> I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
I was really not expecting such a present, modern, & clear political clash to have been so clearly elaborated 3/4 of a century ago. This is incredible to hear.
This still feels like the defining struggle. We thresh constantly with whether we are willing or not to try for better.
So far in my life time, the USG has been effectively obstructed so effectively trying new legislation to try & doing anything different- we have only minor tweaks & shifts, usually passed under omnibus spending bills. (Obamacare/Romneycare is one noteable exception, which we then spent a colossal amount of federal & state time trying to rescind.)
It saddens me so deeply that there are so few chances to try and do good. Attempts at progress & collectivism are challenged heavily, rarely emerge, and usually only in tattered sorry pieces after going through the legislative gauntlet. There's only mild evidence government can be effective, but to me it feels like it's because we have collectively worked so very hard against trying. Because of exactly the attitude & mindset & fear Einstein described, 73 years ago.
There is a lot wrong with this, seemingly short comment.
Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China.
Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change!
Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own.
I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.
> america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change!
democrats have held various houses & seats.
but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad.
so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action.
the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function.
this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
> that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate
What a frightening notion. Single-party rule, with no objections, surely can't be your objective, right? Right?
He's saying the opposite. He's saying that he wants a situation where two parties can rule together, but that under the circumstances minority action means that no governance gets done at all.
Democracy wasn't intended to be about absolute rule. It was supposed to be a framework for compromise, with a majority-rules tiebreaker. But that's brittle when it's in one party's contention that government is the enemy, and so there is never any point in any negotiation. All of the rules put in place to protect the minority instead become complete gridlock. The OP cites "overwhelming mandate" as the only alternative under the rules -- something that rarely, if ever, happens.
The OP's objective, I think, is to return to a state where negotiations are possible, and where anything the Democratic party proposes is not automatically dead on arrival simply because they proposed it. That's not something you can fix with rules. It's an acknowledgement that the circumstances for which the rules were intended have been frayed to the breaking point, if not past it.
The OP wants, I think, the opposite of single-party rule. They want a situation where the two parties are capable of doing something other than using the rules to harm each other, and instead think about how to coordinate a nation of 300 million people with diverse beliefs and values.
Telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly freedom of speech, and the staple content of campaign platforms: "Candidate B is a snake with a checkered past; vote for A, the trustworthy alternative!"
The fact that a world famous scientist whose name is synonymous with “genius” was a staunch socialist seems an underplayed point.
Not that we should expect physics expertise to lend credibility to politics. It just seems like everyone knows Einstein and his work but very few know of his politics, which he held so strongly.
In terms of mathematics and physics he was a genius. In every other field, he was just some dude.
In fact in this instance he's repeating the common Germanic gestalt. Nothing profound, nothing out of the ordinary, just standard-issue Prussian Socialist talking points he adopted by default like pretty much everyone else who grew up in that culture.
How many famous scientists are you aware of who were conservative? I assume Edward Teller was, but I'm not sure. I'd make a bad lawyer because I'm actually asking a question I don't exactly know the answer to. That said, academia has always tended liberal so I do have a suspicion as to which way it would lean.
It makes sense; those who enter academia choose to devote their gifts to the progress of human knowledge, at the expense of anything more than a slim chance of fame or wealth. It's not surprising that their political views tend to be socially rather than individually focused.
Am I supposed to trust politicians that sold out to their donors that they will appoint people smart enough to lead an industry? I've witnessed politicians mostly appointing their friends.
If they will not appoint them they are still in charge of what rules those leaders are supposed to follow.
To get socialism working you need good people but those aren't easily attracted to those positions. And even then they need to be able to balance resources that can only satisfy the needs of a subset of the society anyway.
Usually the self-serving people got into position of making decisions and used that to advance their grasp on power, eventually subverting any attempts at accountability.
20 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 52.2 ms ] threadI was really not expecting such a present, modern, & clear political clash to have been so clearly elaborated 3/4 of a century ago. This is incredible to hear.
This still feels like the defining struggle. We thresh constantly with whether we are willing or not to try for better.
So far in my life time, the USG has been effectively obstructed so effectively trying new legislation to try & doing anything different- we have only minor tweaks & shifts, usually passed under omnibus spending bills. (Obamacare/Romneycare is one noteable exception, which we then spent a colossal amount of federal & state time trying to rescind.)
It saddens me so deeply that there are so few chances to try and do good. Attempts at progress & collectivism are challenged heavily, rarely emerge, and usually only in tattered sorry pieces after going through the legislative gauntlet. There's only mild evidence government can be effective, but to me it feels like it's because we have collectively worked so very hard against trying. Because of exactly the attitude & mindset & fear Einstein described, 73 years ago.
Let's begin with the fact that telling people not to vote for who they want to vote is clearly a violation of their right for representation. The USA is a two party system, so you either vote Democrat or you vote Republican. Telling people yo "just stop voting republican" is endorsing a one party system, like China.
Second, people dont actually vote Republican all the time, america has had many Democrat presidents and congressmen, but what is happening? Why aren't changes coming our way? What is the point of not voting republican, hence voting democrats, if nothing actually seems to change!
Here I think it makes sense to introduce the concept of systemic corruption, the modern political system in the USA is completely corrupt and I'm not talking about big sugar paying senators... Though that is corruption, the kind of corruption I'm discussing is much less visible. Its about politicians sustaining a system that empowers their own class (the wealthy). Legalizing lobby, legalizing gerrymandering, etc. Politicians benefit their own, and most people are not their own.
I think it was Einstein himself that once pointed out the pointlessness of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Personally, I think what we need is the introduction of new political forces to the system, and by I mean a much more direct form of democracy, sadly... I dont think this is going to happen in america any time soon.
democrats have held various houses & seats.
but republican obstructionism is at an unbelievable pinnacle. the Republican's Hastert Rule has changed politics- being antagonic & denying governance is polticially advantageous, activated the antagonistic conservative base. preventing governance reinforces this view Einstein captured that individuality is the only thing that counts, that all governance is bad.
so there is no cooperation, no willingness to do good for goodness sake. and in the current governmental structure in the us, that means the democrats need a supermajority in the senate, a majority in the house, a president, and somewhat balanced supreme court. without a crushing & overwhelming mandate, simply vast, nothing can get done other that tearing things up & some mild executive orders. like the g8, all it takes is an incredibly minor veto voice to prevent action.
the act of governing is in too much of a political bind right now. in part because of the widespread popular anti-governance stance that has been so rabidly adopted, which is uncompromising & aggressively politically aligned against a functioning state. and in part because the structure of the system, it's checks and balances, have been structurally exploited to prevent any balance & enable only checks, again denying the state it's power to function.
this seems far simpler & more believable an exppanation than suggesting the entire democratic party is systematical corrupt & unwilling to try to do good, to support the status quo iniquities of the ongoing nephatious class-war capitalism has wrought, that einstein also describes incredibly incredibly incredibly accurately g well here. I've seen democrats trying to move progressive agendas my whole life, i see evidence they want to. But they have been foiled, another thing i see strong evidence of.
What a frightening notion. Single-party rule, with no objections, surely can't be your objective, right? Right?
Democracy wasn't intended to be about absolute rule. It was supposed to be a framework for compromise, with a majority-rules tiebreaker. But that's brittle when it's in one party's contention that government is the enemy, and so there is never any point in any negotiation. All of the rules put in place to protect the minority instead become complete gridlock. The OP cites "overwhelming mandate" as the only alternative under the rules -- something that rarely, if ever, happens.
The OP's objective, I think, is to return to a state where negotiations are possible, and where anything the Democratic party proposes is not automatically dead on arrival simply because they proposed it. That's not something you can fix with rules. It's an acknowledgement that the circumstances for which the rules were intended have been frayed to the breaking point, if not past it.
The OP wants, I think, the opposite of single-party rule. They want a situation where the two parties are capable of doing something other than using the rules to harm each other, and instead think about how to coordinate a nation of 300 million people with diverse beliefs and values.
I think you're thinking of a quote about the definition of insanity that is frequently misattributed to Einstein but was not actually said by him.
Not that we should expect physics expertise to lend credibility to politics. It just seems like everyone knows Einstein and his work but very few know of his politics, which he held so strongly.
In fact in this instance he's repeating the common Germanic gestalt. Nothing profound, nothing out of the ordinary, just standard-issue Prussian Socialist talking points he adopted by default like pretty much everyone else who grew up in that culture.
Am I supposed to trust politicians that sold out to their donors that they will appoint people smart enough to lead an industry? I've witnessed politicians mostly appointing their friends.
If they will not appoint them they are still in charge of what rules those leaders are supposed to follow.
To get socialism working you need good people but those aren't easily attracted to those positions. And even then they need to be able to balance resources that can only satisfy the needs of a subset of the society anyway.
Usually the self-serving people got into position of making decisions and used that to advance their grasp on power, eventually subverting any attempts at accountability.
A major social change of everything all at once is disorder. I don't want to be ruled by the kind of people who benefit from disorder.
DemSoc/Welfare capitalism seems to be far more proven and tested, and I care a lot more about that than theories of surplus value.