5 ms·
Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?
- julius_geezer 17y agoNext up: J.M. Keynes on quantum electrodynamics.
- nlabs 17y agoBad 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.
- glhaynes 17y agoI'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoAs 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.
- freebsd_dude 17y agoEconomics 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 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoExactly. 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 .
- freebsd_dude 17y agoActually 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.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou 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.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y ago"Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics" Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoYou seem to be misreading what I wrote, above. That or you might need to RTFA and compare what Einstein is saying with a discussion of economics.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Anon84 17y agoYou mean like the 2000 Nobel prize in Economics? The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in Physics with highest honors. I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of human behavior. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/mcfadden-autobio.html http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/2000/...
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoExactly. That's actual contribution to a field of knowledge, not a political essay.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- 17y ago
- camccann 17y agoPhysicists can intelligently contribute to economics. I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...
- mtalantikite 17y agoI 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.
- freebsd_dude 17y agoEconomics can contribute to economics, so long as they are not dynamic macroeconomic theorists. That stuff is witchcraft.
- waldrews 17y agoWas it Max Planck who gave up economics for physics after finding the former too difficult?
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- laut 17y agoEconomics is not a natural science. It is a social science. It's pretty important to understand this, but most people don't.
- gnosis 17y agoEinstein 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, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. ... For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society." (Comments in brackets are mine)
- Semiapies 17y agoI 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 stronger evidence against command economies and socialism. (Socialism in the 20th century sense, not "welfare systems bolted atop market systems" in the Teabagger sense.)
- seanl 17y agoArguably 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)
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoWell, as it's not an economic argument, I'd agree. However, his political argument in that essay should not be given special credence because he was one of history's greatest physicists.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- Semiapies 17y agoMaybe 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 about FTL travel.
- freebsd_dude 17y agohuh? They are called the "Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics" - look it up in any graduate econ text. Stop ranting.
- Semiapies 17y agoYou'll know when I rant. :)
- tjgabbour 17y agoThere'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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
- 1010011010 17y agoThe 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, ignoring the free and voluntary cooperation required among its participants for it to succeed. The _cooperation_ inherent in a functioning market economy so often seems to be overlooked.
- madair 17y agoThis 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.
- gnosis 17y agoYep. 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.
- Semiapies 17y ago"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.
- maxharris 17y ago"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival. Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind." -Ayn Rand Socialism is fundamentally opposed to this view.
- gnosis 17y ago"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."
- maxharris 17y agoI 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.
- camccann 17y agoNo, 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.
- 17y ago
- DanielBMarkham 17y agoSocialism 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 word "science" la plus ca change le plus le meme chose
- gnosis 17y ago"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.
- Semiapies 17y ago"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.
- camccann 17y ago"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.
- TomOfTTB 17y agoThe 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 worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career. ===== Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people need a push in order to perform. He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism (Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to. Take this statement for instance... ==== Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. ==== It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It is the ultimate power. In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.
- gnosis 17y ago"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.
- ryandvm 17y agoHmmm - Albert Einstein was a moron. Who knew?