• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

Why Socialism?

ksen

Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
6,540
Location
Florida
Basic Beliefs
Calvinist
http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. 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. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

A small essay by Albert Einstein on socialism.

As most everyone here knows I am not a fan of capitalism and would like to see it replaced with socialism. I don't believe capitalism is the end of our economic evolution just as mercantilism, which I'm sure the people who lived and succeeded in also thought was best system we could have, wasn't the end of our economic evolution and gave way to capitalism.

Capitalism is a cancer that destroys the social consciousness of those in it.

Our science and technological progress have, I believe, readied us for the next stage of economic evolution.
 
this is why ultimately socialism will never work: in order for it to exist on a society-wide scale, the powerful in that society have to give up their power, and that will never happen, period, end of discussion.
and even if somehow miraculously a singular body of humans managed to start up a socialist system on a smaller community scale, it would: A. only exist at the pleasure of non-socialists with more power who allow it to, and B. be sustainable until some member within the group got greedy, which would inevitably happen.

socialism is a pretty great idea in theory and about as realistic as "hey man, make love not peace" is realistic as a viable foreign policy.
 
I agree that there would need to be a major paradigm shift.
 
Einstein wrote this essay in 1949. Thus, his naivete is understandable. Prescience in an esoteric field of science does not necessarily transfer to other areas of interest. I take note of this:

In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child.

All warm and fuzzy. But living, as we do, long after the fall of the Soviet Union, our ignorance is less excusable. The Soviet Union, as well as the former Eastern Bloc Countries and present North Korea, had a planned economy. This history is not as riveting as reading up on the KGB, yet it's there to warn against repeating error. It did not work in the Soviet Union or anywhere else. And it is inherently anti-freedom, in that a person no longer has economic liberty. An Apple or Google could never happen in a planned economy.

Einstein must have had some sense of this when he wrote:

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Enslavement is a feature, not a bug, of socialism. Socialism can not be maintained if people are free to make their own economic decisions. Einstein imagined in 1949 that humans might overcome the enslavement proclivity of socialism. Einstein was wrong.
 
Einstein said in his essay that a planned economy is not socialism and yet you are putting his fears of what a planned economy might bring onto socialism.
 
Einstein said in his essay that a planned economy is not socialism and yet you are putting his fears of what a planned economy might bring onto socialism.

He says "not yet" socialism. Getting to the utopia of socialism means first overcoming the enslavement feature of a planned economy. Which could not be done. The road to socialism leads to enslavement. Let's benefit from history and not go down that road again. :hallo:
 
It's funny.

The only thing we're supposed to believe that doesn't benefit from planning is the economy.

Of course the US has a planned economy.

The plan is to build shitloads of weapons and flood the world with them.
 
Einstein said in his essay that a planned economy is not socialism and yet you are putting his fears of what a planned economy might bring onto socialism.

He says "not yet" socialism. Getting to the utopia of socialism means first overcoming the enslavement feature of a planned economy. Which could not be done. The road to socialism leads to enslavement. Let's benefit from history and not go down that road again. :hallo:

Enslavement? What are you talking about?
 
It's funny.

The only thing we're supposed to believe that doesn't benefit from planning is the economy.

Of course the US has a planned economy.

The plan is to build shitloads of weapons and flood the world with them.

Anarchists are for planned economies now too?

I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the word "anarchist" means.

- - - Updated - - -

http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of the smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. 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. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow-men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

A small essay by Albert Einstein on socialism.

As most everyone here knows I am not a fan of capitalism and would like to see it replaced with socialism. I don't believe capitalism is the end of our economic evolution just as mercantilism, which I'm sure the people who lived and succeeded in also thought was best system we could have, wasn't the end of our economic evolution and gave way to capitalism.

Capitalism is a cancer that destroys the social consciousness of those in it.

Our science and technological progress have, I believe, readied us for the next stage of economic evolution.

What do you mean when you say "socialism"?

State owned means of production?
 
What do you mean when you say "socialism"?

Those who work in a certain sector also own the means of production in that sector.

State owned means of production?

Not necessarily. Socialism does not require that the State own the means of production. It also does not require a command economy.
 
Those who work in a certain sector also own the means of production in that sector.

State owned means of production?

Not necessarily. Socialism does not require that the State own the means of production. It also does not require a command economy.

But the government commands that only those who work in a sector may own the means of production in that sector?
 
Those who work in a certain sector also own the means of production in that sector.



Not necessarily. Socialism does not require that the State own the means of production. It also does not require a command economy.

But the government commands that only those who work in a sector may own the means of production in that sector?

Only in about the same way that government currently commands that ownership of production is private. :shrug:
 
Anarchists are for planned economies now too?

I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the word "anarchist" means.

They are not idiots that want an economy devoid of planning.

They don't have that faith.

We see what happens when we leave the planning to the so-called elites. They build weapon after weapon and flood the world with them and make it a more dangerous place.

They pollute the planet to a breaking point.

This religion of no economic planning is just a clever ruse the elites play on suckers.

And we all suffer because of it.
 
But the government commands that only those who work in a sector may own the means of production in that sector?

Only in about the same way that government currently commands that ownership of production is private. :shrug:

This is a yes or no question. If this is the central tenet of what you believe I'm sure you have thought through the practical implications and means of achieving it, so evasiveness and shrugging is a bit surprising here.

Does the state command that only workers in a given sector may own the means of production in that sector?

If it does not, how is this limitation on who may own what achieved?
 
Anarchists are for planned economies now too?

I'm starting to wonder if you understand what the word "anarchist" means.

They are not idiots that want an economy devoid of planning.

How is there planning without planners?

And if there are anarchist planners, how do they get the job? What happens to the people who don't want to listen to them?
 
So, from Einstein's essay he laments that capital in concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and his solution is to place is all in one hand (that of the state)? What sense does that make?

But as has been said before, just because Einstein was a brilliant physicist doesn't mean he was brilliant (and much less right) about everything he commented on.
 
Only in about the same way that government currently commands that ownership of production is private. :shrug:

This is a yes or no question. If this is the central tenet of what you believe I'm sure you have thought through the practical implications and means of achieving it, so evasiveness and shrugging is a bit surprising here.

There was no evasiveness. I answered your question.

If you need it dumbed down further then the answer is: yes.

Does the state command that only workers in a given sector may own the means of production in that sector?

Sure.

If it does not, how is this limitation on who may own what achieved?

pitchforks, torches, rope and lightposts
 
Einstein said in his essay that a planned economy is not socialism and yet you are putting his fears of what a planned economy might bring onto socialism.

He says "not yet" socialism. Getting to the utopia of socialism means first overcoming the enslavement feature of a planned economy. Which could not be done.

But we already have elements of a planned economy. The entire US military support structure is a planned economy, whereby people sit down and work out what munitions, research and deployment goals they want to reach and then work out what companies, people and funds need to be deployed to reach them. All Einstein was suggesting is that this kind of planning be extended to social issues, such as poverty.

This has been broadly successful in the UK, where we have a planned approach to healthcare, resulting in dramatically lower costs and a better standard of cover than the US can manage, and a planned approach to public service television, where a large public service broadcaster fulfils various social roles. There have been some more mixed successes, such as British Rail, and some notable failures, particularly with regards to public ownership of commercial enterprises.

The most recent wave of attempts at this process has been in the form of governments providing the funding structure, often in terms of an artificial market, and setting goals, while private enterprises then carry out the actual work. The results has been somewhat mixed. While some good work has been done in this way, the costs are often far greater than a purely public option, and there have been issues in terms of the private companies becoming overweening and unaccountable, just as Einstein described. It looks like the problem is in the existence of an unaccountable bureaucracy, not whether said bureaucracy is public or privately owned or run.

- - - Updated - - -

Einstein said in his essay that a planned economy is not socialism and yet you are putting his fears of what a planned economy might bring onto socialism.

He says "not yet" socialism. Getting to the utopia of socialism means first overcoming the enslavement feature of a planned economy. Which could not be done.

But we already have elements of a planned economy. The entire US military support structure is a planned economy, whereby people sit down and work out what munitions, research and deployment goals they want to reach and then work out what companies, people and funds need to be deployed to reach them. All Einstein was suggesting is that this kind of planning be extended to social issues, such as poverty.

This has been broadly successful in the UK, where we have a planned approach to healthcare, resulting in dramatically lower costs and a better standard of cover than the US can manage, and a planned approach to public service television, where a large public service broadcaster fulfils various social roles. There have been some more mixed successes, such as British Rail, and some notable failures, particularly with regards to public ownership of commercial enterprises.

The most recent wave of attempts at this process has been in the form of governments providing the funding structure, often in terms of an artificial market, and setting goals, while private enterprises then carry out the actual work. The results has been somewhat mixed. While some good work has been done in this way, the costs are often far greater than a purely public option, and there have been issues in terms of the private companies becoming overweening and unaccountable, just as Einstein described. It looks like the problem is in the existence of an unaccountable bureaucracy, not whether said bureaucracy is public or privately owned or run.
 
This is a yes or no question. If this is the central tenet of what you believe I'm sure you have thought through the practical implications and means of achieving it, so evasiveness and shrugging is a bit surprising here.

There was no evasiveness. I answered your question.

If you need it dumbed down further then the answer is: yes.

OK, so a couple practical questions:

A bunch of pipeline workers decide they want to build an interstate pipeline, where do they get the money to build it? How did they decide they wanted to build it in the first place?

Let's imagine some new or emerging technology. Say, cell phones in 1985. How do a bunch of cell phone workers get together and build a cell phone plant and cell phone towers when there aren't any cell phone workers yet? Where do they get the money to do it? How did cell phone workers even get the idea to build cell phones and cell phone towers given, in particular, they don't exist yet?
 
There was no evasiveness. I answered your question.

If you need it dumbed down further then the answer is: yes.

OK, so a couple practical questions:

A bunch of pipeline workers decide they want to build an interstate pipeline, where do they get the money to build it? How did they decide they wanted to build it in the first place?

Let's imagine some new or emerging technology. Say, cell phones in 1985. How do a bunch of cell phone workers get together and build a cell phone plant and cell phone towers when there aren't any cell phone workers yet? Where do they get the money to do it? How did cell phone workers even get the idea to build cell phones and cell phone towers given, in particular, they don't exist yet?

So innovation, resource allocation, and planning are completely absent?
 
Back
Top Bottom