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

31–40 of 80 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#31

Post by gnosis »

TomOfTTB wrote: post #29

The problem I see here is that Einstein lacked any self awareness. He doesn't seem to grasp that his mind is an extraordinary one and hence an exception which has led him to conclusions like this... ===== This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worsh…

"the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by a very small, very elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could"

I suppose you are not familiar with the Executive branch, or the Judicial branch. They are, at least in theory, supposed to share power with Congress. In fact, it could be argued that at the present time (and especially during Bush Jr's term) Congress is the weakest of the three branches.

Then there are all the private interests that influence these branches (most obviously Congress), such as the corporate lobbyists which funnel massive amounts of money in to influencing the decisions of government.

High ranking executives and members of the boards of corporations regularly get influential jobs in government, and when they retire from government they go back to serve as executives in and on boards of corporations.

It's a mistake to consider the US government as a separate entity from that of the corporations. It's all highly incestuous. They are two sides of the same hand.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#32

Post by freebsd_dude »

Semiapies wrote: post #28
[deleted] wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#33

Post by madair »

1010011010 wrote: post #11

The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man is abhorrent. "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees" Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignori…

This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance & patriotic zeal impose less social control.

[Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more comparative studies.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#34

Post by tjgabbour »

julius_geezer wrote: post #2

Next up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.

There's nothing wrong with voicing an opinion on the economy which you depend on, particularly if you've thought about it a lot. The world would probably be a better place if this were more common. (After all, wars are even fought over economic incompatibilities. Take the US and old Soviet Union; their economies even had crucial similarities, like top-down workplace decisionmaking.)

In probably any country it's very difficult to be an economics prof if you go outside narrow ideological bounds. Like if you wanted to pursue Participatory Economics or something, rather than forms of capitalism or marxism-leninism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#35

Post by gnosis »

madair wrote: post #33
1010011010 wrote: post #11

The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man is abhorrent. "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees" Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignori…

This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance & patriotic zeal impose less social control. [Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more co…

Yep. Not to mention their advocacy for prohibiting abortion and prohibiting people from doing drugs, and their advocacy for "law and order" and being "tough on crime" (yet another form of social control).

At least the non-socially-conservative libertarians are consistent in being against many of these things (the War on Drugs, military intervensionism, being anti-abortion). But there are plenty of other problems with libertarianism, such as their generally being ok with people getting screwed over by one another, as long as its the result of "market forces", or there's a contract saying it's ok for one to screw over the other.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#36

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?

#37

Post by mtalantikite »

camccann wrote: post #8
nlabs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.

Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics. I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...

I hear where you're coming from, economics definitely can feel clumsy at times, but that to me is even more reason to continue pushing it for breakthroughs. Economics is a relatively new field of study compared to the history of physics.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#38

Post by Semiapies »

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.

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 .

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#39

Post by freebsd_dude »

Semiapies wrote: post #30
[deleted] wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[deleted]

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.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#40

Post by Semiapies »

madair wrote: post #33
1010011010 wrote: post #11

The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man is abhorrent. "It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees" Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignori…

This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance & patriotic zeal impose less social control. [Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more co…

"This top-down thing is getting tiresome."

Then you figure out a way around the economic calculation problem. There's a Nobel in it for you.

Until then, I'm going to simply be amused at how it's unfair to note that Albert Einstein wasn't actually an economic expert, but it's perfectly reasonable to engage in knee-jerk US political stereotypes.

Post reply on HN