I don't think they say "No intellectual would be a socialist", instead they say intellectuals are bad and evil. It's a classic pattern among dictator cults of personality.
Dictators love the poorly educated.
No, they just need their votes.
Most intellectuals are socialist
I remember a republican coworker arguing that Interstellar’s concept of time dilation was super unrealistic and that can’t possibly be how things are. All this to say, I’m sure Einstein is about to be cancelled and relativity denied as hard as climate change.
I look forward to the collapse of civilization when all of the satellites stop communicating with our computers because our satellites are sending messages from the future.
Also, ruining GPS for everyone would be a really effective scapegoat for Tesla's full self-driving failures.
All but those Starlink satellites….
A customer told me they don't believe in space last night 😞
Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said "fuck off and fuck Zionism."
Source? Never heard of this
He wasn't a SeRiOuS intellectual though.
Need a sever lack if humor for that sweet sweet capitalistic greed.
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.
I think we've been doing this capitalism thing all wrong. All these issues are because we forgot to do the sacrifices.
We should be taking the top .1% of capitalist and using them to perform routine blood sacrifice rituals to appease the capitalist gods.
We then use their capital to fund a festival that last until then funds run out.
Their purity of capitalism will surely appease the gods and end all these climate change issues we've been experience.
I can recommend this piece from Hobo Johnson ("why socialism by Albert Einstein")
https://open.spotify.com/track/4LJ04AiwnuXqzufGnejnkx?si=ZtN5yWqDTE-5twhw9n2DmA
And while you're there just check out the rest of his work, man's amazing.
Youd be hard pushed to find many who weren't
And the name of that Albert Einstein...?
Carl Sagan.
It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.
At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.
https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/
To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article
What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.
The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.
Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying
/lazyposting
For what it's worth, I agree, one person's narrow expertise does not directly translate to knowledge elsewhere. Einstein admits as such, yet explains exactly why Socialism is a necessary step forward and why he thinks those not trained traditionally in political economy should still have a voice. Further, Einstein's essay just shows his thoughts on the matter, I don't consider it a genuine work of theory, more a springboard to look into actual Marxist theory.
This is where our agreement ends. Socialism is, factually, more democratic than Capitalism. By collectivizing the economy, it can be democratically directed and planned, as already has been the case in many AES countries. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR's economy was democratized and how it functioned.
Your last point is just anti-intellectualism, and ignores that Marxism has, historically, been extremely popular among the working class, and in the Global South. Your article is very western-centric, only analyzing thoroughly Imperialist countries like the United States and Western European countries, and shuts out the vast majority of actual, practicing Marxists in the real world.
Edit: Oh, you changed your entire comment. You're going back to defending Imperialism and suggesting a system where workers are heavily exploited are only problems for "losers." This isn't a serious point. You want to throw workers to the meat grinder and find poverty fine as long as the wealthiest live free, which is very sad.
(appeal to authority)
The anti-communist in the meme was also making an attempt to appeal to authority
It is not an appeal to authority.... It's called a rebuttal. If someone makes a claim that no real smart person can do x, an easy way to prove them wrong is to provide an example of a smart person doing x.
true ig i was wrong
(btw I'm not far right and fully agree with this, I just like being annoying and pointing out things like this)
I mean, kinda? It's a meme, really. The actual article itself though isn't an appeal to authority, rather, it outlines pretty well the basics of why a publicly owned and planned economy is logically the correct path to take.
"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.
I think Parenti said it best, in Blackshirts and Reds:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
To that end, Marx's conception of Socialism, that being a state run by the proletariat along the lines of a publicly owned and planned economy, has existed in many areas, and does to this day. These are called "AES" states. You're partially correct in that no AES state has made it to the historical stage of Communism, which requires a global world government and a fully publicly owned and planned economy, but this is a historical stage requiring Socialism to be fully developed first.
I think you would gain a lot from reading some books on AES states, such as Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. These aren't "oligarchies," or whatnot, but Socialism in existence, warts and all. We need to learn from what worked and what didn't to progress onwards, it's clear that Capitalism is in a death spiral and Socialism remains the way forward.
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.
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to "tyrants." You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
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.
Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders
At this point it doesn't matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.
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.
That's a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn't know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn't put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can't be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It's especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it's what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it's only a part.
I'd say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
