25 ms·

Wouldn't surprise me if Feynman was at least sympathetic to communism, at least to anarchism for sure, on some of the lectures when he talks about his father te

Wouldn't surprise me if Feynman was at least sympathetic to communism, at least to anarchism for sure, on some of the lectures when he talks about his father teaching him about equality and the disdain for prizes and titles.

Koshkin 6y ago
Just to make it clear: communism and anarchism have nothing in common, and having them mixed in one sentence is just making verbal noise.
- sudoaza 6y ago
  The end goal of communism is to end with class hierarchy and the state, regardless of the most well known implementation attempts.
jandrese 6y ago
I'm not sure if he was not so much sympathetic to communism as skeptical of capitalism. At least that's the impression I got from reading his books. He's not a guy who was too concerned with money and didn't appear to have a high regard for people who do. He was much more interested in having experiences. The top-down government model of communism wouldn't be a fit for him either, he was much too free wheeling for that. Anarchism would be a bit closer but almost certainly too radical for someone not that concerned with politics. Libertarianism might have been the best fit, but only the on-paper kind, not the real life kind.
- cygx 6y ago
  Libertarianism might have been the best fit Fun fact: In Feynman's formative years, 'libertarian' still meant 'anarchist'.
  - sudoaza 6y ago
    "Libertarian" still means "anarchist" almost everywhere but the US.
  - nsajko 6y ago
    The distinctions between 'socialist', 'anarchist', 'communist', 'libertarian', and then 'objectivist' (Randian) and probably others are too blurry when considering it across time and geography; rather than most often as names of politically parties, basically "brands". I think libertarianism had been defined in opposition to non-democratic regimes; then after the fall of feudalism it continued to be used by socialism/anarchism/communism. I think the US Libertarian Party's name serves (or served) mostly as a rebranding of anarchism, but I am not sure about the origins of that party, anybody more knowledgeable please join in. An interesting note about them is that both Ayn Rand and Frank Zappa dismissed them as closet anarchists. I am also interested in when did the influx of the right wing into "anarchism" or "libertarianism" happen? Maybe it has something to do with Lenin&co.'s and later Stalin's suppression of anarchism, and even later the Cold war propaganda? Also, who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'?
    - n4r9 6y ago
      > who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'? The economist Murray Rothbard used it first in the mid-20th century, according to the Wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism. He felt free to use the term as it borrowed some ideas from anarchism, but many would say he excluded crucial parts. Most anarchists are very unwilling to be associated with anarcho-capitalism, and resent the prefix. They are probably even less thrilled about being associated with the libertarian party. US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government Anarcho-capitalism: no centralised state, society self-regulates via free markets. Anarchism: no heirarchical power structures, thus no private capital at all.
      - nsajko 6y ago
        > US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government What I was aiming at with GP post was that as far as I understand, at least in the early days of the Libertarian Party, a significant number of them were actually completely against the existence of a government. (Wikipedia mentions something about an "anarchist-minarchist debate" or something like that.) But political reality of course leads to compromise. It is simply untenable in the US, and most of the Earth to be taken seriously by a large majority of voters while espousing getting rid of the government.
xsmasher 6y ago
Feynman's own words - >I don't think of the problem as between socialism and capitalism but rather between suppression of ideas and free ideas. If it is that free ideas and socialism are better than communism, it will work its way through. And it will be better for everybody. And if capitalism is better than socialism, it will work its way through. In the rest of the chapter he's pretty critical of Russia in particular, because of the soviet suppression of good science in favor of party-endorsed "facts," but that's more anti-autocratic than anti-communist.

Koshkin 6y ago

Just to make it clear: communism and anarchism have nothing in common, and having them mixed in one sentence is just making verbal noise.

sudoaza 6y ago
The end goal of communism is to end with class hierarchy and the state, regardless of the most well known implementation attempts.

jandrese 6y ago

I'm not sure if he was not so much sympathetic to communism as skeptical of capitalism. At least that's the impression I got from reading his books. He's not a guy who was too concerned with money and didn't appear to have a high regard for people who do. He was much more interested in having experiences. The top-down government model of communism wouldn't be a fit for him either, he was much too free wheeling for that. Anarchism would be a bit closer but almost certainly too radical for someone not that concerned with politics. Libertarianism might have been the best fit, but only the on-paper kind, not the real life kind.

cygx 6y ago
Libertarianism might have been the best fit Fun fact: In Feynman's formative years, 'libertarian' still meant 'anarchist'.
- sudoaza 6y ago
  "Libertarian" still means "anarchist" almost everywhere but the US.
- nsajko 6y ago
  The distinctions between 'socialist', 'anarchist', 'communist', 'libertarian', and then 'objectivist' (Randian) and probably others are too blurry when considering it across time and geography; rather than most often as names of politically parties, basically "brands". I think libertarianism had been defined in opposition to non-democratic regimes; then after the fall of feudalism it continued to be used by socialism/anarchism/communism. I think the US Libertarian Party's name serves (or served) mostly as a rebranding of anarchism, but I am not sure about the origins of that party, anybody more knowledgeable please join in. An interesting note about them is that both Ayn Rand and Frank Zappa dismissed them as closet anarchists. I am also interested in when did the influx of the right wing into "anarchism" or "libertarianism" happen? Maybe it has something to do with Lenin&co.'s and later Stalin's suppression of anarchism, and even later the Cold war propaganda? Also, who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'?
  - n4r9 6y ago
    > who invented the weird term 'anarcho-capitalist'? The economist Murray Rothbard used it first in the mid-20th century, according to the Wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism. He felt free to use the term as it borrowed some ideas from anarchism, but many would say he excluded crucial parts. Most anarchists are very unwilling to be associated with anarcho-capitalism, and resent the prefix. They are probably even less thrilled about being associated with the libertarian party. US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government Anarcho-capitalism: no centralised state, society self-regulates via free markets. Anarchism: no heirarchical power structures, thus no private capital at all.
    - nsajko 6y ago
      > US Libertarians: limit the size and scope of government What I was aiming at with GP post was that as far as I understand, at least in the early days of the Libertarian Party, a significant number of them were actually completely against the existence of a government. (Wikipedia mentions something about an "anarchist-minarchist debate" or something like that.) But political reality of course leads to compromise. It is simply untenable in the US, and most of the Earth to be taken seriously by a large majority of voters while espousing getting rid of the government.

xsmasher 6y ago

Feynman's own words - >I don't think of the problem as between socialism and capitalism but rather between suppression of ideas and free ideas. If it is that free ideas and socialism are better than communism, it will work its way through. And it will be better for everybody. And if capitalism is better than socialism, it will work its way through. In the rest of the chapter he's pretty critical of Russia in particular, because of the soviet suppression of good science in favor of party-endorsed "facts," but that's more anti-autocratic than anti-communist.