Einstein, definitely yes. Oppenheimer, not clear.
Here is Einstein’s essay “Why Socialism?” from the first edition of Monthly Review: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
Einstein was. He wrote an article literally called Why Socialism? Oppenheimer I’m less sure of, but after watching the recent biopic and reading a bit more I’d be willing to bet he was sympathetic at a minimum, possibly more so but just less public out of fear of losing his job.
Wild how well educated people end up socialist 🤔
Einstein yes, not sure about Oppenheimer.
I would say yes. It was incredibly common in his day and just because you weren’t a member of the Communist party didn’t mean you weren’t a socialist. I can’t really see anything about his politics that isn’t socialist so I’d say yes.
How did we go from socialists being very common to socialists not being very common at all?
McCarthyism. It was basically like the Soviet Union purges but for capitalists (against communists).
My personal view is that the first mass wave of communism and socialism (19th and then 20th century) took the bourgeoisie by surprise. They learned their lesson and now spend a lot of effort on building and maintaining liberal ideology and squashing any real socialist movements quickly. Meanwhile, the proletariat doesn’t even know who they are so there’s no class consciousness building and they’re constantly stuck in the spectacle that is the labor/consume cycle.
Do we have any hope of getting out of it?
For the USA? My sad opinion is, for the moment, that we don’t. We are trapped.
But I think I doesn’t matter. Once you scale your vision beyond the borders of any particular country, you realize there’s a lot we can do here and now to fight for socialism. Namely, supporting struggles elsewhere, such as in the Philippines.
Sublation Media (Douglas Lane) just had an interview with Benjamin Studebaker about this. In Studenaker’s book, The Chronic Crisis of American Democracy, he argues that we have unresolvable problems that can really only get worse at this point. That is, the prevailing winds will be austerity and a retraction of democracy and freedom as capitalism fortifies itself against the global changes that challenge it (China, global warming, African liberation, S. American liberation, etc).
It’s probably worth a listen: https://youtu.be/PD3qsR8GrX4
I’m not saying to despair but rather to keep your Marxist chops sharp and recognize how things are changed so you can know what’s possible and what isn’t. Only if we’re honest about the reality of the situation can be seek real options for what to do about it.
Thanks! I will listen to this once I get some free time.
This is probably said in the podcasts, but as Americans, how can we support struggles that are so far away? And how come we are powerless to change things home?
as Americans, how can we support struggles that are so far away?
Outside of laundering money to a leftist organization somewhere, I’m not really sure, TBH. Organizations like the International Socialist Alternative (ISA) exist as a kind of way to link up the global struggle across national boundaries. But I have no experience with them and don’t know if that’s a good or bad route.
And how come we are powerless to change things home?
This is all my opinion. I’m sure there’s a way but I think it’s pretty well-hidden. Most of human history is not revolutionary but rather the continuation of a bad system. So it’s less likely you’d be living in a time of revolution than in a time under some class system that seems to be maintaining itself pretty well.
Having said that, we don’t know when the opportunity will present itself either. So in my view, you may as well operate as if a great revolution is just around the corner. Educate workers, organize them, mobilize them, rail against the existing order, etc. The old “education, agitated and organize” addage.
So saying “we’re powerless” isn’t the point, I guess. Because we won’t know whether we are or aren’t until we try and either fail or succeed. Rather, I would say a better viewpoint is simply to acknowledge the fact that we aren’t currently in a moment of historical change. But despite this, our work is pretty much the same either way. And it’s a lot better to understand how political economy works anyway than to remain ignorant and be predisposed to the rat race of electoral politics and the whole spectacle of society.
Like, I can spot the neoliberal propaganda in Marvel movies quite easily. But not too long ago I didn’t see it at all. I think there’s value in that. I’m growing and learning. And I’m able to understand events in terms of class or class struggle.
Like the issue in Niger right now. As a liberal, I would be wanting to pick sides and know if they’re good or bad and probably would have thought the new government was bad and we need to send in the troops. But as a Marxist, I’m like, “Oh, this is like international bourgeoisie against local bourgeoisie and local bourgeoisie has a current interest in decoupling them from neo-colonialism, which is good, but will probably betray that on down the line.” Just being able to frame things by class and class interest is useful.
And, of course, in the context of the USA, your greatest impact is at the local level (county). Your vote actually does count there and it’s at least possible to form a leftist org that forces policy changes on the local level to materially improve lives. Something along the lines of forming a mass line would be the approach here. But on the state and then national level, your vote is effectively useless. Because those processes are anti-democratic and they’re mostly theater to give people the illusion of democracy and make us feel involved when really we’re not actually doing anything that nudges power in the right direction ever.
To quote Rosa Luxemburg
“Before a revolution happens, it is perceived as impossible; after it happens, it is seen as having been inevitable”
Einstein yes, but he wasn’t actually a member of a socialist party, he just supported it personally and wrote arguments defending it.
Oppenheimer, I think not entirely though he was surely sympathetic at least. His wife, his brother, and his best friend were card-carrying communists, but idk of any evidence that he ever espoused socialism/communism himself, outside of hanging out with communists a lot. He was very much accused of being a communist after the war ended, but pretty much every famous person who wasn’t a fascist was targeted by mccarthyist witchhunts and accused of being communist
When you mention his wife are you talking about Kitty? Because if so in the movie they portrayed her as only being a communist because one of her husbands was a card carrying member of the party rather than her believing in the cause. I’m not pointing that out because I believe the movie is in any way accurate, I just wanted to know if they got that part entirely wrong and basically filmed falsehoods.
Yeah I mean Kitty. To my knowledge, it seems like what did they did include of Kitty (and also Jean) was pretty much accurate, just missing a lot of background details. Kitty was an actual member of the Communist Party but she did eventually leave it, which would be why she wasn’t in it at the time of the Manhattan Project and the Oppenheimer hearing. Though, you’ll notice when she gets interrogated at the hearing she refuses to give up anything about the Party and turns all of the prosecutor’s rhetoric back against him. It reminded me of Paul Robeson’s famous testimony to the HUAC. Speaking to her earlier dedication to communism, she had actually tried to go fight in the Spanish Civil War with her previous husband but medical issues kept her from being able to make it. It seems as though his death in the war and the many failures of western communist parties disillusioned her from the cause, and I would assume the rising red scare culture didn’t help.
