Forum Post: albert einstein
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 22, 2011, 3:03 a.m. EST by johndavid317
(0)
from Manila, NCR
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
albert einstein's "why socialism" is relevant to the OWS movement. becasue after capitalism, the next stage in the development of human civilization is socialism. in capitalism the motivation for production is profit. in socialism, the motivation for production is for consumption of the society. what the people need, the people produce. according to needs & not according to profit which is unlimited. whereas in need, society will not produce more than it can consume.
Don't forget his famous equation.. E=MC^2
Enlightenment = Momentum * Compassion^2
:)
"Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
Albert
Einstein´s text here:
http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism
I am not for socialism because I believe all people have a right to reach as high as they can. I believe in Capitalism, with a conscience. Which means I can rise as high as I want, but there is a minimum standard in our society where no one goes to bed hungry, or in need of a doctor or a roof over their head. We have lost our compassion and we need to get it back. Just because someone is poor, doesn't mean that they are lazy. We are not born onto a level playing field but alll men are created equal in the eyes of God.
I do not understand how you guys would actually use this man when he himself would disagree with everything thing you are doing.
"I am not only a pacifist but a militant pacifist. I am willing to fight for peace. Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war."
-Albert Einstein
Militant' means 1: engaged in war; 2: a militant reformer; 3: disposed to warfare or hard-line policies; 4: showing a fighting disposition
pac·i·fism (ps-fzm) n.
you can engage in war without fighting.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction
-Isaac Newton
As TOOTIE said on the facts of life (circa 1980) " there"s going to be trouble"
Why that can't be right OP. Everyone knows that greed makes the world go round.
Everyone also knows that the alternative is fascism. Maybe you should stay informed next time and watch some faux news for a change.
We went str8 2 Fascism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
there has never been capitalism, so there can't be an "after". Socialism is not a next evolutionary state, its a fundamentally unbalanced form of government which has also never actually existed, and which probably can't exist.
the actual form of government we have is corporate oligarchy, which means communism and socialism for the elite caste and fascism for the rest of us, so, in that sense, faked capitalism, partial communism, and partial socialism are the triumvirate of garbage that real democracy has to take out.
You are ignorant, don't know what you are talking about, and have no business make believing that you do or telling others what things are or will evolve into.
The real choice is between oligarchy and democracy, democracy and capitalism/socialism/communism are mutually exclusive.
Start over with political science, this time, not with books written by socialists.
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/THE_99%25_POLITICAL_PARTY
http://occupythiswiki.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.followthemoney.org/?gclid=CMbY87bB-qsCFUPt7Qod9HE8mQ
http://maplight.org/us-congress/guide/data/money?9gtype=search&9gkw=list%20of%20campaign%20donations&9gad=6213192521.1&9gag=1786513361&gclid=CP61oYbB-qsCFQFZ7AodcTF0jw
http://www.opensecrets.org/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-new-wiki/
http://occupywallst.org/forum/non-violence-evolution-by-paradigm-shift/
Weirdo blogs aren't "political science" (not that polisci is all that credible either)
Where E is energy, M is mass, and C is the speed of light in a vacuum. So seeing as his theory on the speed of light was busted this year what does that say about "why socialism''!
When did that happen? The speed of light thing, I must've missed it. Got a link or website, I'd like to check it out?
There are plenty of links here is one to get you going! http://www.indianexpress.com/news/einsteins-theory-questioned-as-speed-of-light-is-broken-again/878009/
Thanks. I wondered a few years back whether that would ever happen.
No worries. Glad to help.
As interesting as these results are they are not enough to disprove Einstein yet. His theory was proven right again and again with many various observations. It won't be dismantled by two tests made by the same research team. We have to wait for the results of more tests by more teams. And, even if his theory is dismantled, it probably won't be all wrong. It's not a complete theory of everything TOE, so it's normal that it can't explain everything. Most likely, someone will eventually do like he did with Newton and build on top of his theory of relativity. Newtonian mechanics are still useful for certain circumstances, and I'm sure Einstein's Theory of Relativity will remain useful for many other circumstances.
^^Agreed. Einstein himself said that the theory will most likely be superseded with technology.
The amount by which neutrinos are said to be traveling faster than light is so small that it seem more likely to vindicated Einstein than to refute SR. Every few years someone comes up with an experiment that supposedly overturns SR, but they invariably fade into obscurity.
What I find far more interesting are the experiments showing asymmetry in K-meson decay. That has to be a path into deeper insight!
everything is relative. including the speed of light. time experiences dilation like everything else. the only thing busted is everyones lack of understanding what the hell he was talking about. guess what, now you will find black holes aren't really holes at all! people are fk'n idiots.
Though I'm both loathe and wary of entangling with your impeccable logic, people are propagandised and mind-managed from birth, so some deprogramming 'red pill' moments would show most people are NOT idiots !
wow. toilet stall poetry. i'm moved.
you completely left out what he actually said. propping up your version by name dropping.
You know.... when you grow up like for you, maybe in say, 20 years. you stop sweat-in the small stuff, stop talking like a business 101 text book, and start focusing on things you can change now!
yes, because maturity means hurry up. who the fk are you talk'n to buddy. i aint sweating you i can tell you that. pompous prick.
OK stay in school...or have you already droped out!
see equation (75) on page 77
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/36276
Shouldn't that be B_alpha not A_alpha?
Einstein was a MASSIVE jewish fraud. Much like the whole "blacks invented everything but White devils stole it all"
I've read Why Socialism several times. It's an interesting read, but I don't endorse his proposals. I do believe it is well worth reading.
[Removed]
If society does not produce more than its needs, it will perish. "Profit" was intended as a means to survive the lean times.
[Removed]
Wow, looking to Einstein for political theory is like asking betty crocker to fix my car. She might cook extremely well, and listen when she talks cooking, and I'll listen to Einsteins brilliant theories on the universe. But that's it.
Unless of course he invented a magic ouija board.
Yes a person whose skill is understanding complex relationships and forces, and applying them to the real world IS equivalent to two very different refined skills like cooking and mechanics, and so your analogy is totally relevant here.
That's ridiculous. Nobody works without profit.
Wages and salaries aren't profit. They're just wages and salaries.
Profit is money made from the difference between the costs (wages and salaries, for example) and the sale price. You don't work to get it. You own something, and that entitles you to pocket a portion of the wealth the employees produce. That's profit.
Labor is an investment; nobody works without expectation of profit.
Demonstrably false; perhaps you've never heard of volunteers or think they're a mythical creature, but they do exist.
And labour isn't an "investment". Investment is a purchase, labour is a sale.
Volunteers do not "work." And labor is an investment.
Yes, volunteers work. Some of them even break a sweat. And labour doesn't become an investment on your say-so. Labour is a sale; you sell your time and energy. It's not an investment, because an investment is a purchase, the exact opposite of a sale. Your proclamations can't change basic facts of reality.
Volunteers may labor but they do not "work."
An investment is neither a purchase nor a sale.
With such misconceptions, small wonder kids don't want to work today.
An investment is a purchase. You can't just make up your own defintions of words as you go along. Believe it or not, words have standardized meanings.
investment: [count noun] a thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future:freezers really are a good investment for the elderly
To buy, is of course, synonymous with to purchase.
Work: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result:he was tired after a day’s work in the fields
Those are what those words mean. You can try to pervert the language to suit your ideas but that is dishonest and more than a little Orwellian.
I just can't help myself -
Linguistic perversion has become a universal fetish as the hard right lays claim that everything left of them is simply radical . . .
The definitions or meanings of words are something we arrive at over time by consensus through common usage. The movement of language is always one of standardization.
Work is definitely an investment of time, labor, brain matter... you might think of it as an expenditure... but at the end of the day, we hope to derive some profit.
In the case of the farmer, it might be a crop... in the case of the farm laborer, it might be a pay check with which to buy an Ipad.
You've never worked the farm, have ya?
Or looked up the word "investment"?
I just did look up the word "investment" and paste the defintion. Strange that you would ask if I've ever looked it up, don't you think?
Work is an investment in the sense you're talking about, but in economics it just isn't, an investment demands that you receive ownership of something from which you will derive profit, and wages earned from labour are distinct from money received by virtue of ownership (profit). Why is that distinction made, because it's a meaningful distinction: the two things are very different in the real world. Why would you be trying to blur the distinction and render these words less useful/specific?
And it nevertheless remains the fact that volunteers DO work. If I'm a volunteer I might work at the hospital lottery booth for free, for instance, but I'm still working ("activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result"). An acting director works for no pay, and so on. To work is simply to function in some useful way.
Can we now agree then that nobody works without profit?
I'm not blurring the words; I am clarifying words. One the biggest flaws of economics is the attempt to create distinctions that do not exist; consequently we create fictions in people's minds in the form of ideologies... and we create ideologues. And all is a fantasy world because the economic logic of a people is far more chaotic and dynamic.
Essentially what we have done is create a fictional discipline.
No we cannot agree. How is a volunteer not working? You've failed to say how a volunteer is not doing "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result".
And no, making a distinction between profit and wages is not done to create some sort of ideology. They're simply things that are factually different in the real world. Working for a living is different than making money from investments. That's why you invest for retirement, because you won't be working anymore. This isn't just economics: it's common sense too.
When physical effort is exerted by a human being as entertainment it is not "work."
Wait a minute, I never said anything about wages... I was talking about the investment of one's labor for the purpose of profit.
Most volunteers don't work for entertainment purposes. Manning the lottery booth at the hospital isn't something you do to entertain yourself.
As far as wages and salaries. That is how most people are rewarded for their paid work. You go to work, you get a paycheque. Some people are self-employed, but even they usually draw a salary out of the business just like an employee, for filling some position (manager, director, CEO, whatever). Profit is accounted separately and is unrelated to whatever position they hold in the company, since it has nothing to do with work, but rather with their ownership of the company or shares of the company. When they retire, they might hire someone to be the new manager, and now he gets their former salary; but they still receive the profits that are derived not from work but from ownership.
If you're volunteering for self fulfillment that's not work; if you're volunteering to fulfill an obligation, it is work, and it's not voluntary.
Are you still saying that labor is not an investment; what about school, is that an investment? Who would do either if not for profit?
Today's wage slave is only a slave in the sense that he or she is taxed; the tax man owns some portion of his labor... he will profit from the wages but only that portion which is untaxed. Because the government is corrupt.
All of this is besides the point anyway; those that work only for immediate consumption, which is exactly what this post suggests, will perish. For this reason, it is utterly impossible for us to work for anything but profit; our biology does not permit it.
betua$ you're wrong.
'Work' is only work IF you'd rather be doing something else ; IF however you love what you do and would rather not be doing something else ... then profit and pay are NOT your motivation.
ad iudicium ...
That is ridiculous, almost everybody except the owners of production work at a loss.
Have you never heard the saying, an investment of time?
Those who have no capital invest their labor. And however slight the gain may appear to be, the laborer gains, or profits, or he would not work.
Every man is his own corporation.
In theory.
However the powers that be have the system so stacked that the very means to invest to move forward and make gains on the investment of time still end up being a loss. If you did gai from the system chances are you started either in the bubble of the 90s or over 30 years ago and got lucky. The majority do not.
i do