The news that the young Amon Simutowe has finally managed to achieve his lifelong dream of becoming an international grandmaster brought an indescribable feeling of awe and pride to me (and to many other Zambians and Africans). We have followed Simutowe’s career from the time he became the African Junior Champion many years ago (in 2000), and back then Zambia Online created the first congratulations guest book for him, through which many Zambians expressed their confidence that the young man would go very far in his goals. This is therefore a great moment indeed, and yet I have to “spoil” it with a philosophical article!

Amon Simutowe’s achievement is just another testament to the great philosophy of individualism, the philosophy on which laissez-faire and democratic capitalism is built. Chess is one of those games that truly demonstrates the spirit of individualism, mainly because of the fact that one individual struggles against another individual and the one who uses greater initiative always comes out on top whereas the other one also works harder on improving his game.

The game thus contains everything that is typical of an individualist, capitalist society. Chess players are ruthlessly competitive and depend totally on their ability to out-think, out-prepare and “out-innovate” the opponent, the same factors that mark the business environments of the most capitalist societies. People who don’t play the game of chess think it’s a boring game that requires no creativity, and yet there is no game that requires as much creativity, hard work and innovation as the game of chess. It truly is the capitalist game.

It is ironic that communist Russia decided to make such a game its own national sport. The Russian government even made the game a part of official curriculum in schools, besides supporting schools that were fully dedicated to develop this talent for full-time professional chess players. Russia wanted to show that their communist way produced great minds even if they were required to submit to the all-powerful mind of government, the same reason for which they invested so heavily in space technology!

But it is impossible to disassociate the game from the spirit of individualism, which is why the most exciting and most dynamic chess players have always been those that have personified this individualist spirit. The two players who are always considered in any debate of who the greatest player in history was have a personality that fully establishes this fact. American Bobby Fischer and Russian Gary Kasparov, undoubtedly the two greatest players in the history of the game, are also probably the two most individualistic people the game has seen.

Bobby Fischer is more responsible than anyone else for bringing the game of chess to the domain of the general public. The events and drama that surrounded his first world championship match against the Russian Boris Spassky simply captured the imagination of the public and drew the whole world to follow this event closely for the very first time in chess history.

Fischer was an enigmatic personality who was also quite unpredictable, not only on the board, but off the board as well. He had (and still has) a very independent mind that simply expressed its own thoughts on any issue no matter how unpopular that position was to the public, and this was not only in chess but on any other issue as well (for example, I cannot repeat his personal views on women’s intellect without incurring the wrath of the women’s movement). His fully independent and totally decisive mind even led him to quit high school in order to concentrate on becoming the world champion of chess! His mother tried to stop him from quitting school, but even at this young age, Fischer believed in living his own life and doing his own thing instead of living for anyone else.

The 1972 world championship match between Fischer and Spassky came during the Cold War era between America and Russia, and politicians from both countries anxiously wanted to use this match to demonstrate to the world which political system and culture was superior. The two individuals perfectly fitted this role because they were truly representative of the spirit and culture of their respective nations, not only in their personal lives but even in their styles of play. The role of “central planning” was evident in Spassky’s powerful dominating style, whereas Bob Fischer’s style was very dynamic: any individual piece could do anything any time, making his moves very creative and explosively unpredictable.

Privately, Fischer was the rebellious type, always doing his own thing, never following anyone’s desires but demanding to be left alone to his own way. He acted with a high sense of entitlement to his own life and choices and believed that he was not born to obey the commands of anyone. Thus, it so happened that he even refused to play this match under the conditions given by the World Chess Federation (FIDE). He gave the FIDE body his own conditions under which he would play, which included a higher prize for the winner than what they were offering, and many other little conditions concerning the environment of the room, the clocks, and so on. This was itself completely reflective of the free individualist culture of American capitalism.

The difference with Spassky was as clear as night and day. Spassky made no single demand, but simply obeyed whatever conditions the authorities had set. The Russian system had taught him to look at such organisations as very big and way above an individual’s desires (after all, they represented the will of many people!) He could not even imagine boycotting the match because the choice was not up to him; it was up to the government of Russia. They were the planners who decided everything for everyone, including sportsmen, because the individual was only there to serve society: that is the cornerstone of socialism and communism. He could never even complain about the prize money because his socialist government was going to take most of it, anyway, in order to share it with “society”.

Bobby Fischer continued to give conditions even after the match had started and when FIDE refused some of these conditions (especially concerning the way the room should be organised, to totally eliminate disturbances or possibility of technological manipulation) Fischer decided to quit. The American public wished he could continue with the games, but there was nothing they could do. Everyone in America understood that the choice was up to him and him alone; that’s how they lived, after all. No one, not even the government, could force him to do what he did not want to do. All the government officials could do was to beg him to reconsider his decision.

And indeed this is exactly what happened. The US Secretary of Defence himself (Henry Kissinger) tried to personally charm Fischer into continuing the match. Through a long telephone conversation, Fischer felt so honoured that the Defence Secretary himself was begging him to play that he indeed decided to change his mind and continue with the match. (Imagine that: it had to be the Defence Secretary himself to persuade him because they saw this match as a real war with Russia!)

But by this time he had already forfeited a game and he had the challenge of trying to beat the Russian champion while coming from behind (at 0 – 2), something which was unimaginable to the Russians. The Russian government was convinced that such a rebellious person could not defeat their obedient and well-structured player. In fact, the Russian player even had a whole team of government-paid coaches to help him to systematically prepare for the match. The extremely individualistic Bobby Fischer, on the other hand, was completely alone. He had deliberately refused to have a coach. When asked why he did not want a coach, he famously responded, “I don’t want to teach people chess!” (The coaches would learn from him instead of the other way around, in short!).

It so happened that a lot of the young Russian chess players were highly fascinated with the individualistic freedom that Fischer exhibited in this whole episode, without fearing anyone. They could not believe that his government could let him get away with such behaviour, and especially with his “greed” for high prize money! To add salt to injury, Bobby Fischer even won that match by the time the games ended, becoming the first American in chess history to become world champion. The young Russian chess players were even more impressed and totally stunned by what had just happened, except they were not allowed to express such sentiments by their government!

One of these young Russians was Gary Kasparov, and he later testified how Fischer’s sense of freedom personally affected him. Today the retired Garry Kasparov is a political activist who tries to bring the full spirit of individualist freedom and democratic capitalism to Russia and he has thus become a harsh critic of Vladimir Putin for failing to properly implement such a system and culture. Gary Kasparov has been particularly critical of Putin for his treatment of wealthy but independent-minded businessmen like the imprisoned oil mogul, Mikhail Khodorkovsky (who was accused of fraud and not paying enough taxes, but only after he funded an opposition political party!)

In fact, Gary Kasparov is such a strong advocate of capitalist individualism that his critics say he is even “worse” than the most radical American capitalist “neo-conservatives”. It is only natural for someone who has experienced what it means to live under the heavy hand of evil socialism and communism to be more radical in his propagation of this philosophy of individual freedom than those who have not.

Kasparov’s personality is almost exactly like Fischer’s. His own world championship match and reign was characterised by many controversial and dramatic events that had everything to do with his individualistic personality. He even started his own rival association against FIDE, after rebelliously leaving the world chess body, when they could not see eye to eye with him on the way the World Championship should be conducted (just like Fischer before him!). And like any capitalist individualist, Kasparov was never ashamed to demand the money that was due him. He has since become a millionaire through the high prize money he organised for himself through his own chess body!

Strangely enough, Zambia’s own Amon Simutowe has had a couple of well-publicised differences with the Chess Federation of Zambia, and indeed most of these differences have involved money! He refused to obey the Federation when they told him to attend to “national duties” (like the recent 2007 All-Africa Games, to which he gave conditions for his participation – like Fischer did exactly a decade before Simutowe was born – and which conditions were not fully met by the association, leading Simutowe to decide to miss the games!)

Genius is individualistic. The reason why America has economically and socially developed more than any other nation in the history of humanity is simply because the Founders of America designed a society which would support the budding of such individualistic genius. America has therefore produced the greatest number of world famous achievers in almost any field. Their culture of free individualism has enabled the best talents to easily rise to the top, as long as they could put some hard work and determination into it. Many people who could not achieve anything in their own nations have migrated to America and found themselves easily achieving their dreams (which is why it is called “the American Dream”). It is no wonder that Zambia’s Amon Simutowe only managed to become a grandmaster after he moved to the United States (for studies).

Any nation in the world can learn this important lesson of promoting individualism because this is the only way that a meritocratic system – a system that naturally pushes the best talents to the top – can be created. As the best talents rise to the top, they end up creating opportunities for everyone else and thus raising the standards of living for the rest of society. This is the secret of the wealth creation process that has accompanied all capitalist societies.

Socialism, on the other hand, is built on the philosophy of collectivism. The individual is seen as just an insignificant and annoying speck in the all-important collective pool of “society” or “the public”. Have you noticed that socialist writers like talking about “humility” and “selflessness”? It is because they do not want any individual to rise up above the collective, to rise to his own potential, to become his own self and hence to claim his full reward for this: his wealth.

Socialists believe that everyone’s wealth should be shared with the public because they believe the individual is a slave of the collective and that all his wealth actually belongs to society. This is why they always want the biggest achievers to pay ridiculously high taxes. They want to make sure that they remain at the bottom like everyone else, in spite of achieving more than everyone else. They are the enemies of the human spirit.

It is why socialists hate great entrepreneurs who use their talents to make great wealth. They demand that such people should pay more taxes and that they should also pay the labourers (people who work with their hands to move things) more and more money. They even come up with false ideas that claim that wealth is not really created by such talented individuals, but is rather the product of the many labourers (something which has been totally disproved by the software industry, which creates great wealth without using any labourers!)

The truth is not that the socialists love these labourers; the truth is that they hate the entrepreneurs so much that they want to ensure that they lose as much money as possible, and they want government to intervene to ensure this. If they can’t get them to lose it through taxes, then they will demand that they lose it through high labour costs, or high “environmental” costs, and so on, and they always come up with new fads and excuses to ensure that such costs are kept up (we now have the huge environmentalist movement from the socialist camp for this very reason).

The underlying reason for this special hatred for the entrepreneur is that he represents the idea which socialists hate the most: the idea that an individual should rise to the level of his own talents and be fully rewarded for it; the idea that brought the birth of capitalism into the world. It is the single most important discovery of human society and it was first put in practice by the Founders of America, the great thinkers who decided to form a nation on this very concept.

Amon Simutowe represents that same capitalist concept; and it is quite a coincidence that the subject he went to study in America was Business and Finance! Kasparov has also been giving lectures to businessmen on how to use chess principles in business. The two fields really do look similar and players in both fields (chess and business) do indeed depend on the same principles.

One can only wish that the people and government of Zambia can indeed realise that the only way we can become a truly great society, a society that regularly produces great achievers, is by stopping interfering in their productive lives, whether it is sport or business, and allowing them to compete freely and fully, while also enjoying the fruit of their own efforts as fully as possible. We must shift our minds from the paradigm of thinking about government planning for our lives (introduced to us by President Kenneth Kaunda) and realise that every individual is the best (and rightful) planner of his own life. Too many government regulations in industry, too many taxes created in order to transfer the money from producers to consumers, too many hurdles for individual success, is what makes us remain backwards as a nation and as a continent.

And as individuals, the most important lesson we can learn from the lives of these great grandmasters is that we can only become great achievers if we allow our individual interests to be primary in our lives. Do not be afraid of being different and rising above the others (the collective), of being superior to those who are non-achievers. Do not fear to be ruthlessly competitive and defeating all opponents in your career, business, or whatever you do.

And do not sacrifice your interests (and rewards) in the name of “selflessness” or “humility” and so on. Rather, uncompromisingly demand what is due to yourself so that no one steals from or takes advantage of you, and so that you can fully enjoy the rewards of your own efforts. No one has the right to control you like a pawn (no pun intended), no one has the right to take or “share” your money (yes, not even the poor, unless you just decide to donate to them), and no one has the right to force you to feel guilty about this independence. This is the spirit of individualism and it is the spirit of achievement. And yet it is also what actually helps more people in society to rise out of poverty than any socialist program could ever achieve.

END.

You can comment on article by sending email to admin@zambia.co.zm

---