

Einstein: "Why Socialism?" - jimmyjim
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism?

======
miked
"Why Socialism?"

Mao's Chinese Communism

Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party

Stalin's Soviet Bolshevism

Saddam Hussein's Arab Baath Socialist Party (Iraq edition)

Bashir Assad's Arab Baath Socialist Party (Syria edition)

Slobodan Milosovic's Serbian Socialist Party

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge

Benito Mussolini: Member of Parliament for the Italian Socialist Party at age
24.

The Ayatollah Khomenei's Islamic Socialism (as he called it)

------
ekianjo
It may not be obvious from the name of the publication, but Monthly Review is
a Marxist magazine, therefore their view and what they publish is far from
neutral. Regarding what Einstein had to say, it can be easily detracted by
multiple arguments that are usually a cause of long and heated discussions on
HN for those who do not understand economics and do not support free markets.
Einstein was certainly a brilliant physicist, but genius does not always
translate well in other disciplines.

~~~
ifnspifn
To be fair, Einstein addresses his inexperience in the field of economics in
the first few paragraphs, and argues that the "[facts deriving from the
science of economics] belong to [Veblen's "predatory" phase, i.e. capitalism]
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."

In other words, he claims that a lack of expertise in economics translates
into an inability to describe the rules of a capitalist state, but not an
inability to describe the resulting observable socioeconomic effects.

------
soup10
The socialism vs capitalism debate is always super interesting. But I think
from a practical standpoint, changes in technology seem to be far more
achievable and impactful than fighting to change culture. The way I see
history technology changes the world, and culture and society changes to keep
up with it.

We all kind of understand this platonic ideal where everyone is happy, not
overworked, and like or atleast don't resent their jobs. But our societies
have gotten too big, complicated and interdependent. Life is far more
complicated and necessarily imperfect these days. Not that I don't respect
people fighting the good fight in the bowels of megacorps and governmental
beauracracies to make things better. We owe a ton to idealists and do-gooders.
But corporations and governments are machines, not people. A machine doesn't
understand the concept of 'doing the right thing'. Our best hope in the quest
for idealism is to accept that they are machines, and make them better or less
important through new tech.

~~~
confluence
Relevant: [https://www.quora.com/Autonomous-Driving/With-autonomous-
car...](https://www.quora.com/Autonomous-Driving/With-autonomous-cars-now-
passing-legislature-in-Arizona-and-California-what-other-hurdles-does-the-
technology-face-in-getting-to-the-general-public/answers/1244934)

------
johngalt
What if the needs of society and the needs of the individual are in
opposition? Who works the coal mines in socialism's utopia?

~~~
bootz15
How are these conflicting? The people who cannot run a mine or start a new
mine must work in one.

Oh, and the doctors take less pay because they like being doctors.

~~~
johngalt
There are a lot of people who can't run a mine or start a new one. There are
very few who would chose to work in one. How is it determined who 'must work
in one' (coal mine), and who is free to pursue another job like park ranger?
I'm also curious what 'must work' entails.

Doctors may like being doctors, but I'm sure there are more who would sign up
to be neurologists than gastroenterologists.

------
confluence
Is there a word for market based socialism? You know capitalism with hair cut
upside (taxation) and a hard floor protected low side (poverty).

For example - in a developed world most people don't want anyone (lest
themselves) to starve, be unable to afford an education for their children, be
unemployed or be unable to access life saving healthcare.

However we must also encourage innovation and hard work (don't cap upside -
just hair cut it for public utility use - aka taxation) - so people should be
allowed to earn more - but they are not allowed to fall below the poverty line
- ever. This is good for a mass market based economy that requires a large
middle class with a decent amount of disposable income (1 rich person = 1 pair
of jeans, whereas for an equivalent amount of wealth 1000 middle class people
= 1000 jeans from the rich person).

If the pie is growing just like the market fundamentalists say - well then
there's no problem with this. Just keep growing - you'll have more in the end
- and pay for your disproportionate benefit from the use of public/common
goods - aka suck it up and share children.

Indeed - with the automation I see coming within the next 2 decades - a lot of
these free market fundamentalists will be, quite frankly, out of a job.

I look forward to mass unemployment.

~~~
noonespecial
I call it "band-pass capitalism". Its socialism at the top and bottom, but a
band in the middle is capitalism.

The upside is that no one is ever homeless, the downside is that no one can
really make enough to buy a Caribbean island just for themselves.

I'm in favor. It seems like what we're fumbling towards anyway, we're just
doing it poorly right now.

------
bootz15
Genius, Einstein -- as always.

