5 ms·

Why Socialism? Albert Einstein (1949)

32 points by mkr-hn 5y ago

rektide 5y ago
> I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. I was really not expecting such a present, modern, & clear political clash to have been so clearly elaborated 3/4 of a century ago. This is incredible to hear. This still feels like the defining struggle. We thresh constantly with whether we are willing or not to try for better. So far in my life time, the USG has been effectively obstructed so effectively trying new legislation to try & doing anything different- we have only minor tweaks & shifts, usually passed under omnibus spending bills. (Obamacare/Romneycare is one noteable exception, which we then spent a colossal amount of federal & state time trying to rescind.) It saddens me so deeply that there are so few chances to try and do good. Attempts at progress & collectivism are challenged heavily, rarely emerge, and usually only in tattered sorry pieces after going through the legislative gauntlet. There's only mild evidence government can be effective, but to me it feels like it's because we have collectively worked so very hard against trying. Because of exactly the attitude & mindset & fear Einstein described, 73 years ago.
- sjg007 5y ago
  Stop voting republican.. that's the bigger issue.
  - vt85 5y ago
  - pompouscock 5y ago
    [flagged]
  - jerojero 5y ago
    There is a lot wrong with this, seemingly short comment. Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China. Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own. I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.
    - rektide 5y ago
      > america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! democrats have held various houses & seats. but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad. so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action. the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function. this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
- smackeyacky 5y ago
  In America. The rest of the world doesn't operate that way.
vt85 5y ago
thundergolfer 5y ago
The fact that a world famous scientist whose name is synonymous with “genius” was a staunch socialist seems an underplayed point. Not that we should expect physics expertise to lend credibility to politics. It just seems like everyone knows Einstein and his work but very few know of his politics, which he held so strongly.
- loki49152 5y ago
  In terms of mathematics and physics he was a genius. In every other field, he was just some dude. In fact in this instance he's repeating the common Germanic gestalt. Nothing profound, nothing out of the ordinary, just standard-issue Prussian Socialist talking points he adopted by default like pretty much everyone else who grew up in that culture.
- 6figurelenins 5y ago
  His name being synonymous with "genius" makes the socialist ideal of equality a tough sell.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  How many famous scientists are you aware of who were conservative? I assume Edward Teller was, but I'm not sure. I'd make a bad lawyer because I'm actually asking a question I don't exactly know the answer to. That said, academia has always tended liberal so I do have a suspicion as to which way it would lean.
  - n4r9 5y ago
    It makes sense; those who enter academia choose to devote their gifts to the progress of human knowledge, at the expense of anything more than a slim chance of fame or wealth. It's not surprising that their political views tend to be socially rather than individually focused.
t0suj4 5y ago
There is no way to establish clean socialism. Am I supposed to trust politicians that sold out to their donors that they will appoint people smart enough to lead an industry? I've witnessed politicians mostly appointing their friends. If they will not appoint them they are still in charge of what rules those leaders are supposed to follow. To get socialism working you need good people but those aren't easily attracted to those positions. And even then they need to be able to balance resources that can only satisfy the needs of a subset of the society anyway. Usually the self-serving people got into position of making decisions and used that to advance their grasp on power, eventually subverting any attempts at accountability.
eternityforest 5y ago
Antifragile theory says that some people benefit from disorder, and that the strongest people probably got that way because they are Antifragile. A major social change of everything all at once is disorder. I don't want to be ruled by the kind of people who benefit from disorder. DemSoc/Welfare capitalism seems to be far more proven and tested, and I care a lot more about that than theories of surplus value.

32 points by mkr-hn 5y ago

> I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society. I was really not expecting such a present, modern, & clear political clash to have been so clearly elaborated 3/4 of a century ago. This is incredible to hear. This still feels like the defining struggle. We thresh constantly with whether we are willing or not to try for better. So far in my life time, the USG has been effectively obstructed so effectively trying new legislation to try & doing anything different- we have only minor tweaks & shifts, usually passed under omnibus spending bills. (Obamacare/Romneycare is one noteable exception, which we then spent a colossal amount of federal & state time trying to rescind.) It saddens me so deeply that there are so few chances to try and do good. Attempts at progress & collectivism are challenged heavily, rarely emerge, and usually only in tattered sorry pieces after going through the legislative gauntlet. There's only mild evidence government can be effective, but to me it feels like it's because we have collectively worked so very hard against trying. Because of exactly the attitude & mindset & fear Einstein described, 73 years ago.

sjg007 5y ago
Stop voting republican.. that's the bigger issue.
- vt85 5y ago
- pompouscock 5y ago
  [flagged]
- jerojero 5y ago
  There is a lot wrong with this, seemingly short comment. Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China. Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own. I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.
  - rektide 5y ago
    > america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change! democrats have held various houses & seats. but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad. so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action. the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function. this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
smackeyacky 5y ago
In America. The rest of the world doesn't operate that way.

vt85 5y ago

thundergolfer 5y ago

The fact that a world famous scientist whose name is synonymous with “genius” was a staunch socialist seems an underplayed point. Not that we should expect physics expertise to lend credibility to politics. It just seems like everyone knows Einstein and his work but very few know of his politics, which he held so strongly.

loki49152 5y ago
In terms of mathematics and physics he was a genius. In every other field, he was just some dude. In fact in this instance he's repeating the common Germanic gestalt. Nothing profound, nothing out of the ordinary, just standard-issue Prussian Socialist talking points he adopted by default like pretty much everyone else who grew up in that culture.
6figurelenins 5y ago
His name being synonymous with "genius" makes the socialist ideal of equality a tough sell.
hotpotamus 5y ago
How many famous scientists are you aware of who were conservative? I assume Edward Teller was, but I'm not sure. I'd make a bad lawyer because I'm actually asking a question I don't exactly know the answer to. That said, academia has always tended liberal so I do have a suspicion as to which way it would lean.
- n4r9 5y ago
  It makes sense; those who enter academia choose to devote their gifts to the progress of human knowledge, at the expense of anything more than a slim chance of fame or wealth. It's not surprising that their political views tend to be socially rather than individually focused.

t0suj4 5y ago

There is no way to establish clean socialism. Am I supposed to trust politicians that sold out to their donors that they will appoint people smart enough to lead an industry? I've witnessed politicians mostly appointing their friends. If they will not appoint them they are still in charge of what rules those leaders are supposed to follow. To get socialism working you need good people but those aren't easily attracted to those positions. And even then they need to be able to balance resources that can only satisfy the needs of a subset of the society anyway. Usually the self-serving people got into position of making decisions and used that to advance their grasp on power, eventually subverting any attempts at accountability.

eternityforest 5y ago

Antifragile theory says that some people benefit from disorder, and that the strongest people probably got that way because they are Antifragile. A major social change of everything all at once is disorder. I don't want to be ruled by the kind of people who benefit from disorder. DemSoc/Welfare capitalism seems to be far more proven and tested, and I care a lot more about that than theories of surplus value.