
Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? - gnosis
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
======
maxharris
"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual:
everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his
effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.

Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the
individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends
on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the
interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor
infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue
their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment.
Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind."

-Ayn Rand

Socialism is fundamentally opposed to this view.

~~~
gnosis
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The
Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an
emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real
world. The other, of course, is The Lord of the Rings."

~~~
maxharris
I was 19 when I first read Rand. I'm 29 now, and I still love her philosophy
and her novels. I'm willing to be that you haven't read her very closely.

At any rate, your quote is a mere ad-hominem attack, and I don't think that
anyone here will mistake it for an actual argument.

~~~
camccann
No, an ad-hominem would imply an attack on the character or worth of Rand
personally. gnosis's comment was merely a bald assertion about the novel,
though indeed not an argument as such. Of course, your Rand quote was also
pretty much just a bald assertion without any supporting argument, so I guess
it works out.

~~~
maxharris
His comment is an ad-hominem attack on Objectivists (e.g., people like me.)

------
DanielBMarkham
Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several
decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.

Then people saw what happened when you tried it.

The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully.

Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any
experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm
definition of the word "science"

 _la plus ca change le plus le meme chose_

~~~
gnosis
_"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for
several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.

Then people saw what happened when you tried it."_

Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social
safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!

Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism
(aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the
economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench
power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the
opposite of what socialism is about.

As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.

~~~
lionhearted
> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian
> communism (aka "state capitalism").

The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising
against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted
generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I
mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I
think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia
intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a
bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?

~~~
gnosis
Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive
dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh,
wait...

Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm
against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much
doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that
matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among
today's socialists.

The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system.
Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be
valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted
by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-
democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.

~~~
lionhearted
Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a
peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella
communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still
stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a
bit.

> Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...

Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this
point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be
under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one
by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic
thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy
to keep discussing.

The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that
the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any
other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea
how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the
large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason
the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like
Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington
was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair
lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che,
Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to
traditional structures.

So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either
that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let
live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving
people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to
address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to
change your mind.

~~~
rms
I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that
someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to
live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society
just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society.

Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist?
And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism
(taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but
infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.

~~~
Semiapies
_"The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist?"_

By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own.

Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern
US or Europe.

------
TomOfTTB
The problem I see here is that Einstein lacked any self awareness. He doesn't
seem to grasp that his mind is an extraordinary one and hence an exception
which has led him to conclusions like this...

===== 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. =====

Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to
bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in
personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend
most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people
need a push in order to perform.

He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism
(Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to.
Take this statement for instance...

==== 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 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. ====

It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by
an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power
than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry
"cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political
society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It
is the ultimate power.

In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory
Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why
intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But
when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.

~~~
gnosis
_"the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by a very small, very elite group
(The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really
ever could"_

I suppose you are not familiar with the Executive branch, or the Judicial
branch. They are, at least in theory, supposed to share power with Congress.
In fact, it could be argued that at the present time (and especially during
Bush Jr's term) Congress is the weakest of the three branches.

Then there are all the private interests that influence these branches (most
obviously Congress), such as the corporate lobbyists which funnel massive
amounts of money in to influencing the decisions of government.

High ranking executives and members of the boards of corporations regularly
get influential jobs in government, and when they retire from government they
go back to serve as executives in and on boards of corporations.

It's a mistake to consider the US government as a separate entity from that of
the corporations. It's all highly incestuous. They are two sides of the same
hand.

------
1010011010
The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down
control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man
is abhorrent.

"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"

Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of
capitalism, ignoring the free and voluntary cooperation required among its
participants for it to succeed. The _cooperation_ inherent in a functioning
market economy so often seems to be overlooked.

~~~
madair
This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is
given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage
to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance &
patriotic zeal impose less social control.

[Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing
what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more comparative
studies.

~~~
Semiapies
_"This top-down thing is getting tiresome."_

Then _you_ figure out a way around the economic calculation problem. There's a
Nobel in it for you.

Until then, I'm going to simply be amused at how it's unfair to note that
Albert Einstein wasn't actually an economic expert, but it's _perfectly_
reasonable to engage in knee-jerk US political stereotypes.

~~~
madair
Wow.

------
julius_geezer
Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

~~~
nlabs
Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to
that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy.
Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

~~~
Semiapies
_"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics"_

Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than
a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.

~~~
Anon84
You mean like the 2000 Nobel prize in Economics?

    
    
        The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were
        quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in
        Physics with highest honors.
    
        I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student
        at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of
        human behavior.
     

[http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/...](http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/mcfadden-
autobio.html)

~~~
Semiapies
Exactly. That's actual contribution to a field of knowledge, not a political
essay.

------
ryandvm
Hmmm - Albert Einstein was a moron. Who knew?

