Einstein: "Why Socialism?" | Hacker News Reader

Einstein: "Why Socialism?"

monthlyreview.org

21 pointsjimmyjim19 comments

Open articleView on HN

"Why Socialism?"

Mao's Chinese Communism

Hitler's National Socialist German Workers Party

Stalin's Soviet Bolshevism

Saddam Hussein's Arab Baath Socialist Party (Iraq edition)

Bashir Assad's Arab Baath Socialist Party (Syria edition)

Slobodan Milosovic's Serbian Socialist Party

Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge

Benito Mussolini: Member of Parliament for the Italian Socialist Party at age 24.

The Ayatollah Khomenei's Islamic Socialism (as he called it)

It may not be obvious from the name of the publication, but Monthly Review is a Marxist magazine, therefore their view and what they publish is far from neutral. Regarding what Einstein had to say, it can be easily detracted by multiple arguments that are usually a cause of long and heated discussions on HN for those who do not understand economics and do not support free markets. Einstein was certainly a brilliant physicist, but genius does not always translate well in other disciplines.

> Regarding what Einstein had to say, it can be easily detracted by multiple arguments that are usually a cause of long and heated discussions on HN for those who do not understand and support economics and free markets.

Feel free to flag. Personally, I prefer to leave the "socialism vs capitalism" debates to Reddit/Facebook.

To be fair, Einstein addresses his inexperience in the field of economics in the first few paragraphs, and argues that the "[facts deriving from the science of economics] belong to [Veblen's "predatory" phase, i.e. capitalism] and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future."

In other words, he claims that a lack of expertise in economics translates into an inability to describe the rules of a capitalist state, but not an inability to describe the resulting observable socioeconomic effects.

The socialism vs capitalism debate is always super interesting. But I think from a practical standpoint, changes in technology seem to be far more achievable and impactful than fighting to change culture. The way I see history technology changes the world, and culture and society changes to keep up with it.

We all kind of understand this platonic ideal where everyone is happy, not overworked, and like or atleast don't resent their jobs. But our societies have gotten too big, complicated and interdependent. Life is far more complicated and necessarily imperfect these days. Not that I don't respect people fighting the good fight in the bowels of megacorps and governmental beauracracies to make things better. We owe a ton to idealists and do-gooders. But corporations and governments are machines, not people. A machine doesn't understand the concept of 'doing the right thing'. Our best hope in the quest for idealism is to accept that they are machines, and make them better or less important through new tech.

Relevant: https://www.quora.com/Autonomous-Driving/With-autonomous-car...

What if the needs of society and the needs of the individual are in opposition? Who works the coal mines in socialism's utopia?

Robots duh.

Your name is John Galt - however your ideas are decidedly 18th century. You do realise that a great deal of work is now automated.

Oh and libertarianism is just a tad lower at 3rd grade.

Baby: Baby talk

Me: If you walk all the way over here you can have this toy.

Baby: Walks Takes toy

Me: Woops, your little brother is here - why don't you share with him since he can't walk just yet.

Baby: MINE!

Me: Ok then.

Coal mines still employ a great deal of human laborers, even the few that are highly mechanized. And it's still difficult, dangerous and not very pleasant work. Most coal mining is still done underground and even surface mining is quite dangerous. See e.g. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_mining>;

It's also usually not a good idea to act condescending when you think you have superior knowledge, as then you may look foolish when it turns out you are misinformed yourself.

And - what's your point?

Automation of mining is inevitable. Everything is actually.

It's like saying people still make bully whips just as cars are starting to hit mainstream - you are correct about the present - you are wrong about the future.

How are these conflicting? The people who cannot run a mine or start a new mine must work in one.

Oh, and the doctors take less pay because they like being doctors.

There are a lot of people who can't run a mine or start a new one. There are very few who would chose to work in one. How is it determined who 'must work in one' (coal mine), and who is free to pursue another job like park ranger? I'm also curious what 'must work' entails.

Doctors may like being doctors, but I'm sure there are more who would sign up to be neurologists than gastroenterologists.

Is there a word for market based socialism? You know capitalism with hair cut upside (taxation) and a hard floor protected low side (poverty).

For example - in a developed world most people don't want anyone (lest themselves) to starve, be unable to afford an education for their children, be unemployed or be unable to access life saving healthcare.

However we must also encourage innovation and hard work (don't cap upside - just hair cut it for public utility use - aka taxation) - so people should be allowed to earn more - but they are not allowed to fall below the poverty line - ever. This is good for a mass market based economy that requires a large middle class with a decent amount of disposable income (1 rich person = 1 pair of jeans, whereas for an equivalent amount of wealth 1000 middle class people = 1000 jeans from the rich person).

If the pie is growing just like the market fundamentalists say - well then there's no problem with this. Just keep growing - you'll have more in the end - and pay for your disproportionate benefit from the use of public/common goods - aka suck it up and share children.

Indeed - with the automation I see coming within the next 2 decades - a lot of these free market fundamentalists will be, quite frankly, out of a job.

I look forward to mass unemployment.

Systems which are similar to this include both the Nordic model and social market economies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy

I call it "band-pass capitalism". Its socialism at the top and bottom, but a band in the middle is capitalism.

The upside is that no one is ever homeless, the downside is that no one can really make enough to buy a Caribbean island just for themselves.

I'm in favor. It seems like what we're fumbling towards anyway, we're just doing it poorly right now.

That's more or less what every Western country has, although we quibble about how expansive the safety net should be, and the optimal level of taxation. We often call this a "mixed" economy.

An interesting solution to this is a negative income tax. I am generally libertarian leaning but I do think a negative income tax would be way better than a big government that provides various services. It allows capital markets to work properly while still providing for those who really need it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

>Is there a word for market based socialism? You know capitalism with hair cut upside (taxation) and a hard floor protected low side (poverty).

It's what holds in most European countries with a welfare state (and, to a lesser degree even in the US). It has been called various things, from "the third way", to "social democracy".

Though, in Europe (and also in the US), the "free market" guys, neo-liberals and financial interest have reigned supreme since the Thatcher/Reagan era, with the dire results we see today. Kind of like the US economy actually worsened after Clinton, despite him being more "socialist" (to the degree accepted by the american public).

Genius, Einstein -- as always.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com