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

51–60 of 80 posts

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#51

Post by gnosis »

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…

Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...

Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists.

The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#52

Post by freebsd_dude »

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...

Economics can contribute to economics, so long as they are not dynamic macroeconomic theorists. That stuff is witchcraft.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#53

Post by seanl »

Semiapies wrote: post #22
gnosis wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein anticipates and addresses this criticism in his essay: "...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with]. Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science,…

I will note that scientists of any degree of renown tend to be absolutely fantastic at careful, hard-nosed, scientific analysis that leads to the conclusion that the very political beliefs they already have are objectively correct. Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stron…

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million.

Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure.

My point is not to claim that either of these points of view are true or false. My point is that complex, somewhat subjective and potentially contentious historical analyses are required to attribute causation to the 20th century's multiple clusters of mass homicide (unlike, say, the deaths caused by the 1918 flu pandemic where an objective attribution of cause is relatively straightforward).

The evidence is not as straightforward as you portray it.

(edit: I missed out the word 'deaths' in the first paragraph)

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#54

Post by lionhearted »

seanl wrote: post #53
Semiapies wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will note that scientists of any degree of renown tend to be absolutely fantastic at careful, hard-nosed, scientific analysis that leads to the conclusion that the very political beliefs they already have are objectively correct. Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stron…

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. M…

> Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million.

Wait, wait, wait, hold up - in what universe are Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan capitalist? Both countries had heavy government ownership, control, and coordination of industry. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party - the Third Reich state owned all the chemical production and most of the industrial production in Germany. People loosely in favor of socialism don't like counting Nazi Germany among socialists, but they definitely had worker/state control over industry.

Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that, but clearly the Axis war economies of WWII were not free enterprise/free market/capitalist.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#55

Post by camccann »

Semiapies wrote: post #46
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…

"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.

"Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners.

Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist.

Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state, as representative of the general public, owns everything; this clearly grossly violates the idea in spirit as a small group of powerful people again end up controlling everything (and typically doing so very poorly).

The term "socialism", like "capitalism", describes a huge range of possible ideas and implementations, and to describe one or the other as broadly good or bad is symptomatic of egregiously lazy thinking.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#56

Post by Semiapies »

seanl wrote: post #53
Semiapies wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will note that scientists of any degree of renown tend to be absolutely fantastic at careful, hard-nosed, scientific analysis that leads to the conclusion that the very political beliefs they already have are objectively correct. Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stron…

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. M…

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist".

Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime".

"I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist"

You might; I'd be impressed by that as I would be the latest from the Discovery Institute.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#57

Post by seanl »

Semiapies wrote: post #56
seanl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. M…

You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist". Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime". "I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of dea…

WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"

Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions.

You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID.

Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#58

Post by lionhearted »

gnosis wrote: post #51
lionhearted wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait... Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocate…

Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit.

> Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...

Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing.

The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures.

So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#59

Post by seanl »

lionhearted wrote: post #54
seanl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure. M…

> Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million. Wait, wait, wait, hold up - in what universe are Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan capitalist? Both countries had heavy government ownership, control, and coordination of industry. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party - t…

Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that

That would be a simple version of the argument I have in mind. Basically I don't think WW1 and WW2 were disconnected events, there is a path of historical causation that runs through both.

Re: Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

#60

Post by Semiapies »

camccann wrote: post #55
Semiapies wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

"Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners. Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist. Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state,…

"Science", in simple terms, is an effort to explain the natural world.

Note that creationist propaganda would, by this definition, be completely scientific.

This, of course, is because I've chosen an absurd definition of science, not because of lazy thinking of the part of evolutionary biologists.

Post reply on HN