Bad retort. The prerequisites to understanding economics is hardly close to that needed to understand QED. Besides, economists have physics envy. Physicists can intelligently contribute to economics.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. It seems (from a certain perspective, at least) that physics is much more thoroughly understood than economics. We can make really precise predictions in physics... economics, not so much.
As the only reason we're paying attention to this non-mathematical essay is because Albert Einstein wrote it, noting that he was not actually an economist is entirely valid.
Economics in the 40-50s was about Markets vs. Planning. The big economic names at the time - Hayek, Keynes, were debating the merits and faults of markets and planning. Einstein threw in his 2 cents. That he was a physicist has no bearing on his argument.
Actually Hayek and Keynes never used much math in their arguments. Keynes ideas were put into economic models by later economists with science backgrounds: Alvin Hansen, Paul Sameulson, James Tobin, etc.
Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious. The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics. Had the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place.
Edit: original poster = I mean the guy who said JM Keynes on QED - had he pointed out socialism flaws this discussion would have never taken place.
The deficiencies in my college preparatory training were
quickly made up, and at age 19, I received a B.S. in
Physics with highest honors.
I continued my studies in physics as a graduate student
at Minnesota, but was strongly attracted to the study of
human behavior.
I assume you mean quod erat demonstrandum, which normally goes at the end of a proof.
The only thing you've helped prove, as requested, is that there are far better stories about physicists and economics to submit here than a political essay by Albert Einstein. :)
of course, but the guy who posted the essay it did so to show off a critique of captialism. An appropriate response is then to say why Einstein is wrong, not attack his credibility by making it akin to JM Keynes commenting on QED (as Keynes is clearly not qualified to comment on QED).
Einstein is championing a system shown not to work. Why should I spend any more time refuting that in 2010 than I would trying to counter some old essay by an economist on the luminiferous aether?
I hear where you're coming from, economics definitely can feel clumsy at times, but that to me is even more reason to continue pushing it for breakthroughs. Economics is a relatively new field of study compared to the history of physics.
Einstein anticipates and addresses this criticism in his essay:
"...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with].
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. ...
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 assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
I will note that scientists of any degree of renown tend to be absolutely fantastic at careful, hard-nosed, scientific analysis that leads to the conclusion that the very political beliefs they already have are objectively correct.
Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stronger evidence against command economies and socialism. (Socialism in the 20th century sense, not "welfare systems bolted atop market systems" in the Teabagger sense.)
Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million.
Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure.
My point is not to claim that either of these points of view are true or false. My point is that complex, somewhat subjective and potentially contentious historical analyses are required to attribute causation to the 20th century's multiple clusters of mass homicide (unlike, say, the deaths caused by the 1918 flu pandemic where an objective attribution of cause is relatively straightforward).
The evidence is not as straightforward as you portray it.
(edit: I missed out the word 'deaths' in the first paragraph)
> Arguably the two world wars of the 20th century were a consequence of the expansionist tendencies of capitalist economies, and between them deaths were nigh on 100 million.
Wait, wait, wait, hold up - in what universe are Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan capitalist? Both countries had heavy government ownership, control, and coordination of industry. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party - the Third Reich state owned all the chemical production and most of the industrial production in Germany. People loosely in favor of socialism don't like counting Nazi Germany among socialists, but they definitely had worker/state control over industry.
Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that, but clearly the Axis war economies of WWII were not free enterprise/free market/capitalist.
Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that
That would be a simple version of the argument I have in mind. Basically I don't think WW1 and WW2 were disconnected events, there is a path of historical causation that runs through both.
You almost have a case for WW1, though I find it hilarious that people sniffing about totalitarian communism not being "real" socialism so smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism. WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist".
Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime".
"I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist"
You might; I'd be impressed by that as I would be the latest from the Discovery Institute.
WW2 requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"
Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions.
You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID.
Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.
"Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them."
This is not required.
I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta.
EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)
OK, so you significantly edited your reply, rather than do the same I'll respond again:
"smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism."
That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view.
"WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"."
Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others.
I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence.
However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me).
I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.
I don't see why you're defending an essay pimping socialism after the results of socialism over the course of the 20th century. Einstein had the excuse of much of what happened in the Soviet Union being effectively covered up; in the wake of our knowledge of what happened there, during the Cultural Revolution, etc., it's just not excusable in 2010.
It's like linking to Ludwig von Mises rambling about FTL travel.
There's nothing wrong with voicing an opinion on the economy which you depend on, particularly if you've thought about it a lot. The world would probably be a better place if this were more common. (After all, wars are even fought over economic incompatibilities. Take the US and old Soviet Union; their economies even had crucial similarities, like top-down workplace decisionmaking.)
In probably any country it's very difficult to be an economics prof if you go outside narrow ideological bounds. Like if you wanted to pursue Participatory Economics or something, rather than forms of capitalism or marxism-leninism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
The real world is full of emergent properties ... socialism is top-down control. Surely the idea of applying the mind of man to better controlling man is abhorrent.
"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"
Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignoring the free and voluntary cooperation required among its participants for it to succeed. The _cooperation_ inherent in a functioning market economy so often seems to be overlooked.
This top-down thing is getting tiresome. Typically this sort of statement is given by conservatives and libertarians. I'm not exactly sure how they manage to convince themselves that their dual love affair with military dominance & patriotic zeal impose less social control.
[Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more comparative studies.
Yep. Not to mention their advocacy for prohibiting abortion and prohibiting people from doing drugs, and their advocacy for "law and order" and being "tough on crime" (yet another form of social control).
At least the non-socially-conservative libertarians are consistent in being against many of these things (the War on Drugs, military intervensionism, being anti-abortion). But there are plenty of other problems with libertarianism, such as their generally being ok with people getting screwed over by one another, as long as its the result of "market forces", or there's a contract saying it's ok for one to screw over the other.
Then you figure out a way around the economic calculation problem. There's a Nobel in it for you.
Until then, I'm going to simply be amused at how it's unfair to note that Albert Einstein wasn't actually an economic expert, but it's perfectly reasonable to engage in knee-jerk US political stereotypes.
"The action required to sustain human life is primarily intellectual: everything man needs has to be discovered by his mind and produced by his effort. Production is the application of reason to the problem of survival.
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind."
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, is The Lord of the Rings."
No, an ad-hominem would imply an attack on the character or worth of Rand personally. gnosis's comment was merely a bald assertion about the novel, though indeed not an argument as such. Of course, your Rand quote was also pretty much just a bald assertion without any supporting argument, so I guess it works out.
Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.
Then people saw what happened when you tried it.
The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully.
Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the word "science"
"Socialism was very popular around the turn of the last century and for several decades before and after. Especially among intellectuals.
Then people saw what happened when you tried it."
Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!
Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the opposite of what socialism is about.
As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.
"Socialism", in simplest terms, means control of the "means of production" by workers or the general public, as opposed to a more limited group of owners.
Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist.
Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state, as representative of the general public, owns everything; this clearly grossly violates the idea in spirit as a small group of powerful people again end up controlling everything (and typically doing so very poorly).
The term "socialism", like "capitalism", describes a huge range of possible ideas and implementations, and to describe one or the other as broadly good or bad is symptomatic of egregiously lazy thinking.
Okay, you missed my point completely, but never mind.
Arguments about terms with lots of emotional content but very ambiguous meanings tend to look more like people cheering for their local sports team more than like a meaningful discussion.
I question the assumption that there is, in fact, any depth involved in arguments over the merits of socialism-in-general. Or most discussions of economic systems, for that matter.
> Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism").
The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?
Yeah, a bloody revolution must inevitably result in an oppressive dictatorship. Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...
Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists.
The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.
Edit: Ah, you edited and added more detail that you're more in favor of a peaceful transition. Okay, I'm with you on that - I think the bloody guerella communist takeover is always going to be a real mess. Rest of comment still stands if you're up for discussing, hope it's interesting and informative a bit.
> Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...
Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing.
The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures.
So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.
I think a great deal of confusion with this issue is the assumption that someone that advocates socialism advocates 100% socialism. I wouldn't want to live in a fully left-libertarian (also called socialistic anarchism) society just like I wouldn't want to live in a fully right-libertarian society.
Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.
Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing.
Really. Have you defined what is and is not socialism in a rigorous, non-subjective manner? Have you conducted empirical studies? Run computer simulations based on behavioral models? Published detailed quantitative predictions based on your understanding of economics? What objective means would you use to test the proposition "socialism is a bad thing"? What scenarios might someone who disagrees with you consider very likely that you would consider very unlikely?
This idea of being "firmly convinced" regarding a question of economics is quite novel, so I'm curious how you've come to it.
If they were utopians dreaming of socialist equality, they wouldn't have granted themselves and their cronies perks beyond any robber baron. They wouldn't have used secret police to terrorize the very class they set out to honor. No, when a system obviously ruled by corrupt thugs strays that far from its principles, I assume the rulers had always been corrupt thugs who paid lip service to the system to sway the masses and achieve power.
The problem I see here is that Einstein lacked any self awareness. He doesn't seem to grasp that his mind is an extraordinary one and hence an exception which has led him to conclusions like this...
=====
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.
=====
Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people need a push in order to perform.
He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism (Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to. Take this statement for instance...
====
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society.
====
It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It is the ultimate power.
In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.
"the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by a very small, very elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could"
I suppose you are not familiar with the Executive branch, or the Judicial branch. They are, at least in theory, supposed to share power with Congress. In fact, it could be argued that at the present time (and especially during Bush Jr's term) Congress is the weakest of the three branches.
Then there are all the private interests that influence these branches (most obviously Congress), such as the corporate lobbyists which funnel massive amounts of money in to influencing the decisions of government.
High ranking executives and members of the boards of corporations regularly get influential jobs in government, and when they retire from government they go back to serve as executives in and on boards of corporations.
It's a mistake to consider the US government as a separate entity from that of the corporations. It's all highly incestuous. They are two sides of the same hand.
79 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 150 ms ] threadHayek, Keynes, et al discussed the economics - the models, the math.
Einstein here makes a political argument, complete with hand-waving about how economics can't be used to judge his position because it's so last-wave.
This is the political version of Linus Pauling and vitamin C .
Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious. The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics. Had the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place.
Edit: original poster = I mean the guy who said JM Keynes on QED - had he pointed out socialism flaws this discussion would have never taken place.
"Quit pointing out that Einstein was wrong. Thats obvious."
Please point that out to the people trying to sleaze in the claim he was right. :)
"The point is that a physicist can contribute to economics."
To quote another physicist, you're not even wrong!
"ad the original poster simply pointed out the flaws of socialism, this discussion would never had taken place."
Well no - gnosis apparently would have never submitted this, judging by some of his other remarks.
Someone should submit a link of an example; this does not do so any more than a blog rant about the "global warming hoax" contributes to climatology.
The only thing you've helped prove, as requested, is that there are far better stories about physicists and economics to submit here than a political essay by Albert Einstein. :)
Einstein is championing a system shown not to work. Why should I spend any more time refuting that in 2010 than I would trying to counter some old essay by an economist on the luminiferous aether?
I remain to be convinced that economists can, in general, intelligently contribute to economics. At least physics gets results...
"...economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future [which has evolved beyond the 'predatory phase' with which economists of today are concerned with].
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. ...
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 assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
(Comments in brackets are mine)
Every downturn of the economic cycle leads to declarations that capitalism is disproved. Oddly, some people refuse to acknowledge that tens of millions of dead people seem to be much stronger evidence against command economies and socialism. (Socialism in the 20th century sense, not "welfare systems bolted atop market systems" in the Teabagger sense.)
Of course you may well reject such an argument, as I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist were an inevitable consequence of their politico-economic structure.
My point is not to claim that either of these points of view are true or false. My point is that complex, somewhat subjective and potentially contentious historical analyses are required to attribute causation to the 20th century's multiple clusters of mass homicide (unlike, say, the deaths caused by the 1918 flu pandemic where an objective attribution of cause is relatively straightforward).
The evidence is not as straightforward as you portray it.
(edit: I missed out the word 'deaths' in the first paragraph)
Wait, wait, wait, hold up - in what universe are Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan capitalist? Both countries had heavy government ownership, control, and coordination of industry. Hitler's party was the National Socialist German Workers Party - the Third Reich state owned all the chemical production and most of the industrial production in Germany. People loosely in favor of socialism don't like counting Nazi Germany among socialists, but they definitely had worker/state control over industry.
Unless you mean to imply that the United States, England, and France started WWII? I mean, you could make a roundabout Treaty of Versailles argument to do that, but clearly the Axis war economies of WWII were not free enterprise/free market/capitalist.
That would be a simple version of the argument I have in mind. Basically I don't think WW1 and WW2 were disconnected events, there is a path of historical causation that runs through both.
Mind, I didn't mention the wars; I actually had in mind the people who died en masse in "peacetime".
"I might reject the argument that the tens of millions of deaths in totalitarian states that described themselves as communist"
You might; I'd be impressed by that as I would be the latest from the Discovery Institute.
Only if you see the rise of Nazism and WW2 as discrete historical events with no causal relationship to the years that immediately preceded them. I've encountered reasonable arguments that the first half of the 20th century was dominated by a single protracted world war with a lapse in explicit hostilities in the 1920s. The rise of any ideology has to be accompanied by conducive political and economic conditions.
You might; I'm as impressed of that as I am by ID.
Apparently your repeated mistake is to confuse the methodologies that lead to sound scientific theory and the methodologies that lead to sound historical theory. I'm attempting to highlight complexity and nuance in the history of the 20th century that you are overlooking. If you refuse to see it then no amount of rational argument will help.
This is not required.
I'm afraid I have to view the rest of your response, straw-manning arguments I haven't even made, as pure trolling; ta.
EDIT: Been on the net almost 20 years, and I've come to accept that there's always going to be a class of person who'll wander up, recite one side of a script in his head, and declare victory when people realize what he's on to. :)
"smoothly conflate mercantilism and capitalism."
That mercantilism was a phase of capitalism is a common - though not universally accepted - point of view.
"WW2 flat requires the re-branding of command economies as "capitalist"."
Repeating myself somewhat, but that depends on how you attribute causation. That capitalism was in crisis in the 1930s is pretty uncontentious. That the effects of that crisis on Germany contributed to the rise of Nazism is also fairly uncontentious. The rest depends on how you weight those factors against others.
I appreciate that you are not open to the view that a non-murderous and non-totalitarian socialist society is possible. I myself am on the fence.
However I do strongly believe the first half of my argument: that capitalism begets death and destruction on a scale that exceeds the murderousness of the 20th century's totalitarian regimes (whether within 'wartime' or 'peacetime' matters not to me).
I hope that something better is possible. I accept that based on the empirical evidence we are screwed.
However, his political argument in that essay should not be given special credence because he was one of history's greatest physicists.
I don't see why you're defending an essay pimping socialism after the results of socialism over the course of the 20th century. Einstein had the excuse of much of what happened in the Soviet Union being effectively covered up; in the wake of our knowledge of what happened there, during the Cultural Revolution, etc., it's just not excusable in 2010.
It's like linking to Ludwig von Mises rambling about FTL travel.
They are called the "Fundamental Theorems of Welfare Economics" - look it up in any graduate econ text. Stop ranting.
In probably any country it's very difficult to be an economics prof if you go outside narrow ideological bounds. Like if you wanted to pursue Participatory Economics or something, rather than forms of capitalism or marxism-leninism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics
"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"
Sure. But it seems as though Einstein is arguing against a _caricature_ of capitalism, ignoring the free and voluntary cooperation required among its participants for it to succeed. The _cooperation_ inherent in a functioning market economy so often seems to be overlooked.
[Edit:] Well, actually, Stockholm Syndrome is one likely factor. It's amazing what sort of legs that research has, there really should be more comparative studies.
At least the non-socially-conservative libertarians are consistent in being against many of these things (the War on Drugs, military intervensionism, being anti-abortion). But there are plenty of other problems with libertarianism, such as their generally being ok with people getting screwed over by one another, as long as its the result of "market forces", or there's a contract saying it's ok for one to screw over the other.
Then you figure out a way around the economic calculation problem. There's a Nobel in it for you.
Until then, I'm going to simply be amused at how it's unfair to note that Albert Einstein wasn't actually an economic expert, but it's perfectly reasonable to engage in knee-jerk US political stereotypes.
Since knowledge, thinking, and rational action are properties of the individual, since the choice to exercise his rational faculty or not depends on the individual, man’s survival requires that those who think be free of the interference of those who don’t. Since men are neither omniscient nor infallible, they must be free to agree or disagree, to cooperate or to pursue their own independent course, each according to his own rational judgment. Freedom is the fundamental requirement of man’s mind."
-Ayn Rand
Socialism is fundamentally opposed to this view.
At any rate, your quote is a mere ad-hominem attack, and I don't think that anyone here will mistake it for an actual argument.
Then people saw what happened when you tried it.
The foolhardy still believe it has never been tried successfully.
Karl Popper saw this flawed reasoning and how it was never satisfied with any experiment (especially around Marxism) and made a strong case for a firm definition of the word "science"
la plus ca change le plus le meme chose
Then people saw what happened when you tried it."
Yeah. All the citizens got full medical care, and they had a strong social safety net that protected their welfare. What a nightmare!
Oh, maybe you're not talking about socialism but about totalitarian communism (aka "state capitalism"). That really was a nightmare. But not because of the economics. Rather, it was because bloodthirsty dictators managed to wrench power away from the people and used it to oppress them. This is exactly the opposite of what socialism is about.
As for socialism not being a science... so what? Neither is capitalism.
That happened in market states with welfare systems. You're sharing Glenn Beck's confusion about what exactly "socialism" is.
Note that an otherwise unrestrained free market economy wherein all corporations are required to be employee-owned would, by this definition, be completely socialist.
Soviet-style centralized command economies can be technically called socialist in that the state, as representative of the general public, owns everything; this clearly grossly violates the idea in spirit as a small group of powerful people again end up controlling everything (and typically doing so very poorly).
The term "socialism", like "capitalism", describes a huge range of possible ideas and implementations, and to describe one or the other as broadly good or bad is symptomatic of egregiously lazy thinking.
Note that creationist propaganda would, by this definition, be completely scientific.
This, of course, is because I've chosen an absurd definition of science, not because of lazy thinking of the part of evolutionary biologists.
Arguments about terms with lots of emotional content but very ambiguous meanings tend to look more like people cheering for their local sports team more than like a meaningful discussion.
The problem is, the path to socialism was laid out by Marx as violent uprising against the capitalists. Then people are surprised that the newly minted generals and blood-covered revolutionaries aren't wise and decent rulers? I mean, what the heck did people expect? Castro, Pol Pot, Lenin, Kim Sung Il - I think these guys really, honestly, truly, legitimately had socialist utopia intentions. The problem is, when you overthrow the current regime in a bloodbath - well, what the heck do you expect after that? Peace and harmony?
Afterward, it retroactively becomes capitalism.
Anyway, I should be clear that I am not advocating bloody revolution (I'm against all violence except in clear cases of self-defense). And I very much doubt bloody revolution was what Einstein was advocating either. For that matter, I think you'll find very few advocates of bloody revolution among today's socialists.
The trend is towards peaceful, gradual change towards a more socialist system. Northern Europe and particularly South and Central America are proving to be valuable models in this regard. Unfortunately, the latter has been distorted by bloody American intervention over the last hundred years, and by the anti-democratic dictators the US has propped up. But even there there's hope.
> Just look at what happened after the American Revolution. Oh, wait...
Let me ask, seriously - I've done a lot of looking into it, and I'm at this point firmly convinced that socialism is a bad thing. I have no desire to be under a socialist system, and I'd resist if people tried to put me under one by force. Is there any way I could convince you to abandon socialistic thought? You've made a lot of pro-socialist comments. If it is, I'll be happy to keep discussing.
The main reason the American revolution gave way to good government is that the leaders of the revolution were largely older and more experienced than any other revolution in history. Most revolutionaries are young, and have no idea how to govern once the takeover is complete. Ironically, I'd point to the large mass of successful businessmen, traders, and capitalists as the reason the post-war government was built well in the United States. People like Franklin and Jefferson knew how to build successful organizations. Washington was an actual conventionally trained British military officer, so knew a fair lot more about organization and leadership than the guerrillas like Che, Castro, Kim Sung Il, Mao, Pol Pot, who were largely lost when it came to traditional structures.
So let me ask, if you don't mind - what would it take to convince you either that (1) socialism is largely a bad thing, or (2) you ought to live and let live, and let people want to be part of a collective join, whilst leaving people like me who want to be individuals alone? Because I'll attempt to address those points and criteria you have, and discuss if it's possible to change your mind.
Hybrid systems are just so much more pragmatic. The US is what, 30% socialist? And Europe is closer to 45% socialist? I think up to about 50% socialism (taxes used to redistribute wealth, not necessarily with welfare payments, but infrastrcture building, etc.) is probably desirable.
By what definition? Everyone seems to have their own.
Einstein sure isn't talking about anything that looks remotely like the modern US or Europe.
Really. Have you defined what is and is not socialism in a rigorous, non-subjective manner? Have you conducted empirical studies? Run computer simulations based on behavioral models? Published detailed quantitative predictions based on your understanding of economics? What objective means would you use to test the proposition "socialism is a bad thing"? What scenarios might someone who disagrees with you consider very likely that you would consider very unlikely?
This idea of being "firmly convinced" regarding a question of economics is quite novel, so I'm curious how you've come to it.
Which way to people vote with their feet?
Yes, Western Europe is better than Eastern Europe is better than Africa/Middle East (except Israel), but that's a low bar.
And the US does it with a population that is far more diverse. (No, French and Italians aren't "diverse".)
Europe is starting to become diverse - I hope that it survives. (Did "the youths" stop burning cars in France or did we just stop hearing about it.)
===== 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. =====
Now anyone whose actually observed real people knows that competition tends to bring out the best in people (at least in effort not necessarily in personality). But to someone like Einstein who was self motivated to spend most of his life doing "thought experiments" he doesn't grasp that most people need a push in order to perform.
He also falls into the trap of not subjecting his preferred mechanism (Government) to the same scrutiny as he subjects that which he is opposed to. Take this statement for instance...
==== Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. ====
It clearly didn't strike him that the U.S. Federal Government is controlled by an even smaller, more elite group (The Congress) and that they have more power than any private cabal really ever could. I mean, he says private industry "cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society" but Government can't be checked at all (effectively or otherwise). It is the ultimate power.
In the end Einstein had a theoretical mind and in the world of theory Socialism (and for that matter Communism) makes a lot more sense. That's why intellectuals have been trying to make both work for the last 100 years. But when measuring results Capitalism seems to come out on top.
I suppose you are not familiar with the Executive branch, or the Judicial branch. They are, at least in theory, supposed to share power with Congress. In fact, it could be argued that at the present time (and especially during Bush Jr's term) Congress is the weakest of the three branches.
Then there are all the private interests that influence these branches (most obviously Congress), such as the corporate lobbyists which funnel massive amounts of money in to influencing the decisions of government.
High ranking executives and members of the boards of corporations regularly get influential jobs in government, and when they retire from government they go back to serve as executives in and on boards of corporations.
It's a mistake to consider the US government as a separate entity from that of the corporations. It's all highly incestuous. They are two sides of the same hand.
Perform for the benefit of whom?