You must log in or register to comment.
“The good of the people” is a noble goal. The problem is that for the most part, people who deliberately seek power to lead these groups are vain, greedy, selfish, brutal assholes.
Collectivism, as Karl Marx wrote it, has never been practiced in any so-called “communist” country on Earth. It’s always been an oligarchy.
OP is talking about socialism, not communism?
Kinda. Einstein here is referring to an eventual fully publicly owned and collectivrly planned economy in a world republic, which is what Communists aspire to. Communism is that world-government stage, Socialism is the process of building towards that stage. So, when Einstein espouses the necessity of Socialism, he means in the process of building towards Communism.
All Communists are at first Socialists, because that’s the most immediate stage to reach.
Hmm, OK. Personally I believe in socialism (like democratic socialism) but I don’t think communism is going to work. Especially a planned economy has been shown to not work at least a couple of times.
Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don’t really know what you’re getting at, here. If you’re talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they’ve “made it” by working at their father’s banking firm.
Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by planned economies “not working.” There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don’t really know what you’re referring to here.
Planned economy isn’t mandatory for socialism. Market socialism exists, for example the socialist market economy practiced (quite successfully) by China. (And no, I do mean democratic socialism, not Social Democracy or the Nordic model)
I think anyone can point to USSR and China as examples of failed planned economies, so I am quite surprised by you claiming to know nothing about that. I wouldn’t include Cuba because there have been a lot of unjust outside pressures against its economy. I will say I don’t know much about the AES states so I will have to look into that, but at a quick glance I don’t see anyone describing their economy as planned?
China is heavily planned. This isn’t really a point in your favor, China’s Socialist Market Economy works because it’s so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.
Furthermore, again, I don’t know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as “economic failures.” They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy’s myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.
As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.
Edit: to respond to your edit about “Democratic Socialism,” such a name is redundant. Socialism is democratic, and that includes AES, or “Actually Existing Socialism.” What are you specifically talking about?
China is heavily planned.
Oh, OK. If that’s what you believes… (I wonder if you have talked with someone who actually live in China currently?) I don’t think there will be much more I can say that would convince you otherwise. But I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
Did he form these views before or after he lived out his life in the country that is the anthesis of socialism? 🤔
After. In 1923, he fled Berlin to the United States, and was a member of a liberal political party. He was thoroughly anti-soviet at the time, but eventually his views changed and balanced out. In 1949, he wrote Why Socialism? as he became increasingly convinced of the logical necessity for the transition to Socialism, and a world government. He also changed his tune on Lenin and the Soviets:
“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”
Part of what changed his views were becoming friends with prominent American Communists such as the legendary Paul Robeson. Over time, he took increasingly gentle and in some cases supportive stances towards the Soviet system, and was anti-War, including the nuclear Arms Race that the US relentlessly pushed forward.
Einstein, however, had serious internal chauvanism. He was a supporter of Zionism (which, while faded over time, never truly faded), and had this to say about the Chinese:
“Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse… It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.
This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don’t think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.
I deleted my comment because this is a masterful response. I want to remain on record, though, that you’re replying to an idiot who is trying to cause problems. You’re better than me for not pointing that out lol.
Oh I’m aware, haha. I just try to take the road less traveled in case any onlookers might have their views changed by seeing a genuine response.
(appeal to authority)
The anti-communist in the meme was also making an attempt to appeal to authority
socialism might be nice but just getting rid of billionaires is a great start.
Can’t do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.
We could always introduce a purge. Maybe every 5-10 years (random) the 10 wealthiest individuals must fight to the death. Win or lose they lose all their money and have to start over. Its like the Olympics. And they can use their money to equip themselves, with tech and weapons.
Its like the Olympics
But yeah capitalism is no bueno
In capitalism, the wealthiests make the rule, not us.
I’d say Capital itself makes the rules, the wealthiest just try to guess at those rules the best they can. The M-C-M’ circuit isn’t very “human” in design, it’s more like a law of nature for this level of development.
Most intellectuals are socialist
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
Indeed
"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn’t apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.
First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.
Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.
Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you’ll notice that the “disasters” are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.
Finally, there is the non-sequitor of “free speech, liberty, and property rights.” Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague “values,” the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.
crank economist?
Really? Ever read basic economics? Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, by stating he is a crank economist you are disqualifying yourself.
https://rumble.com/v4u4a8i-basic-economics-by-thomas-sowell.html?e9s=src_v1_pr
I’m well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he’s a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn’t disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.
Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
See Argentina what a blessing deregulation is, we need a lot more Milei and less Marx. Socialism is one of the main reasons why Africa is still poor (read Magatte Wade - the heart of a cheetah). Economy is not a zero sum game - who cares that someone else is rich. Is that envy speaking?
Sowell started out as a Marxist btw. It is just a flawed ideology and in its most extreme form always ends in dictatorship.
https://rumble.com/vjzm8i-why-socialism-is-very-appealing-thomas-sowell.html
I’m well aware of Basic Economics.
So I guess you haven’t read it?
Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn’t great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.
As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren’t under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion’s share of their resources:
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there’s been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they’re overexploited!
Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.
No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.
I’m aware of Sowell’s past as a “Marxist.” Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.
I’ve read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven’t read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don’t imagine you’ve read Marx’s works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.
Argentina is collapsing.
Jaja, I love real world examples. The opposite is true. You can see basic economics working in practice 😀
Poverty is down and lower than when Milei started his presidency. Do you really think the poor care that his policies will make a few rich folks even richer? They just want shelter, safety and some food.
@[email protected] so bruv, what were you saying? I got banned from that thread over there.
You can DM people, by the way. You don’t need to go into posts, if you like you can click on people’s profiles and message them directly. Unless you want to talk on this thread specifically, of course.
Either way, I explained why there are Marxists on Lemmy, and why Belgium isn’t Socialist but China is. If you want to talk more about that, we can, but I’m not sure what you are trying to say based off this comment alone.
Sent you a message after clicking on your username on the post I got banned on, just to see if it reaches you.
I know Belgium isn’t socialist, we’re rather social democratic.
There’s also market socialism which doesn’t require public ownership, just that the workers own the company. Something like Huawei.
But the end result. We have a median net wealth of 250k euros per adult. I’m quite happy about that.
We have some nationalised stuff. Our commuting train company, post company, Bank and insurance, bus transport, télécommunications company. Infrabel.
The government plays a major role in our lives but they are still liberal.
They just tax and transfer. 45% of the GDP is tax revenue. Belgians are doing just fine.
Owning key industries is useful, like the french with their nuclear reactors. But you as employee it’s better to have private options as well when it comes to employment.
Like in Cuba they have 1 employer. The government. Sure, the doctors get paid the most in the country, but still they flee to other Latin American countries so that they can fund their family in a luxurious housing unit in Havana.
This is because there’s more competition to buy the doctors their services in those other Spanish speaking countries in the Americas.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t dislike socialist economic stuff, if it’s used properly.
I despise the censorship.
Saying Belgium is “more Socialist” is clearly wrong, though. It’s a Capitalist country, China is Socialist.
Cooperatives are not “socialism,” they exist in a broader economy. China has a Socialist Market Economy, it has cooperatives and whatnot but that doesn’t define their system, it’s the public sector.
All countries have public and private sectors. Belgium’s public sector is subservient to its private sector, though, the private sector is made up of large firms and is the driving aspect of the economy. It is the opposite in China, hence my point.
There is nothing inherently better about having a private option. Cuba has a private sector as well, though it is subservient to the public. That isn’t why they have lower wages, though, it’s because of brutal embargoes.
Everyone censors, in different ways, that which goes against their interests.
With the market cap of their SOE’s, they have a broader impact on their economy. Sure, china is the most socialist relevant country in the world as of now.
Censorship can be ranked like anything else can.
https://rsf.org/en/index like they are trying to do.
It isn’t about market cap. The rubber factory has more power than the rubber ball factory, as an example, market cap is one window.
As for RSF, it’s a government-funded western propaganda outlet designed to manufacture consent against countries that don’t toe the Western line.
The NED in particular is pretty damning.
RSF was just an example to show that such a ranking exists. Removing conflict of interest and the ability to censor will be what’s needed in order to have real unguided public opinion.
That’s difficult to achieve.
The major thing to think about are things like CP, obviously that needs to be removed from existence.
So there’s positives to control, but nobody does anything for free.
Like here at Lemmy, I assume an instance creator of a popular instance will be able to be bought by companies or politicians.
Like Musk just bought twitter, lots of newspaper companies are owned by oligarchs. Other sources of news are owned by governments.
There’s always a conflict of interest.
It’s difficult to get away from.
