5 ms·

Fascinating. The entire article doesn't even bother to include the fact that Einstein was a socialist. He didn't want to "cross borders" - he wanted to remove t

Fascinating. The entire article doesn't even bother to include the fact that Einstein was a socialist. He didn't want to "cross borders" - he wanted to remove them, which is the sole sane solution.

hugh4life 7y ago
How does a democracy work without borders? Without borders there is no demos.
- anarchy8 7y ago
  The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people, which isn't necessarily defined by borders.
  - blancheneige 7y ago
    >The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people So like what's been happening for the last 2000 years and resulted in our current borders?
  - the-dude 7y ago
    Multinationals
  - aikah 7y ago
    It would end up the same as today, ultimately, nations would emerge. Don't you think "free association" is where civilization began at first place? And you expect a different outcome? Who would protect "free associates" from the violence of others who don't buy into that system? Utopia like Anarchy severely ignore the "human nature" factor.
    - kiliantics 7y ago
      It's unknown how civilisations began but they were most likely not formed through "free association" but rather by violent extortion. It's thought that pastoral communities being regularly robbed by nomadic groups eventually developed a relationship of paying tribute to one group in return for protection against others. Or, put differently, one group of bandits will fight off the others to get exclusive pillaging access to some farming communities. This tribute system is believed to have then developed into a taxation system. In no way are modern nation states a form of "free association". I cannot freely choose to not pay taxes if I am born in a nation, nor can I freely choose to join another nation if I accept their principles. Your predictable and very unoriginal use of the "human nature" argument is in fact the ignorant position. It completely ignores the significantly larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships that in no way resemble the modern nation state or earlier forms of civilisation.
      - aikah 7y ago
        It's very well known how civilization began. You cannot find a single example of what you deem "free association" that is not currently defended directly or indirectly by an army. The irony of your statement is that while you called me ignorant you said the exact same thing as I said in your first paragraph. Then you try to back pedal to make a "point" in the last one by giving zero examples of your "larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships. And next time refrain from calling other people who disagree with whatever ideology you believe in as "ignorant", it qualifies you as a troll.
  - maehwasu 7y ago
    You quite literally just independently re-derived the concept of "border" in the same sentence that you rejected it.
- raverbashing 7y ago
  When was socialism ever about democracy? For examples of how order is maintained, just see the Tiananmen Square protests
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- opportune 7y ago
  How would it be any different than if there was just one country? Borders in the US don't seem to prevent democracy (or something close to it) from working
deogeo 7y ago
Borders and socialism seem perfectly compatible to me. Or do you mean that he was both a socialist, and against borders?
- anarchy8 7y ago
  Socialism at the time was inherently international.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    That's not the same as against borders - see e.g. international trade, or tourism. Socialism today seems to agree with borders ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 ), and back then, there was national socialism...
  - pvg 7y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
    - Der_Einzige 7y ago
      Einstein was explicitly anti stalinist and advocates globalism in his work "Why Socialism" You can read it online
      - pvg 7y ago
        I don't understand how this is related to my comment and the comment I'm replying to, both of which you presumably just read online.
      - clydethefrog 7y ago
        Link to the piece: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
  - ptaipale 7y ago
mehrzad 7y ago
While I agree with you that socialism is inherently against borders, I'm not sure Einstein ever said so.
- Emma_Goldman 7y ago
  He argued in favour of a supranational security system in 1945: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1947/11/atomic-war-or-peace/305443/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1947/11/atomic-...

Fascinating. The entire article doesn't even bother to include the fact that Einstein was a socialist. He didn't want to "cross borders" - he wanted to remove them, which is the sole sane solution.

hugh4life 7y ago

How does a democracy work without borders? Without borders there is no demos.

anarchy8 7y ago
The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people, which isn't necessarily defined by borders.
- blancheneige 7y ago
  >The "demos" or people would be any freely associating group of people So like what's been happening for the last 2000 years and resulted in our current borders?
- the-dude 7y ago
  Multinationals
- aikah 7y ago
  It would end up the same as today, ultimately, nations would emerge. Don't you think "free association" is where civilization began at first place? And you expect a different outcome? Who would protect "free associates" from the violence of others who don't buy into that system? Utopia like Anarchy severely ignore the "human nature" factor.
  - kiliantics 7y ago
    It's unknown how civilisations began but they were most likely not formed through "free association" but rather by violent extortion. It's thought that pastoral communities being regularly robbed by nomadic groups eventually developed a relationship of paying tribute to one group in return for protection against others. Or, put differently, one group of bandits will fight off the others to get exclusive pillaging access to some farming communities. This tribute system is believed to have then developed into a taxation system. In no way are modern nation states a form of "free association". I cannot freely choose to not pay taxes if I am born in a nation, nor can I freely choose to join another nation if I accept their principles. Your predictable and very unoriginal use of the "human nature" argument is in fact the ignorant position. It completely ignores the significantly larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships that in no way resemble the modern nation state or earlier forms of civilisation.
    - aikah 7y ago
      It's very well known how civilization began. You cannot find a single example of what you deem "free association" that is not currently defended directly or indirectly by an army. The irony of your statement is that while you called me ignorant you said the exact same thing as I said in your first paragraph. Then you try to back pedal to make a "point" in the last one by giving zero examples of your "larger number of humans throughout history (and including today) that have lived in freely associating relationships. And next time refrain from calling other people who disagree with whatever ideology you believe in as "ignorant", it qualifies you as a troll.
- maehwasu 7y ago
  You quite literally just independently re-derived the concept of "border" in the same sentence that you rejected it.
raverbashing 7y ago
When was socialism ever about democracy? For examples of how order is maintained, just see the Tiananmen Square protests
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
opportune 7y ago
How would it be any different than if there was just one country? Borders in the US don't seem to prevent democracy (or something close to it) from working

deogeo 7y ago

Borders and socialism seem perfectly compatible to me. Or do you mean that he was both a socialist, and against borders?

anarchy8 7y ago
Socialism at the time was inherently international.
- deogeo 7y ago
  That's not the same as against borders - see e.g. international trade, or tourism. Socialism today seems to agree with borders ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 ), and back then, there was national socialism...
- pvg 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_One_Country
  - Der_Einzige 7y ago
    Einstein was explicitly anti stalinist and advocates globalism in his work "Why Socialism" You can read it online
    - pvg 7y ago
      I don't understand how this is related to my comment and the comment I'm replying to, both of which you presumably just read online.
    - clydethefrog 7y ago
      Link to the piece: https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/
- ptaipale 7y ago

mehrzad 7y ago

While I agree with you that socialism is inherently against borders, I'm not sure Einstein ever said so.

Emma_Goldman 7y ago
He argued in favour of a supranational security system in 1945: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1947/11/atomic-war-or-peace/305443/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1947/11/atomic-...