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

31–40 of 51 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#31

Post by Uhhrrr »

niels_olson wrote: post #11
slackerhacker wrote: post #7

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.

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.

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

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#32

Post by webXL »

yzhengyu wrote: post #18
dollar wrote: post #16

Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/

As someone earlier had pointed out, the totality of Socialism is not Marxist-Leninism. If you read the article, Einstein also warned that a planned economy did not preclude the enslavement of the individual. Living is essentially a contradiction - each human being is an individual and as a creature of nature, possesses instincts which guards against others who seek to deprive him/her of his individuality and his chan…

Good points. I didn't really understand Einstein's points about the individual being so dependent on society, though. Therefore what? We shouldn't be so selfish? When I see government workers protesting cuts, while regular workers are losing their jobs quietly, and going back to work somewhere else, I think those protestors are selfish for thinking that their paycheck is a right - at my expense.

There are two other issues that I have with the piece:

Economic: what the owner sells is the not the product of labor, but rather the product of all inputs (investment) that went into the production of the good or service.

Historical: nuclear war (or WWIII) was not prevented by a supra-national organization, but rather the collapse of a (inneficiently) planned economy. But how could he see that coming?

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#33

Post by taraharris »

forkandwait wrote: post #29
maxharris wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

John Galt is a fictional character in Atlas Shrugged. Rand's philosophy is not about economics - it's a complete system, with distinct metaphysical, epistemological and moral positions, all of which give rise to applications in politics, art, science and other fields of human endeavor. (Not unlike Aristotle.) Here's the citation for Atlas Shrugged being only 2nd to the Bible in popularity: http://webcache.googleuserc…

It isn't fair to critique a philosopher (or anybody) without reading them, but ... I just can't take Ayn Rand seriously. Like, at all. And to compare her to Aristotle seems laughable.

So you haven't read her, and you admit that you're acting unfairly?

How do you know that comparing her to Aristotle is laughable if you don't actually know what she said?

I recommend "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" if you'd like to compare her epistemology with Aristotle's.

Edit: again, why the downvote? Yes, I know some people don't like Ayn Rand (and others adore her). But there's nothing in this message that warrants a downvote.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#34

Post by niels_olson »

Uhhrrr wrote: post #31
niels_olson wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#35

Post by brudgers »

michaelchisari wrote: post #22
forkandwait wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is Atlas Shrugged the second most popular book next to the bible? A cite would be cool. Also, nobody likes people like John Galt or those who try to follow him; some of us think that there is as much blind faith to strictly follow economists silly models as it does to follow any other religion.

I believe that claim is a reference to a 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress of 2,000 Book Of The Month readers, so take that as you will. Atlas Shrugged has sold around 7 million copies since it was published, which puts it at around half as many copies as The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy.

7 million copies sold puts Atlas Shrugged 33 million copies behind Jonathan Livingston Seagull etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_books

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#37

Post by anamax »

brudgers wrote: post #10
maratd wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

If you're suggesting that we should accept something because it is in the Christian Bible, you're suggesting that we should accept anything in said bible. (Why? Because your argument for that thing applies to everything in said bible.) Moreover, surely you accept everything in said bible.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#38

Post by anamax »

gruseom wrote: post #30
dollar wrote: post #16

Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/

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 b…

> 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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#39

Post by dhimes »

anamax wrote: post #37
brudgers wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35.

> Has it's origins in the Christian Bible - Acts 4:34-35. If you're suggesting that we should accept something because it is in the Christian Bible, you're suggesting that we should accept anything in said bible. (Why? Because your argument for that thing applies to everything in said bible.) Moreover, surely you accept everything in said bible.

But it is somewhat amusing to me that some of the people who argue rabidly against socialism are proud of the fact that they do accept everything in the Bible.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

#40

Post by dhimes »

forkandwait wrote: post #19
te_platt wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this context it is worth noting the history of socialism among the Mormons based on that scripture. These days it's hard to find a group as opposed to what we consider socialism now but that wasn't always the case. Starting in the 1830s (well before Marx became influential) the Mormons began various socialist operations among its members. There are notable differences to modern socialism that I don't have time to…

I think that there are still a lot of "socialist" (for the greater good payed for by tax/tithe) programs within the LDS church; it's the US Federal government into what they consider their own sort of promised land they don't like. Like most successful industrial countries, they have a strong government that works closely with private industry and "the people", as opposed to the naive laissez faire beloved by neolibe…

laissez faire beloved by neoliberals

I thought it was the (American) neoconservatives who love laissez-faire? Or at least claim to.

Post reply on HN