provide a fiscal account of their expenditures…Upon reaching the coast of the Black Sea, the Ten Thousand conducted judicial inquiries and audits of its leadership’s performance during the past year, while disgruntled individuals freely voted to split apart and make their own way back home. A lowly Arcadian shepard had the same vote as the aristocratic Xenophon.

        Western civilisation, including democracy, in a nutshell. Much as I enjoy Sun Tzu, his is not our civilisation and frankly he could learn a thing or two from Machiavelli.

        • Gaza has shown Western democracy with its so called moral supremacy as a sham and an illusion with little regard for either its own law or human decency. Xenophobia?? .

  2. ” New Zealand needs a transformation from an economy served by its people to an economy planned to serve its people.”
    I can only write of an AO/NZ after the invasion of non Maori so respect to you @ Maori.
    AO/NZ is farming done by 50,000 people ( I think significantly less than that in actual fact…)
    AO/NZ did quite well as an exporting economy until lazy useless manipulative white fucks climbed out from under a bed full of hookers and began a collaborative swindle that’s seen us reduced to what ever that is outside your kitchen window. Hungry street people, suiciding farmers and a rapidly, deliberately tanked economy. Willis, the ghoul in an ugly frock’s trying to tell us that our economy’s mysteriously receding without an explanation as to why people no longer want to eat the foods we grow or the wool we export. Funny that aye boys? Could you naughty little boyz be trying to hide your naughty, naughty little secrets?
    We farmers have been forced to serve the cities because there’s only 50,000 of us and 4,999,480 of you useless fuckers. I mean, what do you [do] ? Y’know? Why do you bother getting out of your 1000 thread count Egyption cotton sheets? Sure, you drive your car there, and when you get there, you then drive it back again then you sit down in front of a 4 mile wide flat screen to build another blood clot but what do you actually… do? How do you contribute to The Greater Cause? Shitting, pissing, eating and breathing in and out doesn’t count. Sos, not sos.
    AO/NZ’s jammed under a huge logical fallacy. I prefer to call [it] a lie. Our natzo coagulation of liars has been around for 88 years so they have the game’s advantage. The other lessor political fleas are merely latched to the natzo’s flanks and unless they’re scratched off they’re going to stay there until the holiday home in Queenstown and/or Perth are freeholded. AO/NZ’s broader economy’s one of lies and deceit now so institutionalised that those lies are all but invisible, glossed over by the taint of sweet perfumes applied to sour old arse holes. I only hope the lives of my mother, my father and my dear old aunt was worth the effort you dirty scum.
    Any attempt at socialism in AO/NZ can only advance AFTER justice has been served.

  3. Going on further – what about Popper who came here for a while. What did he believe?
    Falsifiability and the problem of demarcation
    Popper coined the term “critical rationalism” to describe his philosophy. Popper rejected the empiricist view (following from Kant) that basic statements are infallible; rather, according to Popper, they are descriptions in relation to a theoretical framework.
    Karl Popper – Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Karl_Popper

    Has Xenophon read Popper – has P got something to offer us right now? Nobody can make absolute statements now – we need to resort to philosopher’s thinking for perspective of what we might do, systems we might use, outcomes we could expect, and lastly to question ourselves – do we give a s..t? It seems that humans can drop their so-called civilisation when it suits and find huge blo..dy excuses and present them as reasons. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The exclamation marks look like spears don’t you think. Perhaps civilisation is a circle and we have to travel around the wheel of fortune back to loincloths. It might not be so bad maties.
    Look it in the eye, don’t be afraid to drop pretensions for a brief searing moment.

    • Xenophon has read Popper, admittedly only The Open Society and Its Enemies, which was an indictment of Marx (and Plato too TBF). Interestingly he lectured here in NZ during WWII and upon returning to Britain said that New Zealanders were the easiest people in the world to govern. I don’t think he meant it as a compliment.

  4. Socialism/communism simply doesn’t work in the context of capitalism. If the world were to collapse through war or whatever, the militarily strong would dominate and enslave, i.e. dictators. Worldwide cooperation and planning is required to make a positive change. But currently there doesn’t appear to be any political will to do that.

  5. The greedy for power violent ones (warlords) gave way to the competent greedy (rich capitalists). How do we get to the competent greedy giving way, and to what?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here