6 ms·

Albert Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

49 points by niels_olson 16y ago

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
michaelchisari 16y ago
Here's some important things to think about: First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways. Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market. If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. I understand people's reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms.
- donniefitz2 16y ago
  I couldn't agree more about the defining of terms. While I find the article well reasoned given his assumptions, I think it's the assumptions that need to be addressed. Terms like, "social-ethical end", "inner equilibrium", and idea of a goal of life. I think it's these terms and the basic assumptions behind them are what need to be addressed prior to attempting to construct a social system.
- maratd 16y ago
  > 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 mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state. In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it. Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.
  - michaelchisari 16y ago
    Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
    - niels_olson 16y ago
      damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
    - ikujythujik 16y ago
      Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
    - forkandwait 16y ago
      Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
    - maratd 16y ago
      > "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
- tygorius 16y ago
  It seems to me that pointing to Mondragon[1] and Semco is misleading, as neither are sovereign nations with all the pesky little details that entails. It's great that Mondragon is (per Wikipedia): "the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country", but there are lots of other variables at work in the Basque/greater Spain dynamic. Besides, anyone who has watched the economic news recently would realize that Spain is not exactly a shining model of economic prosperity. As I see it, the fundamental flaw in socialism always boils down the facts that a) a great many people like power and won't willingly give it up, b) these are the people who historically wind up in control of political structures (including unions), and c) as Dame Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people's money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
slackerhacker 16y ago
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.
- niels_olson 16y ago
  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.
  - Uhhrrr 16y ago
    You are ignoring the fact that an interesting article is much less interesting the tenth time it is posted.
    - niels_olson 16y ago
      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.
- gender-bias 16y ago
  I am an astronaut and the president of the united states. I have 10 degrees from the best schools in the world. DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?! And I agree mr. slacker, this has no place on hackernews. It's even in rules, "partian political articles". But hey, if you've got a degree in physics and play with people parts for a living, then rules schmools, amirite?
johnohara 16y ago
Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual. If Einstein is correct, and he may well be, then future economic restructurings may be far worse than than the one we are experiencing now.
- rick888 16y ago
  "One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual." Unions have pretty much put a stop to the automation of most industries.
dollar 16y ago
Albert Einstein was certainly smart, but he did not live to see how socialism worked out. http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/ http://www.victimsofcommunism.org/
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- yzhengyu 16y ago
  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 chance to live. Yet he/she benefits from cooperating with others to achieve a greater goal larger than the sum of his/her parts. This is a never ending struggle and it has dominated political discussion for twentieth century. It disappoints me that most people would take an extreme position - i.e. capitalism is good/evil or socialism is good/evil - leaves us no room to negotiate solutions which will work out for the individual and society.
  - webXL 16y ago
    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?
- gruseom 16y ago
  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 bunch of people getting together to play a game, except one is playing chess, one checkers, and someone else poker. Then they all get indignant and yell at each other, which I suppose is the real game. By how much would the world supply of argumentation deflate if people paid attention to whether they were even talking about the same thing?
arvinjoar 16y ago
Meh. There's no unique claims in this essay, and it really does not matter that Einstein wrote it, it still has a lot of erraneous assumptions about value creation.

49 points by niels_olson 16y ago

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

Here's some important things to think about: First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways. Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market. If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources. I understand people's reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms.

donniefitz2 16y ago
I couldn't agree more about the defining of terms. While I find the article well reasoned given his assumptions, I think it's the assumptions that need to be addressed. Terms like, "social-ethical end", "inner equilibrium", and idea of a goal of life. I think it's these terms and the basic assumptions behind them are what need to be addressed prior to attempting to construct a social system.
maratd 16y ago
> 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 mean nothing. The human mind is too primitive to account for all the facets of reality. There is an almost infinite number of factors that play into the reality of the state. In the end, the only way to know if something works is to try it. Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Democracy is tyranny by the majority. When protections of the individual are removed for the sake of "social justice" or socialism or for any other reason, the majority is free to abuse the minority for its gain. And they do. Very quickly. This escalates over and over, until a totalitarian state is born.
- michaelchisari 16y ago
  Socialism was tried. Repeatedly. It always led to a totalitarian state. Marxist-Leninism is what you're referring to, and yes, that has led to totalitarianism. However, socialism predated Marx, and there are non-Marxist (and anti-Marxist) socialist philosophies. "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists.
  - niels_olson 16y ago
    damn, sorry, meant to upvote.
  - ikujythujik 16y ago
    Do you have a police force? fire service, public schools, roads? Then you have socialism.
  - forkandwait 16y ago
    Also, Marx was really good at critiquing capitalism, but he never actually had a plan for after the revolution. Except to think everybody would be happy and a collective, pretty much perfect, rationalism would be manifest because of the dynamics of history. Then we would all just see the answer, which is to share and be nice. (He was a hegelian, remember, even if he didn't like to admit it.) Also ... its not like there was some blueprint that the Soviet Union applied as if they were building a machine tool on a large scale. The Soviet State has, in its large scale state organized brutality and corruption, is completely in line with Russian history (no offense to my Russian friends.... Russia is also soulful and brilliant).
  - maratd 16y ago
    > "From each according..." is not a tenet shared by all socialists. Yes, of course. Something that is shared by all socialists is redistribution. If you're not redistributing something, then you're doing nothing. To redistribute something, you must infringe upon the liberties of the individual for the sake of another or a group of others. The more you do this, the faster you accelerate the march toward totalitarianism. For example, a minimal state that only provides a police force to enforce the laws and taxes individuals accordingly may take hundreds or even a thousand years to collapse into a totalitarian state. On the other hand, when you throw individual protections out the window, it may only take a few years. For example, contrary to popular belief, the period between the Russian revolution and Stalin's takeover was really interesting. It would take too long to go into it, but they tried some really exciting stuff and some of it worked. Unfortunately, when you discard individual liberty, it creates an opportunity for totalitarianism to step through the door.
tygorius 16y ago
It seems to me that pointing to Mondragon[1] and Semco is misleading, as neither are sovereign nations with all the pesky little details that entails. It's great that Mondragon is (per Wikipedia): "the seventh largest Spanish company in terms of turnover and the leading business group in the Basque Country", but there are lots of other variables at work in the Basque/greater Spain dynamic. Besides, anyone who has watched the economic news recently would realize that Spain is not exactly a shining model of economic prosperity. As I see it, the fundamental flaw in socialism always boils down the facts that a) a great many people like power and won't willingly give it up, b) these are the people who historically wind up in control of political structures (including unions), and c) as Dame Thatcher observed, sooner or later you run out of other people's money. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

slackerhacker 16y ago

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.

niels_olson 16y ago
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.
- Uhhrrr 16y ago
  You are ignoring the fact that an interesting article is much less interesting the tenth time it is posted.
  - niels_olson 16y ago
    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.
gender-bias 16y ago
I am an astronaut and the president of the united states. I have 10 degrees from the best schools in the world. DO YOU KNOW WHO I AM?!?! And I agree mr. slacker, this has no place on hackernews. It's even in rules, "partian political articles". But hey, if you've got a degree in physics and play with people parts for a living, then rules schmools, amirite?

johnohara 16y ago

Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual. If Einstein is correct, and he may well be, then future economic restructurings may be far worse than than the one we are experiencing now.

rick888 16y ago
"One of the promises of increased automation was supposed to be more leisure time for the individual." Unions have pretty much put a stop to the automation of most industries.

dollar 16y ago

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

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
yzhengyu 16y ago
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 chance to live. Yet he/she benefits from cooperating with others to achieve a greater goal larger than the sum of his/her parts. This is a never ending struggle and it has dominated political discussion for twentieth century. It disappoints me that most people would take an extreme position - i.e. capitalism is good/evil or socialism is good/evil - leaves us no room to negotiate solutions which will work out for the individual and society.
- webXL 16y ago
  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?
gruseom 16y ago
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 bunch of people getting together to play a game, except one is playing chess, one checkers, and someone else poker. Then they all get indignant and yell at each other, which I suppose is the real game. By how much would the world supply of argumentation deflate if people paid attention to whether they were even talking about the same thing?

arvinjoar 16y ago

Meh. There's no unique claims in this essay, and it really does not matter that Einstein wrote it, it still has a lot of erraneous assumptions about value creation.