

Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949) - proveanegative
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/

======
ElectronCharge
Perhaps, if an "Einstein" were to run the economy, state ownership of the
means of production, and central planning, would be workable. The problem is
that eventually the "Einstein" would perish or be replaced, and the lesser
replacement would be a disaster.

There is nothing preferable in a few oligarches (or plutocrats) running
everything as "the government", to capitalism. In fact, at least capitalism is
somewhat distributed, and capitalists have a vested interest in pleasing their
customers. Not so with government!

I'm a huge admirer of Einstein in general, but in this he was far outside his
area of expertise!

~~~
dalke
Aren't you also outside far outside your expertise?

Oligarchy is a political form. Capitalism is an economic form. They are
neither incompatible nor mutually exclusive.

Consider that China is often used an example of state capitalism, and Russia
as an example of corporate oligarchy.

Even North Korea has capitalists in all but name. See
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/north-korea-
cap...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/north-korea-capitalism-
new-business-elite) .

------
nanis
Another an example of how, the fact that a person can contribute to the design
and construction nuclear bombs does not automatically make him qualified to
condemn the rest of the society to produce what he and his brethren deem
desirable.

Hayek explained the problems with socialism in the 30s and 40s. His
contemporaries laughed at him; he won the Nobel prize in 1974.

[http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-
sciences/lau...](http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-
sciences/laureates/1974/hayek-lecture.html)

As Mises pointed out, these self-appointed enlightened people "... forget that
a dictator, too, may act differently from their wishes, and that there is no
assurance that he will really try for the `best,' and, even if he should seek
it, that he should find the way to the `best.'"
[http://blog.qtau.com/2009/12/food-for-thought-mises-on-
socia...](http://blog.qtau.com/2009/12/food-for-thought-mises-on-
socialist.html)

If those don't make sense to you, I recommend "Moscow on the Hudson,"
"Demolition Man," and "Logan's Run."

~~~
dalke
Is this the same Hayek who defended transitional dictatorship, and believed
that the Pinochet government was a good example of the sort of dictatorship
that would likely lead to a liberal government?

~~~
nanis
I referred specifically to Hayek's work in the 30s and the 40s for which he
won the Nobel prize in 1974 ... About the time the Rational Expectations
Revolution was beginning to gain momentum.

Now, while I actually lived under dictatorship, and did not enjoy it one bit,
I must say, if I am forced to make a choice between Allende and Pinochet, I'll
go for Pinochet every time. Just look at where Chile was before Bachelet was
elected, and where, say, Argentina, and Venezuela, and Brazil are ...

~~~
dalke
Your original statement was that just because Einstein knew physics doesn't
"automatically make him qualified to condemn the rest of the society to
produce what he and his brethren deem desirable."

That needlessly gendered statement is identical in structure to my objection
that Hayek's understanding of economics doesn't "automatically make him
qualified to condemn the rest of the society to" dictatorships, even if only
temporary.

Gunnar Myrdal shared the prize with Hayek but had quite different views on
government, and regarded Hayek as a reactionary. Myrdal was, among other
things, a member of the Swedish Parliament for the Social Democrat party. You
can therefore only conclude that the Nobel Prize committee was recognizing
those areas of economics where Myrdal and Hayek had similar views. You cannot
extend that recognition to include all of Hayek's views.

If forced to choose between having all of my limbs cut off and having just my
foot cut off, I think I could express a clear preference as well.

