
Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949) - niels_olson
http://monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
======
michaelchisari
Here's some important things to think about:

First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of
production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and
authoritarian ways.

Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free
markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate
successfully in the global market.

If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social
democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources.

I understand people's reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined
by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but
I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which
take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms.

~~~
maratd
> I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues

I'll bite.

> socialism is defined

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. Socialism
is the way. Communism is the unreachable goal.

> If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social
> democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources.

You can discuss things ad nauseum and it will mean nothing. The human mind is
too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost
infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state.

In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it.

Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state.

Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are
removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason,
the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very
quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.

~~~
michaelchisari
_Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state._

Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to
totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist
(and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies.

 _"From each according..."_ is not a tenet shared by all socialists.

~~~
forkandwait
Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had
a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and
a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of
the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to
share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to
admit it.)

Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied
as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State
has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is
completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends....
Russia is also soulful and brilliant).

------
dollar
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism
worked out.

<http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/>

~~~
gruseom
_Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism
worked out._

Einstein lived long enough to see how Stalinism worked out; he outlived
Stalin. On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things
seem to have worked out pretty good there.

This kind of discussion is pointless: everyone uses "socialism" to mean
whatever they think it should mean and then argues. It's like a bunch of
people getting together to play a game, except one is playing chess, one
checkers, and someone else poker. Then they all get indignant and yell at each
other, which I suppose is the real game.

By how much would the world supply of argumentation deflate if people paid
attention to whether they were even talking about the same thing?

~~~
anamax
> On the other hand, by some definitions Norway is socialist and things seem
> to have worked out pretty good there.

Anything works with a small population of Scandanavians.

------
slackerhacker
I think this has to be the 10th time this article was posted on HN. Seems as
if every college student discovers this paper and thinks they are the first
one.

~~~
niels_olson
really?! I'm a 35 year-old physician with a degree in physics. I just heard
about in a biography and looked it up and posted it. Do you think that we
should resist citing interesting articles in absolute favor of novelty at all
costs? Is every character worth the same? In that case, we should probably
fire you and get someone cheaper.

~~~
Uhhrrr
You are ignoring the fact that an interesting article is much less interesting
the tenth time it is posted.

~~~
niels_olson
No, until now I was ignoring the fact that a few folks seem to have added some
evidence that it is possible to spend way to much time on HN.

------
johnohara
_Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in
an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction
with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the
accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe
depressions._

One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure
time for the individual. If Einstein is correct, and he may well be, then
future economic restructurings may be far worse than than the one we are
experiencing now.

~~~
rick888
"One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure
time for the individual."

Unions have pretty much put a stop to the automation of most industries.

------
arvinjoar
Meh. There's no unique claims in this essay, and it really does not matter
that Einstein wrote it, it still has a lot of erraneous assumptions about
value creation.

