The Idealism of Oscar Niemeyer

(written in 01-29-08)

The left-wing monthly magazine “Caros Amigos”, which I have only just read, but dates from July 2006, published an extensive and intelligent interview with the famous architect Oscar Niemeyer, considered, almost unanimously, to be a genius in his profession. As everyone knows, Niemeyer is a communist who has never attempted to conceal his convictions. These convictions are vigorously and fearlessly defended (he is one of the few people with the courage to stand up for Stalin), it being impossible to doubt his sincerity. He says what he thinks. Besides this, he does not attempt to appear more than he really is, a very common weakness when people are interviewed. The understandable concern to shine, to appear more intelligent or cultivated than one really is, does not even pass through Niemeyer’s mind. Greater authenticity is impossible.

Precisely because he is intelligent, ordinary and sincere, that which he expressed in the interview can be considered as the epitome of the socialist set of ideas. And it is this set of ideas that we will examine in this article.

The socialist ideal, when really felt and held (as in the case of Niemeyer, Luis Carlos Prestes, Trotsky and innumerous others), does not have a definite “birthday” or point of origin. In all certainty, our cave-dwelling ancestors already differed amongst themselves in terms of human solidarity. Perhaps certain aged Neanderthals, already toothless at 38 years of age, weakened and incapable of hunting, ate better than their equivalents in the neighboring cave. Nuances of concept - “scientific socialism”, for example – may have dates (an event, a speech, a book, etc), but here we are dealing with an ideal in its widest, most spontaneous and – if we have the courage to use the word - most sentimental form.

The ordinary vision of brutal inequality, the humiliation of the poor and unemployed, has had considerable influence in nurturing socialism. It is impossible to deny the importance of compassion, a feeling that dispenses with theoretical education. Due to intellectual pride, the great theorizers of socialism strive to minimize this most “trivial” fundamental aspect of their doctrine. They deal with the subject in an abstract manner, like great social scientists. Almost geometricians, they use arguments that are sometimes difficult to follow, practically only accessible to professors of sociology and economics.

Happily, this is not the case with Niemeyer, still as coherent and lucid in his interview as he has been throughout his one hundred years of life. He really feels sorry for those who are poor and needy. And he makes this very clear. He despises capitalism, ardently desires its immediate extinction and is sympathetic to any government that intends to make its country fully socialist. If he read the interview, Hugo Chavez would likely have drawn strength from it.

Following this introduction, and recognizing the individual value of this great artist in reinforced concrete, there is a need for a few arguments in disagreement.

The weak point in socialist theory lies in the assumption that man is an essentially just, altruistic, benevolent and impartial being, showing solidarity with his fellow men. This is not what we find in the real world. Man is “essentially” the contrary of this list of virtues. He is still dominated by instinctive animal responses. A minimal part of his soul is concerned with solidarity with his fellow men. At least at the beginning of this century, what is evident is an anxiety to be or have (more “have” than “be”) more than one’s neighbor. Almost everyone aspires to “differentiated treatment”. Banks are well aware of this and classify their clients by number of stars (without showing any fear of offending their more modest account holders). Perhaps they are not worried about aggrieving their poorer clients because it is not they that choose the bank, it is their bosses. A small number of stars means more delays and fewer smiles, comfortable seats and cups of coffee. And if the bank, in an impetuous show of egalitarianism, came to treat all clients in the same manner, it is possible that it would subsequently lament this “excess democracy”, as it would lose some of its best clients.

It will be said that this vulgar “ardent desire for differentiation” is exclusively associated with capitalism - “this renegade regime” – and something nonexistent in socialism, it not being possible to say that such pride is inherent in human nature. However, this is not exactly true. Everyone knows that, prior to the fall of the European “communist world”, high-ranking employees of the communist party enjoyed privileges that were inaccessible to mere workers. The “nomenclature elite” had advantages that contradicted the intended equality preached by the regime. Such differentiation was denounced by writers who, for this reason, brought down the wrath of satellite governments on their heads. At the time when communism was at its height in the Soviet Union, bureaucrats pretended to piously believe in Marxist theories and the speeches of their leaders. When communism fell, there were almost no protests. “Ideological conversion” was immediate, providing evidence that the Marxist conviction demonstrated previously, over a number of years, was simply a desire for comfort and power, a wish to rise in the established hierarchy. To minds such as these, Karl Marx was only a ticket to commence their journey. In all certainty, the wives of these employees (generally more skeptical and realistic than their husbands) were well aware of such things and pushed them forward in this direction. They did not want to be inferior to their friends.

Given that man is still encumbered (for how much longer?) with the instinctive, animal and avaricious onus of intending to be something more than his neighbor - at least in terms of wealth and well being - it is not yet prudent to encourage ideas regarding the formation of wholly socialist or communist countries. Being far too elegant, the theoretical suit of clothes just would not fit the naked hunchback with dirty nails. Besides this, the creation of a communist state at the present time - in the style intended by a Hugo Chavez -would only lead to wars or arms races, in a world that is ever more tormented by fear.

It should not be forgotten that socialism, exactly because it is more concerned with the distribution of wealth than its creation, does not have the economic capacity to compete, in material terms, with the capitalist world. Countries that are uncompromisingly socialist are always poor. Winston Churchill once said that the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.

Wars are costly. They consume a great deal, and not only human blood. Modern technology, extremely sophisticated, requires an enormous amount of financial resources for the construction of aircraft that even dispense with the presence of a pilot. During the first war in Iraq, Iraqi tanks were easily hit by American fire. The Iraqis had no idea exactly where the rockets came from, in order to fire back at the enemy. Their technology was only sufficient for fighting the Iranians, not for confronting the United States. The USA, being technologically precautious, did not teach Saddam more than they believed that he needed to know. The marksmanship was not that of the American soldier, but a computer, which never missed its target. As a mere horrific hypothesis, should the Americans wish to annihilate Venezuela, they would be able to accomplish this in a few hours. They do not act in this way solely for political and economic considerations that it would take too long to go into here, and you the reader know them better than I. Mention is only made of this destructive potential in order to emphasize that, at the present time, making warlike threats against the capitalist world is an infantile procedure. If he is intelligent, Chavez should improve his manners, calming rather than challenging his main petroleum client. Precisely because capitalism has a side that is useful, forceful and advantageous for humanity. One just does not throw out such a great source of energy. And capitalism is exactly this: a social technique for the release of energy.

To those who tolerate the use of metaphors, I would like to take the liberty of saying that the energy released by capitalism has a certain similarity to the force liberated by the atom. Although the latter is minimal in size, it has in its interior a “disproportional” amount of energy which, if put to good use, could illuminate the whole planet if one so desired. Irrespective of whether it is nuclear or individual in nature, energy is equally capable of serving to the benefit or detriment of mankind. It only depends on who is responsible for handling it.

To the contrary of socialism, capitalism liberates the citizen - this small social “atom” - to invent and undertake whatever it is that he or she sees fit, as long as this does not cause any evident verifiable damage to the community. Besides this, in all races and populations, there is a small percentage of people with creative minds (or minds that are terribly persistent in their efforts) who, even when they egoistically only think of themselves and their families, end up constructing things and inventing techniques that, when successful, spur their countries forward with a vigorous impulse. As such discoveries and innovations would not result in any profits if they remained inactive, they end up being patented and transformed in realities that give rise to technological advances. Who invented the cell phone? I don’t know, but obviously the initial idea came from one individual or several people. If it were the case that such people had to wait for orders from the government - “invent this thing!” - progress would be very slow. The bureaucracy inherent in socialism (more concerned with avoiding a situation where some individuals become more wealthy than others), suffocates a large part of individual creativity or productivity.

Given that people vary a great deal in their physical, intellectual and moral attributes, a regime that imposes a particular philosophy (maintaining vigilance in order to ensure that all individuals remain “equal”) ends up placing the country in fetters. It is this that occurred with socialism in its pure state in the now-extinct Soviet Union.

Therefore, China appears to be taking the right path, with its hybrid system of permitting the harmonious coexistence of two regimes. China recognized that man - with all his defects associated with egoism - needs to be free in order to produce and generate wealth. Once wealth is created, a portion that is understood to be most suitable (levied in the form of taxes) is deducted in order to maintain the State. The same thing occurs in Scandinavian countries, which manage to mix both systems, without any ostentation. Care is taken of the citizen from the cradle to the grave, but they accept the game of capitalism. No difficulties are put in the way of creating companies. Besides this, the system functions in a manner that is so ideal that the rich avoid any ostentation. In such countries, it is considered “unseemly” and “vulgar” to display one’s wealth. It is an aspect that others have to discover. On the other hand, those who receive unemployment benefit (a considerable amount by our standards) feel ashamed of this situation, and do not show any intention of continuing to receive payment without working for any length of time.

Of course, as a human being, a capitalist can be immensely avaricious. Once a highway has been privatized, and if left without any government supervision, the capitalist would install a toll booth every two hundred meters. Someone once said that capitalism is good but one should not trust capitalists. In order to avoid this economic “greed”, there are regulatory agencies that function - or should function - as the “super-ego” of capitalism. The State will always have mechanisms in place in order to clip the wings of those businesspeople most prone to unwholesome ambition.

However, capitalism also has its negative side: it brutalizes man. It transforms him into a machine for making money. The world becomes an arena. Even an envied CEO may have sleepless nights, worrying about “producing results” and attaining targets. If such targets are not attained, he is simply cast aside, no importance being given to any good excuses that are put forward. There will always be others who have the ambition to occupy his position. Young women of lesser status are forced, either directly or indirectly, to lie a little (or a lot) on the telephone, when the product they are trying to sell is not of very high quality. Even sex becomes a commercial article, in newspapers, on the Internet and inside and outside companies. Those who are able should look after themselves, because life is short and female beauty endures for an even shorter period of time. “Who will guarantee that my old age is free of embarrassment?”

If all this is true of capitalism, it is also true of socialism, but with the aggravating factor of greater poverty.

If we really want a world that is less imperfect, an image comes to mind that adequately summarizes the path to be followed: humanity is a boat in which the motor is capitalist, but the helmsman has socialist tendencies. Only tendencies (not fanaticism), because if he turns the wheel too far to the left, the boat will come to navigate in circles. Once all the provisions have been consumed, the crew and passengers will feel pangs of hunger. The only reason they do not get to the stage of cannibalism is that, prior to this, the desperate passengers will toss the helmsman into the sea.