Einstein on Capitalism and Socialism.

[lumberjack_jeff]

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two 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.

Albert Einstein

[leftstreet]

1. 'Production is carried on for profit, not for use'

And there you have it

DURec

[TreasonousBastard]

2. He saw how well that worked with Stalin, didn't he?

[socialist_n_TN]

4. Ah yes. Stalin, the most heretic of all "Marxists".......

Show me where Marx (or Lenin for that matter) said that socialism could be accomplished in one country. Show me where Marx (or Lenin) said that a bureaucracy, a parasite on the working class, is necessary for socialism.

And that's just two.

[TreasonousBastard]

20. I could show you where he said it was such a great idea it had to start with...

countries already industrialized-- seems countries like, say Russia, or China, needed some capitalistic boost before the good communists could take over.

But I won't show because that would be a lot of searching for no good reason. Bu, it didn't work out that way, did it?

[socialist_n_TN]

36. Trotsky, the Marxist road not taken.....

Now THAT was classic Marxism.

[Supersedeas]

55. forgotten, revised, and propogandized

[Bake]

58. If it's a "planned economy," then SOMEBODY has to do the planning.

And that somebody would have to have the authority to make said plans. Ergo, bureaucracy.

Bake

[Fantastic Anarchist]

6. Stalin wasn't a Marxist or a socialist.

He was a totalitarian dictator no different from any other fascist.

What was the USSR? Towards a Theory of the Deformation of Value Under State Capitalism Part IV

Long, but well worth the read.

[Gravitycollapse]

7. ^^^This is why we can't have nice things.

[lumberjack_jeff]

11. Nearly a Godwin there.

Yes, Einstein he was pretty familiar with Stalin. And Hitler. And Mussolini.

Unlike his critics, Einstein was able to separate the acts of the totalitarian governments from the relative merits of the economic systems over which they respectively ruled.

In other words, if you're going to blame socialism for Stalin then you have to blame Corporatism for Mussolini...

... and:

In 1930, "Our adopted term 'Socialist' has nothing to do with Marxist Socialism. Marxism is anti-property; true Socialism is not."

In 1942, Hitler privately said: "I absolutely insist on protecting private property ... we must encourage private initiative".

Which I guess runs me fully afoul of Godwin's law, I suppose.

[TreasonousBastard]

18. No Godwin's yet (except maybe yours) but a lot of No True Scotsmen...

OK, so Stalin, Mao, and all the other twits who claimed to be Communists weren't really Communist, Socialist, or anything else close.

So, who was?

Castro?

The unanswerable question every time this is brought up is "Show me that ideal society run by 'real' socialists."

[RainDog]

27. Denmark n/t

[TreasonousBastard]

28. I know I shouldn't, but I always think of them as more Benelux than Scandinavian...

maybe because they're so close.

[RainDog]

35. well, every northern European social democracy

has better outcomes for more people than unregulated capitalist economies.

It seems to me that the tension between public and private and planned and unexpected (i.e. market forces) helps to regulate both.

Power that is only held by one faction will be abused... that's just how power works.

What always amazes me in this nation is the number of right wing Christians who are absolute believers in the free market, yet also absolute believers in the total fallen nature of humankind...and from that utter selfishness... A MIRACLE occurs and an invisible hand reaches out and jerks off the world!

Utopias of any sort are silliness.

[lumberjack_jeff]

30. And yet August Pinochet, Ferdinand Marcos, the Somozas and the Shah of Iran get a pass.

Somehow we don't have difficulty separating their dictatorships from their capitalist economic systems.

[TreasonousBastard]

33. Nobody says they get a pass...

at least I don't.

And I don't call them "capitalist" either, since they controlled monopolies for their friends' advantage. And theirs.

Maybe "an extreme form of "crony capitalism" but it all falls under the "totalitarian" definitions.

[Gravitycollapse]

39. Capitalism is an economic model. Totalitarianism is a political model.

The two can exist mutually in various forms.

[7962]

42. Well, he married his cousing too, ya know.....

[immoderate]

22. What Stalin (and Lenin) did is called "state capitalism."

--imm

[TreasonousBastard]

31. I have another name for it...

that won't make it into many textbooks.

[immoderate]

40. And yes, but it would be as equally irrelevant to what Einstein was proposing.

He detected certain obstacles that capitalism would cause. For instance, it's not sustainable. It's a system that requires growth in a limited environment. Trouble looms.

--imm

[Scuba]

3. "A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community ..."

... doesn't quite work for me. I fear such a model would stifle innovation. No one ever asked that a microwave oven be invented.

I'm in favor of well-regulated capitalism, with a strong social safety net, free education and progressive taxation. But that's just me.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

8. Under socialism ...

and let me be clear, decentralized tendency of socialism, innovation would be celebrated instead of stifled as it is under a capitalist society. Workers, the bulk of them, have to sell their labor just to live, with not time to actually live and have time to innovate.

Also, under the tendency I speak above, collaboration among workers would be the best avenue for innovation, rather than a small coterie of capitalists whose interest it is to steal surplus value, which sometimes accidentally results in innovation. A large collaborative body of workers, who are consumers, and who also live in the community in which they live, would most certainly be able to come up with new ways of producing, and new products to produce that's agreeable to the collective. The more minds, the merrier. Power in numbers.

The tired line about efficiency and innovation under capitalism is a myth. It's not even logically sound, really.

[lumberjack_jeff]

12. The public sector didn't invent the microwave! Or the internet! Oh, wait.

BTW, Perry Spencer invented the microwave while working on a government contract.

[Scuba]

15. That I knew, but would it have been brought to market without a profit motive?

Spencer worked for Raytheon, a private company (defense contractor).

[Hydra]

32. Capitalism stifles innovation

How many inventions and innovations have been crushed or stolen from their creators by people who stood to lose from it? How many projects cannot go forward because of "intellectual property"? How many things could benefit us that are not deemed "profitable"?

And last but not least...why do we value profit over people's lives?

[Fantastic Anarchist]

5. Proud to kick and rec ... the man wasn't a genius for nothing!

[WillyT]

9. WOW !!! - K & R !!! - Thank You For That !!!

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

From the OP.



& Rec !!!

[FreeJoe]

10. Two issues

First, while he was a brilliant physicist and a great humanitarian, Einstein wasn't an economist. I'm not sure why his view would count more in that area than Krugman's views on physics.

Second, we have a huge advantage that Einstein lacked...lots of empirical evidence. We have seen planned economies attempted many times and none have been very successful. What appears to work the best is market based economies with strong social safety nets.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Define "very successful"

I think the metrics of "success" should be discussed.

[FreeJoe]

14. It's not hard

It's hard to find any measure of success that makes a country with a centrally planned economy look better than countries with market driven economies. Look at it by median income, GDP, overall levels of freedom, or immigration/emigration figures.

[PETRUS]

26. Be sure to include all the data in your results

It's a global system and lives outside of the US are affected.

[FreeJoe]

51. It doesn't require a lot of data

Simple observations will do. Look at countries like China or Vietnam that had very centrally planned economies and that have started to allow more market based economic activity. There has been a substantial increase in standards of living.

I was a strong fan of centrally planned economies in my college years. Then my circle of friends expanded to include people that had lived behind the iron curtain. They opened my eyes to the fact that, while it sounds great in theory, it just doesn't work in practice.

[TreasonousBastard]

19. My answer is simple...

it's a trick question, of course, devolving into that no true scotsman thing, but to cut through the crap--

The successful society is one that exists, will exist for a while and, most especially, one that you would want to live in.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

16. Planned economies run by totalitarian governments ...

Socialism doesn't have to be, nor is was it proposed by most currents that I know of, centralized nor government controlled (In fact, the anarchist tendency prefers no government socialism). But bring most currents into the fold, decentralized federated cooperatives/collectives where the producers own their product and the mode of production have been tried and have been successful.

Socialism isn't the Soviet Union or the Peoples Republic of China. They did more to undermine socialism than any capitalist ever could.

Edited for horrible grammar.

[FreeJoe]

17. Show me

I don't think it will work. I don't think that it is an accident that attempts at planned economies have always ended with totalitarianism. Show me counterexamples above the small community level and I'll change my mind. Until then, I'm sticking with pushing for the systems that bring the best results.

[TreasonousBastard]

23. Mixed economies, like the Benelux countries, Sweden...

have been very successful by all measures, although rarely mentioned because they don't fit very well into the square of the modern self-appointed "socialist."

States are very good at some things, private industry good at others, but phony arguments about the "means of production" accomplish nothing. Nor do arguments about planning, since while central planning can work, there are no controls when it doesn't. Bauhaus apartments and Russian state farm failures should have been more than enough of a hint.

[socialist_n_TN]

45. And the capitalists can't stand those types of states either.........

It will be interesting to see how neo-liberal the Scandinavian nations are in 20 years. My guess is they'll probably be about where we are now.

[FreeJoe]

48. I completely agree

And so does virtually every economist that I know or have read. The debate is over what sectors should be private, what should be public, and what should be a hybrid.

[socialist_n_TN]

43. Show me ANY attempt at socialism that hasn't been subverted....

by capitalism, militarily, economically, and politically, overtly and covertly.

I'll save you some time. There isn't one. Capitalism CANNOT have a competing system that doesn't believe in profit because that system would eventually replace capitalism. Which is why they DO subvert every attempt at socialism. If they can't do it economically and politically, they do it militarily. If they can't do it overtly, they'll subvert it covertly. That's history.

Even mild forms of socialist programs like a health insurance public option will NOT be countenanced because it's will show itself to be more democratic and cheaper than capitalism. Witness Medicare and even the Social Security law and administration. Not perfect, but MUCH more democratic and cheaper than the Invisible Hand of the Market.

[FreeJoe]

49. So what you are saying is...

The one system that has been successful on a large scale is the one you want to destroy and replace it by a system that has never been made to work on a significant scale. If we do that, then everything will be OK. My concern is that in the attempt, we'll end up with something like a global Soviet state and then we'll be powerless to overthrow it. For now, my vote is to stick with what is showing itself to be the most successful at making people's lives better and that is market dominated economies with strong public sectors filling in areas where markets don't work well.

[socialist_n_TN]

53. No time this morning, but for a quickie.....

Systems run their course. Slave culture to feudalism to capitalism. Now capitalism has run it's course and no longer works for the majority of the people of the world. Time to try something different.

And you didn't comment on the thrust of my post about the subversion of socialist attempts by capitalist powers.

[immoderate]

34. It's not the "authority" which determines validity. It's the argument.

What Einstein did was largely intuitive, in that he visualized relationships in systems which weren't readily apparent. I think that Einstein may have sensed the natural limits and the need for planning over a so-called free market system.

In a sense, relativity is an economic system.

--imm

[FreeJoe]

50. Yes, but...

Einstein was enough of a scientist to look at experimental results and not blindly assume that all of his theories were correct. If he were alive today and looked at the success of market based economies vs planned economies, I strongly believe that his opinion would change.

[immoderate]

54. Would he think that lower wages and higher priced education would further that success?

That's where the so-called "free market" is headed.

--imm

[PowerToThePeople]

21. Rec- Socialism, for a better tomorrow. n/t

[Nye Bevan]

24. "Planned economies" are the BEST.

It was the success of the Five Year Plans that led to the Soviet Union being what it is today.

[socialist_n_TN]

44. No, it was covert and overt military subversion...

that made the USSR what it is today. What the 5 year plans did, and BTW I'm NOT a Stalinist, but I do believe in facts, was to take a backwards monarchist dictatorship and turn it into a modern state in a few short decades.

[jazzimov]

25. as a Socio-Economic theorist,

Einstein was a great Physics theorist.

[Starry Messenger]

29. It's always amazing that no replies to threads like these with acknowledgment

of what Einstein says here about capitalism. Didn't the news just come out this week that wealth inequity in this country is the highest it has been since the 1920's? This is a win for our society?

[adirondacker]

37. I'm a social democrat and look up to the Netherland's and Scandanavian system.

With that said, We could use a LOT more Socialism in our works of government.

Great article!

[jollyreaper2112]

38. Stalin

The execution of communism in the 20th century is about as accurate representation of the concept as rape is of representing sex: there are gross similarities but intent is everything.

What we see with Russian communism is the seductive power of pragmatic violence. People who convince themselves the tough guy act is the way things are done means that they create an environment in which the brutal thrive. Stalin was scorched earth and even the sickest in the power structure were weary of blood by the time he was through.

The lesson of Stalin is that no good idea is immune to corruption. Of course, that lesson was also taught by the Catholic Church. Christ's original teachings were inoffensive enough and from that we somehow came to crusades and holy wars. Love thine neighbor turns to kill the heathen in Jesus' name.

[SoLeftIAmRight]

41. "Ideas and Opinions" Is the one book that I keep out all the time.

"Great thoughts of a great man" in a collection of letters, papers, essays, speeches.

Many answers for the problems of today.

[kentuck]

46. The Secret.

To building a fair socialist system of government is to always be willing to compromise 50% with the capitalists. That always leaves the option of making your own demands. There has to be an effort for balance, otherwise, the capitalists will take total control. The socialists have to always demand fairness and justice, in all matters.

[reformist2]

47. The worker needs the ability to say "no" to work without facing starvation, homelessness, etc.

If everyone had a guarantee of the bare mimimum whether they worked or not, then and only then could you truly have a free market in labor, where employer and employee would be on equal footing.

[Democracyinkind]

52. Google "state capitalism" before shouting "Stalin!!! Mao"

As an advice to people that would be inclined to post such things. Treating Mao and Stalin as "socialists" was a great PR move during the cold war, but it was never true. Unless you want to count Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and Pinochet as "socialists" too.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

56. Agreed ...

... look at the link in my post here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3649532

[Martin Eden]

57. Technological progress ... results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden ...

I was born in 1957. Growing up in the 1960's I remember speculation about the better future for all that technological progress would bring. Increased productivity would increase everyone's standard of living and decrease the number of hours worked, providing more quality time for family and a more fulfilling life.

There have been great technological advances and gains in productivity but the vast majority of the wealth thusly generated has gone into the pockets of the 1%, while the rest of us are working harder/longer than ever ... or desperately trying to find a good job.

Something is definitely wrong with this picture.

[Egalitarian Thug]

59. As always, this is the problem when smart people talk about complex issues with

less than smart people.

Thanks for putting this up, the thread exposes so much of what we face in changing anything.
& R