
Why Socialism? Albert Einstein (1949) - ijiiijji1
https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism
======
paulddraper
> A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community,
> would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would
> guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

One wonders if the author would have changed his mind if he had been able to
see planned economies in practice after 1950.

~~~
mcv
I consider myself somewhat of a socialist, but I think a planned economy is a
terrible idea.

As Einstein continues:

> _" Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not
> yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete
> enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the
> solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it
> possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and
> economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and
> overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith
> a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?_"

I think it's fairly likely for a planned economy to result in the enslavement
of the individual. Of course so can an unregulated free market economy. A
better approach is not to centralise all this power at all, but keep power and
control over the economy decentralised, and the only thing that needs to be
handled by any kind of government or however you want to call your centralised
bureaucracy, is enforcing some basic constraints designed to ensure those
rights of the individual: preventing their enslavement, en ensuring they have
access to the means to live a happy life.

In other words: a regulated free market economy with a Basic Income. For
everything else: just let the people figure it out for themselves.

~~~
Doxin
> a regulated free market economy with a Basic Income.

While I wholeheartedly agree that that's a good idea, I think the government
should probably be a smidge more involved in some areas.

I feel like letting people make up the rules as they please is just asking for
mini-dictatorships popping up like you see these days with HOAs. Freedom of
setting your own rules, but I think it's more important to limit the cases
where your only freedom is to get out.

Natural monopolies are another instance where the government should probably
step in to avoid a small group of people curtailing the freedoms of large
groups. A good current example is the way ISPs currently face no competition.
Of course even in these instances a light touch is preferred, In the case of
ISPs you might imagine the government owning the fiber, but the ISPs providing
the service. This should prevent one ISP in a regio dominating and keeping the
competition out. Another example of this is public transit: Railways ought to
be shared infrastructure, instead of being owned by a single company.

I'm all for maximising freedom, but what often gets lost in the discussion is
how and when to limit freedoms to prevent the freedom of one person
encroaching on that of another.

~~~
mcv
> _" I feel like letting people make up the rules as they please is just
> asking for mini-dictatorships popping up like you see these days with
> HOAs."_

> _" Natural monopolies are another instance where the government should
> probably step in to avoid a small group of people curtailing the freedoms of
> large groups."_

Sure, but those are all examples of regulation in order to guarantee rights
and freedoms. And there are absolutely cases where the free market simply
doesn't work or works very inefficiently, like public transport or health
care.

But in cases where the free market works fine, with a little bit of regulation
or even without any, I think that's preferable to replacing every market with
a plan economy.

~~~
Doxin
No need to start with "but" if you're agreeing ;-)

------
technicalbard
The problem of a planned economy is the economic calculation problem and lack
of a mechanism for decision making (i.e. prices). Mises and Hayek laid this
out VERY clearly, as early as 1922. The planner cannot possibly know enough to
make the right decisions.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem)

~~~
fulafel
That article had an interesting reference to a 2019 book addressing this from
tech POV:

"Leigh Phillips and Michal Rozworski are releasing a book in 2019 that argues
that multinational corporations like Walmart and Amazon already operate
centrally planned economies larger than the Soviet Union, proving that the
economic calculation problem is surmountable."

[https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-people-s-republic-
of-w...](https://www.versobooks.com/books/2822-people-s-republic-of-walmart)

The book page has blurbs from Cory Doctorow and Ken MacLeod among others.

------
snogaraleal
> We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are
> unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective
> labor

Except the number of people in extreme poverty worldwide has decreased...

~~~
perl4ever
Sure, people say that a lot, but is this because of China turning away from
socialism, or is it because China has proved a planned economy works better
than a free(er) one?

Half full or half empty...

~~~
snogaraleal
China has proved that (i) it has access to vast rich western consumer markets,
and (ii) that a dirty dubious economy with no transparency produces cheaper
goods than a well-regulated one.

------
DayDollar
Lets solve the social inequilibrium - by taking a simplified, spherical human
from a uniform material.

