Did you know Oscar Wilde was a Socialist?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

Must admit I'd never thought about Wilde's politics. Makes sense, though.

'To make men Socialists is nothing, but to make Socialism human is a great thing.'

Nice Quote, that. From the man himself.

[burrowowl]

1. Yup

and Helen Keller too

[Interrobang]

2. Yes, I knew that.

Being a Socialist used to be quite respectable. It only took the reactionary elements 50 or so years to change that. :)

[Whitacre D_WI]

3. Did you know Antonio Gramsci was a socialist?

Yes, I imagine you did.

But your Wilde quote reminded me of Gramsci.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

4. Yeah, we covered Gramsci at Uni.

I should've known from the start with Wilde, but you know how it is sometimes with something so obvious, you just never register.

[Bridget Burke]

5. Yes, just as that other great Irishman, his contemporary,

George Bernard Shaw.

Decades later, James Joyce offered: "In spite of everything Ireland remains the brain of the United Kingdom. The English, judiciously practical and ponderous, furnish the over-stuffed stomach of humanity with a perfect gadget--the water closet. The Irish, condemned to express themselves in a language not their own, have stamped on it the mark of their own genius and compete for glory with the civilized nations. The result is then called English literature."

[HawkerHurricane]

6. Yep...

It was very popular for the 'Artistic Class' of Victorian England to be socialist, liberal, and in favor of woman's sufferage.

[Bridget Burke]

7. Especially for those who weren't .....

English!

[cprise]

8. Albert Einstein

Why Socialism?

Albert Einstein



Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has -- as is well known -- been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thence forth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase 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.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and -- if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous -- are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assure that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society. Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. in order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind; and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

.more.
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein_socialism.html