Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

monthlyreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 80 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#41

Post by Semiapies »

freebsd_dude wrote: post #39
Semiapies wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you mean axioms. I don't see why you're defending an essay pimping socialism after the results of socialism over the course of the 20th century. Einstein had the excuse of much of what happened in the Soviet Union being effectively covered up; in the wake of our knowledge of what happened there, during the Cultural Revolution, etc., it's just not excusable in 2010. It's like linking to Ludwig von Mises rambling…

huh? They are called the "Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics" - look it up in any graduate econ text. Stop ranting.

You'll know when I rant. :)

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#42

Post by gnosis »

DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it. The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully. Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the…

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.

Then people saw what happened when you tried it."

Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!

Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the opposite of what socialism is about.

As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#43

Post by camccann »

taraharris wrote: post #18
gnosis wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, is The Lord of the Rings."

I was 19 when I first read Rand. I'm 29 now, and I still love her philosophy and her novels. I'm willing to be that you haven't read her very closely. At any rate, your quote is a mere ad-hominem attack, and I don't think that anyone here will mistake it for an actual argument.

No, an ad-hominem would imply an attack on the character or worth of Rand personally. gnosis's comment was merely a bald assertion about the novel, though indeed not an argument as such. Of course, your Rand quote was also pretty much just a bald assertion without any supporting argument, so I guess it works out.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#44

Post by [deleted] »

freebsd_dude wrote: post #32
Semiapies wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As the only reason we're paying attention to this non-mathematical essay is because Albert Einstein wrote it, noting that he was not actually an economist is entirely valid.

Economics in the 40-50s was about Markets vs. Planning. The big economic names at the time - Hayek, Keynes, were debating the merits and faults of markets and planning. Einstein threw in his 2 cents. That he was a physicist has no bearing on his argument.

[deleted]

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#45

Post by freebsd_dude »

Semiapies wrote: post #38
freebsd_dude wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Economics in the 40-50s was about Markets vs. Planning. The big economic names at the time - Hayek, Keynes, were debating the merits and faults of markets and planning. Einstein threw in his 2 cents. That he was a physicist has no bearing on his argument.

Exactly . And yet the only reason this essay has been dug up is because the greatest physicist of the day wrote it. Hayek, Keynes, et al discussed the economics - the models, the math. Einstein here makes a political argument, complete with hand-waving about how economics can't be used to judge his position because it's so last-wave . This is the political version of Linus Pauling and vitamin C .

Actually Hayek and Keynes never used much math in their arguments. Keynes ideas were put into economic models by later economists with science backgrounds: Alvin Hansen, Paul Sameulson, James Tobin, etc.

Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious. The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics. Had the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place.

Edit: original poster = I mean the guy who said JM Keynes on QED - had he pointed out socialism flaws this discussion would have never taken place.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#46

Post by Semiapies »

gnosis wrote: post #42
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it. The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully. Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the…

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitali…

"All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social net that protected their welfare"

That happened in market states with welfare systems. You're sharing Glenn Beck's confusion about what exactly "socialism" is.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#47

Post by Semiapies »

freebsd_dude wrote: post #45
Semiapies wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly . And yet the only reason this essay has been dug up is because the greatest physicist of the day wrote it. Hayek, Keynes, et al discussed the economics - the models, the math. Einstein here makes a political argument, complete with hand-waving about how economics can't be used to judge his position because it's so last-wave . This is the political version of Linus Pauling and vitamin C .

Actually Hayek and Keynes never used much math in their arguments. Keynes ideas were put into economic models by later economists with science backgrounds: Alvin Hansen, Paul Sameulson, James Tobin, etc. Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious. The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics. Had the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had…

You are far out of your depth; this'll be my last to you.

"Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious."

Please point that out to the people trying to sleaze in the claim he was right. :)

"The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics."

To quote another physicist, you're not even wrong!

"ad the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place."

Well no - gnosis apparently would have never submitted this, judging by some of his other remarks.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#48

Post by lionhearted »

gnosis wrote: post #42
DanielBMarkham wrote: post #21

Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it. The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully. Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the…

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitali…

> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism").

The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#49

Post by Semiapies »

lionhearted wrote: post #48
gnosis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals. Then people saw what happened when you tried it." Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare! Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitali…

> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think t…

It's only socialism until it fails. "I have seen the future, and it works!"

Afterward, it retroactively becomes capitalism.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#50

Post by taraharris »

camccann wrote: post #43
taraharris wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was 19 when I first read Rand. I'm 29 now, and I still love her philosophy and her novels. I'm willing to be that you haven't read her very closely. At any rate, your quote is a mere ad-hominem attack, and I don't think that anyone here will mistake it for an actual argument.

No, an ad-hominem would imply an attack on the character or worth of Rand personally. gnosis's comment was merely a bald assertion about the novel, though indeed not an argument as such. Of course, your Rand quote was also pretty much just a bald assertion without any supporting argument, so I guess it works out.

His comment is an ad-hominem attack on Objectivists (e.g., people like me.)
Post reply on HN