Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949) | Hacker News Reader

Einstein: Why Socialism? (1949)

monthlyreview.org

Perhaps, if an "Einstein" were to run the economy, state ownership of the means of production, and central planning, would be workable. The problem is that eventually the "Einstein" would perish or be replaced, and the lesser replacement would be a disaster.

There is nothing preferable in a few oligarches (or plutocrats) running everything as "the government", to capitalism. In fact, at least capitalism is somewhat distributed, and capitalists have a vested interest in pleasing their customers. Not so with government!

I'm a huge admirer of Einstein in general, but in this he was far outside his area of expertise!

Aren't you also outside far outside your expertise?

Oligarchy is a political form. Capitalism is an economic form. They are neither incompatible nor mutually exclusive.

Consider that China is often used an example of state capitalism, and Russia as an example of corporate oligarchy.

Even North Korea has capitalists in all but name. See http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/north-korea-cap... .

Another an example of how, the fact that a person can contribute to the design and construction nuclear bombs does not automatically make him qualified to condemn the rest of the society to produce what he and his brethren deem desirable.

Hayek explained the problems with socialism in the 30s and 40s. His contemporaries laughed at him; he won the Nobel prize in 1974.

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economic-sciences/lau...

As Mises pointed out, these self-appointed enlightened people "... forget that a dictator, too, may act differently from their wishes, and that there is no assurance that he will really try for the `best,' and, even if he should seek it, that he should find the way to the `best.'" http://blog.qtau.com/2009/12/food-for-thought-mises-on-socia...

If those don't make sense to you, I recommend "Moscow on the Hudson," "Demolition Man," and "Logan's Run."

'Another an example of how, the fact that a person can contribute to the design and construction nuclear bombs does not automatically make him qualified to condemn the rest of the society to produce what he and his brethren deem desirable.'

No it is not that at all.Someone with more awareness would understand that his comments would have reflected the concerns of the day-namely the perceived failures of capitalism.

This is a good point, but I thought that we were all done perceiving failures in capitalism after WWII. The crises of the 1930’s surely did cause at least a perception of failure in capitalism, which is why in the '50's there were so many academics around with CPUSA cards rotting in there wallets.

Einsten did not 'contribute to the design and construction of nuclear bombs.' As he wrote himself:

> "My participation in the production of the atom bomb consisted in a single act: I signed a letter to President Roosevelt. this letter stressed the necessity of large scale experimentation to ascertain the possibility of producing an atom bomb." - http://www.atomicarchive.com/Docs/Hiroshima/EinsteinResponse...

> Hayek explained the problems with socialism in the 30s and 40s. His contemporaries laughed at him; he won the Nobel prize in 1974.

Nobel never created a prize for economics, so Mises did not win a Nobel prize. The bank of Sweden gave Mises a prize.

It is not given by the Bank of Sweden just like how neither Alfred Nobel nor the Nobel estate decides the Physics award. The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel "is awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm, Sweden, according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901", and the funds are based on a donation made by Sveriges Riksbank in 1968.

The "Nobel Prize" in economics (more precisely, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) is amusing because it is impossible to simultaneously endorse the "discoveries" of all the winners.

Is this the same Hayek who defended transitional dictatorship, and believed that the Pinochet government was a good example of the sort of dictatorship that would likely lead to a liberal government?

I referred specifically to Hayek's work in the 30s and the 40s for which he won the Nobel prize in 1974 ... About the time the Rational Expectations Revolution was beginning to gain momentum.

Now, while I actually lived under dictatorship, and did not enjoy it one bit, I must say, if I am forced to make a choice between Allende and Pinochet, I'll go for Pinochet every time. Just look at where Chile was before Bachelet was elected, and where, say, Argentina, and Venezuela, and Brazil are ...

Your original statement was that just because Einstein knew physics doesn't "automatically make him qualified to condemn the rest of the society to produce what he and his brethren deem desirable."

That needlessly gendered statement is identical in structure to my objection that Hayek's understanding of economics doesn't "automatically make him qualified to condemn the rest of the society to" dictatorships, even if only temporary.

Gunnar Myrdal shared the prize with Hayek but had quite different views on government, and regarded Hayek as a reactionary. Myrdal was, among other things, a member of the Swedish Parliament for the Social Democrat party. You can therefore only conclude that the Nobel Prize committee was recognizing those areas of economics where Myrdal and Hayek had similar views. You cannot extend that recognition to include all of Hayek's views.

If forced to choose between having all of my limbs cut off and having just my foot cut off, I think I could express a clear preference as well.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com