the rich gets richer, the poor gets the picture

It's funny how some people can easily get upset with socialism, even with the word itself.

It's funny because some even equated socialism with communism, but were angry when told that UMNO, PAS and KeADILan are basically the same. All of them are fighting for Malay rights, forcing Malaysians to accept Malay and Islamic dominance, and basically their leaders are behaving like...leaders.

The rest are sheep.

It's also funny because some people would rather allow themselves to be dominated by racism, religious extremism, parochialism and whatever negative -isms that seem to be rule of our daily life.

Never mind that freedom, equality, justice do not really exist under the current system, under the current government. Never mind that the opposition to the government do not have any clear idea of what they want to do with the system.

It may be easy of course to attack the "system", it is not a living thing, no one can see its face, but it is here to stay. The system that allows a Chinese to hate the Malays for "having everything" and for Malays to hate all Chinese for robbing the Malays of "their wealth", and to ensure everybody accepts that only one religion is the true faith. No compulsion indeed but no question about it either.

It seems that many Malaysians are adamant that socialism is wrong despite the fact that BN's racialism and religious fanaticism is similar to that of PAS. Even DAP does not seem to mind that they are working together with a fundamentalist party.

As for KeADILan, not much can be said at the moment except the result after the polling. Chances are the party that is fighting for one man may end up even worse than the party of a few disgruntled UMNO leaders which contested the last two elections (was it Semangat 46 or Parti Melayu Semangat 46, or is it Ku Li?).

There is another party, can't remember much the name but never mind that, because these groups of people who are leading the parties do not want to change anything except to kick out Dr Mahathir. With such a scenario, not much can be expected from this election. BN will win again and the opposition (some of them anyway) will survive to fight another day.

Maybe socialism is bad after all, despite many democratic socialists reject Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot and the oppressive system they represent.

Capitalism with its legalised robbery, plunder, rape, murder and enslavement of the people should be the best choice for Malaysians.

Most importantly, Malaysians are indeed funny people because they seem to agree with Dr Mahathir, Abdullah Badawi, Anwar Ibrahim, Fadzil Noor, Nik Aziz, Lim Kit Siang, Syed Husin Ali, Ruslan Kasim, Hishamudin Hussein Onn, Samy Vellu, Ling Liong Sik, Harun Din, Tajudin Ramli, Halim Saad, Ananda Krishnan, Vincent Tan, Lim Goh Tong, Ismail Kamus, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Benjamin Netanyahu, George Bush, Boris Yeltsin, John Howard, etc, that Socialism is bad.

Meanwhile, the rich gets richer and the poor gets the picture. Life goes on...



"Abuse of words has been the great instrument of sophistry and chicanery, of party, faction, and division of society."
- John Adams -

© 1998-1999 socialistmalaysia. All queries to the webcomrade.

Albert Einstein's Tongue

why socialism?
By Albert Einstein
From Monthly Review, New York, May, 1949.
Re-printed in Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein]

Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed toward a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half-unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supranational organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society--in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence--that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of many millions past and present who are all hidden behind small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished -- just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human beings which are dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time -- which, looking back, seems so idyllic -- is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor -- not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production -- that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods -- may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production -- although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. In so far as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism. 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 future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?


"The man who enjoys marching in line and file to the strains of music falls below my contempt: he received his great brain by mistake; the spinal cord would have been amply sufficient."
- Albert Einstein -

© 1998-1999 socialistmalaysia. All queries to the webcomrade.

MENGAPA KITA HARUS MENENTANG SOSIALISME?
Oleh Anak Melayu Merdeka

Sosialisme adalah sistem hidup yang menjamin hak asasi manusia, hak sama rata, demokrasi, kebebasan dan sekularisme. Jaminan ini akan mewujudkan keadilan secara keseluruhan.

Itu kata golongan sosialis. Kononnya sosialisme berlaku adil kerana tidak akan ada lagi diskriminasi kaum, agama dan jantina.

Ideologi ini adalah bertentangan dengan budaya Malaysia yang tidak memerlukan hak asasi manusia kerana kita masih mahu terus hidup di bawah kongkongan feudalisme. Walaupun raja-raja sudah diperlembagaankan, pemerintah yang ada kekal dengan adat budaya yang sama.

Bagi kita orang Melayu, khususnya, feudalisme dalam erti kata rakyat menyembah pemimpin dan hanya pemimpin yang tahu apa yang baik untuk rakyat, adalah sesuai dan sebati dengan budaya hidup kita.

Sama ada pemerintah itu adalah Umno atau Pas atau Keadilan, ketuanan Melayu harus dipertahankan.

Oleh itu sosialisme yang memperjuangkan hak asasi manusia, terutama menyokong penuh Deklarasi Hak Asasi Manusia Sejagat tidak diperlukan di Malaysia.

Hak sama rata bererti ketuanan Melayu dicabar. Bumi Malaysia adalah hak mutlak dan hak istimewa Melayu. Kaum lain tidak berhak untuk memimpin Malaysia walaupun mereka lahir dan dibesarkan di negara ini.

Kita mahu Umno atau Pas atau Keadilan terus mempertahankan hak semulajadi ini kerana ia adalah hak dan tradisi turun-temurun (dicipta pada tahun 1957 dan diperkukuhkan selepas 1969).

Demokrai yang menjadi junjungan sosialisme harus kita tentang kerana ia adalah menyebabkan rakyat menjadi penentu kepada segala keputusan perjalanan sistem negara.

Mana boleh! Hanya pemimpin-pemimpin Melayu dan Islam dalam Umno atau Pas atau Keadilan yang berhak diberi kuasa ini.

Rakyat Malaysia masih mentah dan belum cukup matang untuk dibenarkan menikmati demokrasi sebenar. Cukuplah pilihanraya lima tahun sekali dan sesekali dibenarkan rapat umum. Tetapi untuk rakyat, dan bukan pemimpin, yang menentukan arah tuju negara, ini tidak masuk akal sama sekali.

Hanya pemimpin Melayu, terutama yang berpendidikan agama Islam, yang layak membuat keputusan untuk kebaikan rakyat. Apalagi rakyat bukan Melayu dan bukan Islam tidak boleh diharap untuk menjaga kepentingan Melayu dan Islam.

Kebebasan yang didokong oleh sosialisme jelas bertentangan dengan budaya kita. Kerajaan, ketua masyarakat, ketua agama dan ibu bapa harus memainkan peranan untuk mengawal rakyat.

Rakyat Malaysia tidak boleh dibenarkan mengamalkan kebebasan kerana ia bertentangan dengan agama dan adat resam. Hanya pemimpin berhak diberi kebebasan untuk mengatur hidup 22 juta rakyat Malaysia.

Kebebasan akan mengakibatkan Malaysia huru-hara kerana rakyat Malaysia tidak mahu kebebasan. Rakyat sudah biasa hidup di bawah seribu satu undang-undang dan peraturan.

Kita tahu Umno atau Pas atau Keadilan, dan parti-parti lain seperti MCA, MIC, DAP dan sebagainya tidak rela rakyat diberi kebebasan. Ini adalah kerana kebebasan itu akan digunakan untuk mengutuk pemimpin-pemimpin politik yang selama ini memperjuangkan kepentingan kaum dan agama masing-masing.

Perkauman dan pemisahan antara kaum sudah sekian lama menjadi formula kejayaan Malaysia. Malah Pas dan Keadilan juga tidak mahu formula ini diubah kerana ia akan membolehkan pemimpin-pemimpin mereka meneruskan sistem yang ada, jika menjadi kerajaan, untuk tujuan perjuangan politik kaum dan agama.

Dengan menolak kebebasan, demokrasi dan hak sama rata, rakyat Malaysia khususnya orang Melayu dan Islam harus bersatu tenaga untuk menentang sosialisme habis-habisan kerana berpegang kepada sekularisme.

Kita orang Melayu yang semakin kuat pegangan Islam kita tidak rela sekularisme, atau yang dikatakan oleh tuan-tuan guru kita sebagai "politik suku, agama suku", bertapak di bumi Malaysia.

Kita tahu Umno, Pas dan Keadilan tidak akan menerima sekularisme di negara ini.

Mana boleh sekularisme diterima kerana ia akan mencabar hak-hak istimewa agama Islam yang selama ini berjaya menolak ke tepi hak-hak agama lain.

Islam adalah satu-satu agama yang benar, dan agama-agama lain adalah palsu belaka. Menjadi tugas dan tanggungjawab umat Islam untuk memastikan sekularisme, walaupun akan berlaku adil kepada semua agama, ditolak sama sekali.

Mustahil Islam boleh diletakkan setaraf dengan agama-agama lain. Ini yang cuba dilakukan oleh sekularime. Keadilan melalui sosialisme ini akan merugikan orang Islam. Jadi sekularisme harus ditentang.

Dengan ini, jelas sosialisme - walau bagaimana adil dan saksama sekali pun - tidak sesuai di bumi Malaysia.

Kita mahu keadaan tidak diubah. Biarlah Melayu dan Islam kekal menjadi tuan, walaupun ada sesetengah orang Melayu dan Islam yang liberal, sederhana dan progresif tidak setuju dengan kita.

Yang penting, keadilan boleh diketepikan jika ia mengancam sistem dan budaya feudal and konservatif kolot yang kita pegang serta amalkan selama ini.

Reformasi yang kita mahukan ialah menukar pemimpin, bukannya mengubah sistem hidup. Keadilan hanya untuk kita, yang lain hanya mengikut. Inilah sistem Malaysia yang perlu kita pertahankan.

Pergi jahanam dengan sosialisme! Kita tidak mahu keadilan dan demokrasi ala-sosialisme yang akan menjadikan Melayu setaraf dengan kaum-kaum lain dan akan meletakkan Islam sama darjat dengan agama-agama lain.

Malah, sanggupkah kita rakyat Malaysia menerima hakikat bahawa kaum wanita akan benar-benar setaraf; duduk sama rendah dan berdiri sama tinggi, dengan lelaki?

Apakah kaum lelaki sanggup menjadi saingan wanita yang sepatutnya duduk di rumah menjaga anak, memasak dan mengemas rumah?

Sosialisme akan memberi sepenuh hak kepada wanita. Ini kita tidak boleh benarkan. Masyarakat kita sudah meletakkan tahap wanita dan mereka tidak boleh sesuka hati menentang kehendak Tuhan, agama dan budaya Timur.

Hancurkan sosialisme kerana wanita akan dijadikan setaraf dengan lelaki dan masyarakat Malaysia akan sama adil dan sama taraf tanpa mengira kaum, agama dan kepercayaan.

Mana boleh!!!



"Every revolutionary ends as an oppressor or a heretic."
- Albert Camus -

© 1998-1999 socialistmalaysia. All queries to the webcomrade.