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.
this post was submitted on 24 Jan 2025
-1 points (40.0% liked)
Memes
51016 readers
1311 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Dictators love the poorly educated.
No, they just need their votes.
"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.
load more comments
(3 replies)
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.
Incredible write up comrade. I was not aware of Einstein's views on the Chinese and on Zionism.
Thanks! Einstein is... complicated. The best way to view him is as someone who logically came to believe in the necessity of Socialism, without seriously confronting his liberalism or the pro-Western Chavuanism he had from his early days. I think Why Socialism? is very useful as it contains none of that chauvanism while making a clear case to liberals who idolize him why they may be wrong about Socialism.
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.
Einstein directly asks and answers your question in the very first lines of Why Socialism?
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
He then goes on to make his case, then builds up why he believes Socialism is necessary. I agree that intelligence is multi-faceted and doesn't necessarily imply "spill-over," but that's not what's going on here.
Likewise, there are many things I clearly disagree with Einstein on politically and socially, such as his view of Chinese people and support for Zionism. I also am more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than he was. However, his position as an intellectual that came to understand the necessity of Socialism without dedicating himself to its study serves to highlight for those who think Socialism outlandish that it isn't unreasonable at all, and the case he makes is largely on the nose.
I recommend reading it yourself.
Interesting, well I do have a lot to read on the subject but i'll add it to my list, I might be pleasantly surprised.
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.
load more comments
(2 replies)
(also pinging @Cowbee@lemmy.ml)
Sometimes*, it's still worth replying to bad faith 'debate', not to discuss or even necessarily refute them, but to address their audience, including lurkers.
That said, it's also good to have FAQs and links so you don't waste 30 minutes of your labor replying to a downvoted sunken bad faith one-liner.
No thats a great mindset. I just have no faith in humanity.
I've had many people at this point DM or reply to me saying they appreciate my input and learned something new, and this helps me keep my faith up. There are also those who consider me a "troll" which is silly, and others who are eternally anti-Marxist-Leninist no matter what, but those aren't the people I really try to reach, it's the more reasonable people that are more receptive and act in better faith. Funnily enough, I have developed a bit of an "anti-fan club."
In cases like this, it's pretty much a lay-up for me to put a bit of effort in, as you can see from the response my comments are getting on this post. In other cases, I ignore because I can tell the other person's mind is made up and there's no chance of onlookers anyways.
Ultimately, it's a balance.
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.
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
load more comments
(22 replies)
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.
view more: next ›