"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.
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.
About half of the PRC's economy is publicly owned and centrally planned, and the private sector is under strict planning and guidelines. Industries like Steel, which other industries rely on, are publicly owned and centrally planned in a manner that has control over the Private Sector. Five year plans guide the economy, and Capital is subservient to the State.
I'll mirror your statement back at you: I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
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.
Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said "fuck off and fuck Zionism."
Hey history buffs: why did Einstein flee to the US when he believed this? Why not flee to the USSR?
My overall opinion on that matter is that, ultimately, Einstein grasped the logical necessity of Socialism as outlined in Why Socialism? but contained many chauvanistic attitudes common to Western Socialism. He changed his tune from being firmly anti-Soviet in the 20s to overall greatly complimenting Lenin:
“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.”
The chauvanistic attitudes, however, are often swept under the rug. With respect to Chinese people, he commented in his diary:
"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.
Einstein also wrote some colorful things about Latin America
"I have no desire to meet semi-acculturated Indians wearing tuxedos."
It's a good reminder of how ingrained colonialism is in society, and how no one is immune of its influences in our worldview.
