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

Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

monthlyreview.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 51 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#3

Post by 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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#6

Post by donniefitz2 »

michaelchisari wrote: post #3

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 publi…

I couldn't agree more about the defining of terms. While I find the article well reasoned given his assumptions, I think it's the assumptions that need to be addressed. Terms like, "social-ethical end", "inner equilibrium", and idea of a goal of life.

I think it's these terms and the basic assumptions behind them are what need to be addressed prior to attempting to construct a social system.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#8

Post by maratd »

michaelchisari wrote: post #3

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 publi…

> 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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#9

Post by michaelchisari »

maratd wrote: post #8
michaelchisari wrote: post #3

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 publi…

> 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…

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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#10

Post by brudgers »

maratd wrote: post #8
michaelchisari wrote: post #3

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 publi…

> 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…

>"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.

Post reply on HN