Forum Post: Albert Einstein's views on civil society...
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 10:56 p.m. EST by stephenadler
(118)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
"I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate (the) grave evils (of capitalism), 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." Albert Einstein, Why Socialism?, 1949 [13]
The above was taken from the following wiki page...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein%27s_political_views
I don't take my politics from a physicist any more than I take my physics from a politician.
Albert Einstein was a total fraud and plagarist
First off, I'm a (libertarian) socialist and not a capitalist, so I hope you'll listen for a second when I tell you I don't agree with this. It may be a bit of a wall of text, but I just now wrote it.
Society owning the means of production means the STATE owning the means of production. That is an inferior system of government because you're just lumping all the plutocratic power and state power together in one single camp. In other words, a system like what we already have with state capitalism of socialized risk and private profits, but even worse.
What we are facing right now, and what has been the perennial problem of the past two centuries is the concentration of power, capital, and the means of production. A centrally planned economy with all means of production owned by the state means that if I want to own my own means of production I am in violation of the law and the state has the right to crush me. I cannot own my own land, I cannot own my own equipment and keep the profits of what I create. This is a destruction of liberty. The Marxists of the past haven't struggled for decades and won only to turn around and decide to betray Marxism -- they did their best to implement it and failed, winding up unerringly with totalitarian regimes.
This does not mean that socialism is flawed, but it does mean Marxism is flawed. Past the knuckle-dragger memes of the right wing propaganda mill are the intellectual foundations of socialism, anarchism, and the other reviled 'radical' ideologies that oppose concentrated capital and concentrated state power. Power must not be concentrated in plutocratic hands, state hands, or popular hands.
It is popular to suppose that Humans are good and altruistic by nature. Marxism assumed it could do away with greed, Corporatism assumes (or professes to assume) that it can embrace greed as a virtue and make self-interest do good. Ideological purists always like to base their beliefs on the axiom that Humans are good. I assume they are wicked and will corrupt any system they can, and perpetrate any evil imaginable without so much as a reason. This is the superior view, because if it is incorrect it can do no harm, but if it is correct it will protect against the potential evils. And, we have witnessed the evils of capitalism and Marxism and pure anarchy. Subconsciously, we know there is no controversy in saying that we are wicked creatures. Cynic is a four letter insult, but yet the purest idealist; uncorrupted by rose glasses.
If you aim to create a society that is just, liberal, and free from economic suffering, then you need the freedom to be wickedly greedy, but a society that does not reward such behavior. You need a population that has information and education and most importantly their own means of production and land so they can be self-sufficient if they wish. This is more easily done than you might imagine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIsHKrP-66s
Watch this and consider the consequences of having the ability to create literally anything you need with only resources and time.
No one would be compelled into master-slave relationships of renting themselves out to employers and the government. It would be a way to completely drop out of society if it no longer became beneficial or fulfilling for people to participate in that society.
Right now, the people are impotent because they are kept exhausted, beholden to their obligations, and inundated with propaganda. We have the ability to make a world that is not filled with suffering such that we all wish for apocalypses, revolutions, and other massive crises to free us, even violently, from our slavery. It's a sick world indeed that can make us so desperate. But imagine if the people could simply disengage with impunity. How do you regulate something like that? How do you fight something so liberating and powerful? You cannot; at least not for long, and you're guaranteed to lose and be killed by those whom you tried to make your slaves.
Please, socialists and capitalists, stop putting the voices of the last century on the bull horn. They had their chance. We are not intellectually bankrupt, we can form our own ideologies and leave those hateful creatures to the blood stained pages of history.
Great post. For more alternatives (a mix of subsistence, gift, exchange, and planned) see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vK-M_e0JoY "This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."
Technology and law have created a world in which all are essentially insulated from all that threatens us; this has been particularly true of the past fifty years. The world of the colonial was one in which all were thoroughly imbibed with knowledge of man's evil nature; in fact, it was a precept spiritually incorporated. Likewise, the key to insulating oneself from the evil clutches of others, lie not in isolation - we are a communal creature - but in individual ownership of the means of production.
I think we are agreed, if 'individual ownership of the means of production' was not an error. When I suggest that the means of production be owned by The People, I do not mean to suggest that there should be isolation and the rabid individualism that has driven our society towards unsustainable suburban disunity where are homes and 'communities' are merely clusters of modular storage and sleeping spaces in orbit around our places of work. I mean that our communities should be rebuilt and should become the primary node of power once again, like they have been for the vast span of Human history. Continent-spanning federal governments and even provincial governments have a purpose, but they should not be the primary holders of power. That should be reserved for the people and their communities.
What you are suggesting is a communal sovereignty on the order of an Iroquois League of Nations and such is no longer possible. I was indeed talking about private ownership of the means of production.
Do you have an argument to support your assertion that strong communities are no longer possible? They dominated Human organization for two hundred thousand years, up until the rise of powerful nation states in the 19th century. Even the absolutist kings had less power than the modern industrialized nation-states do.
No fundamental law of reality has changed, so I would like to see an argument for why strong communities and decentralized capital, power, and means of production is now magically 'impossible.'
Indeed one very fundamental law has changed: "cohesive bond." And if you spend sufficient time considering ALL of the factors that contributed to it, you will eventually realize that it cannot be recreated.
We do wish that it was all that simple. The simple math is that when misinformation and mocking of one's neighbor's beliefs is rewarded by an entire segment of society, when the right to assemble is mocked, then every American has a duty to ask, are these Americans who are belittling OWS and the 99% movement? Are these Americans or are these people who despise American freedoms? Who are they? We know who they are, they are the bullies, the losers the intellectually lazy, the collaborators the capitulators, the trickle-downers waiting for some dog food to fall into their bowl from above. They are the fearful the supersticious, the uncurious, the guilty consciences who want you to believe that their being lucky had nothing to do with their achievements. They can't even quote you one single American principle they throw fantasy threats to church and home, they even use OWS to make workers who they are cutting down to poverty status fear more for their precious family values. And what you say to them is this. This is America, and if you want to live your family values, you are free to do it. But this country does not give any one the right to impose their rules or values upon any other. Keep them to yourselves, because this is America and the last time I checked, we were all still free. What country do you think this is faux news, What country do you want it to be?
The problem is, you have all been brained washed into thinking that a well organized economy is evil. In the mean time, those who benefit from raw jungle, winner take all market economy are just sitting back, stoking their cigars, drinking their brandy and thinking you are just a peasant not worth the ground you walk on. And they control the media and pump into your brain that only deregulated markets will get you a job. And you go off and vote for politicians who are in these peoples pockets so that they can continue deregulating and thus pouring more money into their bank accounts which gives them more power to pump more ideas about how to make them rich and off you go voting for more politicians to dismantle more regulations and make the markets more "fluid" etc. etc. etc. Its a viscous cycle and your the one getting sucked dry....
it's just more comfortable
People, I hope you are all reading your history. The reason your in your "occupy" mode is because the injustice you feel now has been happening for centuries. The social economic injustice caused by hoarding economics (i.e. market economies gone bad...) has struck many times in history. Learn from your predecessors.
Einstein would have preferred a Resource Based Economy if more mechanization/automation was available during his time.
What if the person or people in charge of "planning" the economy has ulterior motives? What if their "plans" are incorrect? What about the people who don't want to have their lives regulated? Is that where the usual gun to the head solution that statists rely on comes in?
Einstein also developed nuclear weaponry, for use on the Japanese. Maybe human rights weren't really his thing?
As Stephenadler said, Einstein was fearful for the human species. That fear bated him into doing something he truly did not believe in. There is a lesson here.
He actually never developed nuclear weaponry. Read your history. His only involvement in nuclear weapons was when it was discovered that the Nazis were working on developing nuclear weapons and he was recruited to talk to FDR to inform him of the dangers of what the Nazis were attempting. That got the ball rolling for the US to start the R&D which lead to the development of a nuclear weapon. Remember, the world was at war, a real war, and Europe and our country was at stake. This was not Vietnam, or Iraq.
Einstein hated the atom bomb.
No, he did not. e=mc^2 did not develop anything.
You're probably thinking of Oppenheimer.
Hmm, wow a genius' view on society is irrelavant. Jut because Einstein was a genius in terms of physics and complex mathematical problems, does not make him a Genius on governance or even human nature. Sure socialism is perfect if everyone is really on board, but as history has proven it does not work.
a true genius does not rely on his compartmentalized knowledge to interact with his fellow humans. He compartmentalizes his knowledge for subsidence, and learns other knowledge, so he can relate with others.The idea that compartmentalized knowledge is all that is needed is a detriment to the species. if you can't relate to the person below you, you have shut yourself off from humanity.