• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

"Why Socialism?" by Albert Einstein

Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Why Socialism? :: Monthly Review

Interesting article first published in 1949. Many parts of it seem highly relevant today. 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. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
​
And...

The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
​
Please discuss.
 
Chisti

Chisti

Active Member
Greystone said:
I don't think that Albert Einstein ever supported socialism. He was a scientist. The main problem with socialism is that is quickly breaks down. For example look at Zimbabwe which was ruled by the socialist Robert Mugabe and in the last few years has become a hell hole.
Click to expand...

Zimbabwe is capitalist.
 
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Greystone said:
I don't think that Albert Einstein ever supported socialism. He was a scientist. The main problem with socialism is that is quickly breaks down. For example look at Zimbabwe which was ruled by the socialist Robert Mugabe and in the last few years has become a hell hole.
Click to expand...

This is the Socialist DIR, by the way. If you want to debate, please start a thread in a debate forum.
 
Last edited:
Sunstone

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Kilgore Trout said:
If Einstein can't figure it out, nobody on RF is going to either.
Click to expand...

Although not much in the way of solutions can be expected from RFers, I doubt it's anywhere near as hopeless as your statement would seem to suggest. For instance, You don't need to be as politically smart as James Madison to have learned from James Madison that a system of checks and balances can help to preserve liberty. And, besides, who says Einstein lacked practical ideas about it? Was the point of his essay to present such ideas?
 
Chisti

Chisti

Active Member
Sunstone said:
Yup, that's approximately the challenge Einstein points to in the article. So, what's the solution?
Click to expand...

Democracy at the workplace, meaning workers should be able to make decisions on production, distribution etc. As of now, democracy is restricted to voting, perhaps true democracy is about letting workers themselves determine their needs. That could establish a true socialist society.
 
atanu

atanu

Member
Premium Member
Sunstone said:
Why Socialism? :: Monthly Review

Interesting article first published in 1949. Many parts of it seem highly relevant today. 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. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
​
And...
The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
​
Please discuss.
Click to expand...

I used to have this discussion with my father, who was an inveterate socialist/communist, often. I used to argue that humans by nature are protective of self interest and that simple self interest degenerates to more obnoxious effects. He used to counter that there was always an ongoing dialectical process that self-corrected the biases.

Now 10 years after passing away of my father and crumbling of most socialistic governments, this question resurfaces. :)

I think that dialectics is built in nature and that no single human is cause of anything. Many socialistic leaders might start good but somehow with time their good efforts are undermined by their own preferences and by their inabilty to rise above the individual self. Thus, I believe, that it is for the individual to gain knowledge of the true self and of the working of nature (cause and effect -- karma) to be really useful to society in meaningful way.

Acknowledging the natural stratifications in society and the individual aspirations, a rational man still can be a good socialist.

Add: I personally think that Materialistic basis of Marxian philosophy has flaws.
 
Last edited:
lunakilo

lunakilo

Well-Known Member
You say Socialist Only
How do you define a socialist?

I have noticed that people from the USA tend to have a different oppinion on what socialism is compared to people in fx. Europe.

If I am a social liberal does that mean I am a socialist or is that to liberal?
How left wing does one have to be a socialist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top