You must log in or register to comment.
I can recommend this piece from Hobo Johnson (“why socialism by Albert Einstein”)
I don’t think they say “No intellectual would be a socialist”, instead they say intellectuals are bad and evil. It’s a classic pattern among dictator cults of personality.
Dictators love the poorly educated.
No, they just need their votes.
Most intellectuals are socialist
And the name of that Albert Einstein…?
Carl Sagan.
Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said “fuck off and fuck Zionism.”
socialism might be nice but just getting rid of billionaires is a great start.
Can’t do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.
I think we’ve been doing this capitalism thing all wrong. All these issues are because we forgot to do the sacrifices.
We should be taking the top .1% of capitalist and using them to perform routine blood sacrifice rituals to appease the capitalist gods.
We then use their capital to fund a festival that last until then funds run out.
Their purity of capitalism will surely appease the gods and end all these climate change issues we’ve been experience.
For Grofit! The wise and avaricious Parvos commends you!
We could always introduce a purge. Maybe every 5-10 years (random) the 10 wealthiest individuals must fight to the death. Win or lose they lose all their money and have to start over. Its like the Olympics. And they can use their money to equip themselves, with tech and weapons.
Its like the Olympics
But yeah capitalism is no bueno
In capitalism, the wealthiests make the rule, not us.
I’d say Capital itself makes the rules, the wealthiest just try to guess at those rules the best they can. The M-C-M’ circuit isn’t very “human” in design, it’s more like a law of nature for this level of development.
isn’t that part of it
I would expect so. I said “but” as in, “even if we just do this and dont carry out other requirements immediately” kind of “but”
i don’t think we can get rid of them without socialism
I think a certain italian plumber says otherwise.
The thing with Adventurism is that it doesn’t change anything. The path to getting rid of billionaires requires organizing and toppling the system that necessarily gives rise to them, not by killing them as they crop up. Luigi played a valuable role in showing the Working Class that, actually, they have more in common with each other in their shared hatred of their natural enemy, but he didn’t get us any closer to taking down that system.
the billionaire is dead, long live the billionaire
I don’t know, it also seems very difficult to achieve world wide socialism. but then again it is also hard to cull people’s desire to become powerful over others. there will always be those aspiring to become billionaires but yet it seems easier to motivate majority of humans to do away with billionaires then to convince them to accept socialism.
It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.
At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.
https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/
To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article
What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.
The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.
Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying
/lazyposting
For what it’s worth, I agree, one person’s narrow expertise does not directly translate to knowledge elsewhere. Einstein admits as such, yet explains exactly why Socialism is a necessary step forward and why he thinks those not trained traditionally in political economy should still have a voice. Further, Einstein’s essay just shows his thoughts on the matter, I don’t consider it a genuine work of theory, more a springboard to look into actual Marxist theory.
This is where our agreement ends. Socialism is, factually, more democratic than Capitalism. By collectivizing the economy, it can be democratically directed and planned, as already has been the case in many AES countries. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.
Your last point is just anti-intellectualism, and ignores that Marxism has, historically, been extremely popular among the working class, and in the Global South. Your article is very western-centric, only analyzing thoroughly Imperialist countries like the United States and Western European countries, and shuts out the vast majority of actual, practicing Marxists in the real world.
Edit: Oh, you changed your entire comment. You’re going back to defending Imperialism and suggesting a system where workers are heavily exploited are only problems for “losers.” This isn’t a serious point. You want to throw workers to the meat grinder and find poverty fine as long as the wealthiest live free, which is very sad.
There’s nothing democratic about socialism
Incorrect
I remember a republican coworker arguing that Interstellar’s concept of time dilation was super unrealistic and that can’t possibly be how things are. All this to say, I’m sure Einstein is about to be cancelled and relativity denied as hard as climate change.
A customer told me they don’t believe in space last night 😞
I look forward to the collapse of civilization when all of the satellites stop communicating with our computers because our satellites are sending messages from the future.
Also, ruining GPS for everyone would be a really effective scapegoat for Tesla’s full self-driving failures.
All but those Starlink satellites….
He wasn’t a SeRiOuS intellectual though.
Need a sever lack if humor for that sweet sweet capitalistic greed.
(appeal to authority)
The anti-communist in the meme was also making an attempt to appeal to authority
It is not an appeal to authority… It’s called a rebuttal. If someone makes a claim that no real smart person can do x, an easy way to prove them wrong is to provide an example of a smart person doing x.
true ig i was wrong
(btw I’m not far right and fully agree with this, I just like being annoying and pointing out things like this)
I mean, kinda? It’s a meme, really. The actual article itself though isn’t an appeal to authority, rather, it outlines pretty well the basics of why a publicly owned and planned economy is logically the correct path to take.
I think this short essay was the first thing that appeared in monthly review
Youd be hard pushed to find many who weren’t
“The good of the people” is a noble goal. The problem is that for the most part, people who deliberately seek power to lead these groups are vain, greedy, selfish, brutal assholes.
Collectivism, as Karl Marx wrote it, has never been practiced in any so-called “communist” country on Earth. It’s always been an oligarchy.
I think Parenti said it best, in Blackshirts and Reds:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
To that end, Marx’s conception of Socialism, that being a state run by the proletariat along the lines of a publicly owned and planned economy, has existed in many areas, and does to this day. These are called “AES” states. You’re partially correct in that no AES state has made it to the historical stage of Communism, which requires a global world government and a fully publicly owned and planned economy, but this is a historical stage requiring Socialism to be fully developed first.
I think you would gain a lot from reading some books on AES states, such as Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. These aren’t “oligarchies,” or whatnot, but Socialism in existence, warts and all. We need to learn from what worked and what didn’t to progress onwards, it’s clear that Capitalism is in a death spiral and Socialism remains the way forward.
OP is talking about socialism, not communism?
Kinda. Einstein here is referring to an eventual fully publicly owned and collectivrly planned economy in a world republic, which is what Communists aspire to. Communism is that world-government stage, Socialism is the process of building towards that stage. So, when Einstein espouses the necessity of Socialism, he means in the process of building towards Communism.
All Communists are at first Socialists, because that’s the most immediate stage to reach.
Hmm, OK. Personally I believe in socialism (like democratic socialism) but I don’t think communism is going to work. Especially a planned economy has been shown to not work at least a couple of times.
Every national economy has some planned parts (utilities and ag in the U.S., for example). Most less-planned capitalist economies don’t work, either – what has capitalism done for the vast majority of people in Latin America, Asia, and Africa?
China is a major example of a more-planned economy working as well as any economy in recorded history. About two-thirds of the economy is in the form of state-owned enterprises, the rest of the economy is firmly answerable to the government, and there’s top-down economic planning at regular intervals. In 75 years this has taken China from a mostly feudal society that had been carved up by various invaders for the previous century to a country with modern living standards and technology on par with anyone in the world.
Central planning is also at the core of the largest companies in the world, even ones that operate outside of significant state economic planning. Apple and Microsoft don’t have internal divisions operate on market principles; they plan and direct resource and labor distribution from the top down. The People’s Republic of Walmart is great reading on this last topic.
Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don’t really know what you’re getting at, here. If you’re talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they’ve “made it” by working at their father’s banking firm.
Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by planned economies “not working.” There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don’t really know what you’re referring to here.
Planned economy isn’t mandatory for socialism. Market socialism exists, for example the socialist market economy practiced (quite successfully) by China. (And no, I do mean democratic socialism, not Social Democracy or the Nordic model)
I think anyone can point to USSR and China as examples of failed planned economies, so I am quite surprised by you claiming to know nothing about that. I wouldn’t include Cuba because there have been a lot of unjust outside pressures against its economy. I will say I don’t know much about the AES states so I will have to look into that, but at a quick glance I don’t see anyone describing their economy as planned?
China is heavily planned. This isn’t really a point in your favor, China’s Socialist Market Economy works because it’s so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.
Furthermore, again, I don’t know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as “economic failures.” They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy’s myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.
As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.
Edit: to respond to your edit about “Democratic Socialism,” such a name is redundant. Socialism is democratic, and that includes AES, or “Actually Existing Socialism.” What are you specifically talking about?
China is heavily planned.
Oh, OK. If that’s what you believes… (I wonder if you have talked with someone who actually live in China currently?) I don’t think there will be much more I can say that would convince you otherwise. But I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to “tyrants.” You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
Indeed
"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn’t apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.
First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.
Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.
Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you’ll notice that the “disasters” are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.
Finally, there is the non-sequitor of “free speech, liberty, and property rights.” Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague “values,” the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.
crank economist?
Really? Ever read basic economics? Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, by stating he is a crank economist you are disqualifying yourself.
https://rumble.com/v4u4a8i-basic-economics-by-thomas-sowell.html?e9s=src_v1_pr
I’m well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he’s a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn’t disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.
Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
See Argentina what a blessing deregulation is, we need a lot more Milei and less Marx. Socialism is one of the main reasons why Africa is still poor (read Magatte Wade - the heart of a cheetah). Economy is not a zero sum game - who cares that someone else is rich. Is that envy speaking?
Sowell started out as a Marxist btw. It is just a flawed ideology and in its most extreme form always ends in dictatorship.
https://rumble.com/vjzm8i-why-socialism-is-very-appealing-thomas-sowell.html
I’m well aware of Basic Economics.
So I guess you haven’t read it?
Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn’t great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.
As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren’t under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion’s share of their resources:
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there’s been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they’re overexploited!
Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.
No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.
I’m aware of Sowell’s past as a “Marxist.” Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.
I’ve read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven’t read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don’t imagine you’ve read Marx’s works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.
Argentina is collapsing.
Jaja, I love real world examples. The opposite is true. You can see basic economics working in practice 😀
Poverty is down and lower than when Milei started his presidency. Do you really think the poor care that his policies will make a few rich folks even richer? They just want shelter, safety and some food.
Hey history buffs: why did Einstein flee to the US when he believed this? Why not flee to the USSR?
My overall opinion on that matter is that, ultimately, Einstein grasped the logical necessity of Socialism as outlined in Why Socialism? but contained many chauvanistic attitudes common to Western Socialism. He changed his tune from being firmly anti-Soviet in the 20s to overall greatly complimenting Lenin:
“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”
The chauvanistic attitudes, however, are often swept under the rug. With respect to Chinese people, he commented in his diary:
“Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse… It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.
This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don’t think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.
Einstein also wrote some colorful things about Latin America
“I have no desire to meet semi-acculturated Indians wearing tuxedos.”
It’s a good reminder of how ingrained colonialism is in society, and how no one is immune of its influences in our worldview.
Gross…
Thank you for the information! <3
No problem! That’s just my interpretation, he waffled back and forth on the Soviets his whole life but maintained a “non-anti-soviet” position after coming to Socialism from his former Liberalism, which shaped the earlier aspects of his life. I don’t think he ever seriously committed to confronting that liberalism, but merely became convinced of the benefits of Socialism.
In his early 20s, the region that would become the USSR had performed a number of pogroms and mass murders in the name of blood-libel. Post WWI, Bolshevik started to become a bit of a dog-whistle for Jews, which got amplified through WWII, and then fed back into anti-Bolshevik/antisemitic beliefs.
As a proud, yet incredibly hypocritical Jew, I’m sure Einstein had seen enough antisemitism coming from that region that it likely played some sort of a role in his decision.
Also, this is an assumption.
No safe harbors for socialists anywhere
