Skip Navigation
113 comments

  • He wasn't a SeRiOuS intellectual though.

    Need a sever lack if humor for that sweet sweet capitalistic greed.

  • It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

    At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

    https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

    To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

    What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

    The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

    Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

    /lazyposting

    • For what it's worth, I agree, one person's narrow expertise does not directly translate to knowledge elsewhere. Einstein admits as such, yet explains exactly why Socialism is a necessary step forward and why he thinks those not trained traditionally in political economy should still have a voice. Further, Einstein's essay just shows his thoughts on the matter, I don't consider it a genuine work of theory, more a springboard to look into actual Marxist theory.

      This is where our agreement ends. Socialism is, factually, more democratic than Capitalism. By collectivizing the economy, it can be democratically directed and planned, as already has been the case in many AES countries. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR's economy was democratized and how it functioned.

      Your last point is just anti-intellectualism, and ignores that Marxism has, historically, been extremely popular among the working class, and in the Global South. Your article is very western-centric, only analyzing thoroughly Imperialist countries like the United States and Western European countries, and shuts out the vast majority of actual, practicing Marxists in the real world.

      Edit: Oh, you changed your entire comment. You're going back to defending Imperialism and suggesting a system where workers are heavily exploited are only problems for "losers." This isn't a serious point. You want to throw workers to the meat grinder and find poverty fine as long as the wealthiest live free, which is very sad.

    • There’s nothing democratic about socialism

      Incorrect

  • The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .

    That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .

    • In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to "tyrants." You should read Blackshirts and Reds.

    • Indeed

      "The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn't apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.

      • First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.

        Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.

        Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you'll notice that the "disasters" are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.

        Finally, there is the non-sequitor of "free speech, liberty, and property rights." Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague "values," the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.

      • Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders

        At this point it doesn't matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.

  • Did he form these views before or after he lived out his life in the country that is the anthesis of socialism? 🤔

    • After. In 1923, he fled Berlin to the United States, and was a member of a liberal political party. He was thoroughly anti-soviet at the time, but eventually his views changed and balanced out. In 1949, he wrote Why Socialism? as he became increasingly convinced of the logical necessity for the transition to Socialism, and a world government. He also changed his tune on Lenin and the Soviets:

      “I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”

      Part of what changed his views were becoming friends with prominent American Communists such as the legendary Paul Robeson. Over time, he took increasingly gentle and in some cases supportive stances towards the Soviet system, and was anti-War, including the nuclear Arms Race that the US relentlessly pushed forward.

      Einstein, however, had serious internal chauvanism. He was a supporter of Zionism (which, while faded over time, never truly faded), and had this to say about the Chinese:

      "Chinese don't sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse... It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary."

      Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.

      This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don't think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.

    • Dude fled Nazi Germany, wdym?

      • I'm assuming they mean Einstein living in America. I won't lionize Einstein, he had reactionary social views, but he came to Socialism after fleeing Germany, not before.

113 comments