Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 10:36 AM Nov 2015

Who would Albert Einstein vote for?

From an article written by Albert Einstein in May 1949:

According to Einstein, the profit motive of a capitalist society, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, leads to unnecessary cycles of booms and depressions, and ultimately encourages selfishness instead of cooperation.[3] In addition, the educational system of such a society would be severely undermined because people will educate themselves only to advance their careers. This results in the "crippling of individuals" and the erosion of human creativity.[3] Unrestrained competition in a capitalist society leads to a huge waste of labor and causes economic anarchy, which Einstein denounces as the real source of capitalism's "evil":

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.[1]

Einstein asserts that a planned economy that adjusts to production would guarantee a livelihood to every member of society:

In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.[1]

In his final words, Einstein cautioned that "a planned economy is not yet socialism", since it may also be accompanied by an "all-powerful" bureaucracy that leads to the "complete enslavement of the individual". It is critically important, therefore, to ensure that a system is in place to protect the rights of the individual.[3]

Motivation

Regarding his motivation for publishing the article, Einstein believed Monthly Review would be a good forum for left wing ideas:

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine [Monthly Review] to be an important public service.[1]

Excerpt

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Socialism%3F


As it stands we have a system which promotes economic inequality. Many of our societal ills stem from the hopelessness of so many with so few. This ought to be our primary goal as Democrats: bringing the poor and sick up to a level whereby they can live with dignity. I'm hoping Bernie goes a step further and does mention market socialism. It's pretty clear who Einstein would vote for.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
3. Keep an open mind: you might just learn something.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:04 AM
Nov 2015

This election is about those who are the least of us. The sick; the poor.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
4. That may be what most important to you. And if that's your only issue, I understand your choice.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:14 AM
Nov 2015

Expand your field of vision: you might just learn something.

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
5. For me, politics is all about serving those in need, the least among us.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 11:50 AM
Nov 2015

Like Kurt Vonnegut I'm an atheist who is a socialist because of the Sermon on the Mount.

I am not used to seeing people openly dismiss the poor and the sick as priorities in a Democratic ideal.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
6. I prefer a more realistic view. The things you mention are important, to be sure,
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:02 PM
Nov 2015

but not to the exclusion of everything else. If, as you say, "politics is all about serving those in need" then that's a very narrow field of vision, and a dangerous one as well. Again, those things are important, but they're not the ONLY things to consider. It's unwise to "openly dismiss" reality and all of the other things that also deserve to be addressed.
-----------------
I love this Sermon on the Mount scene from MP's Life of Brian:

 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
9. I note you failed to list the things you place as equally important to feeding the hungry....
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:54 PM
Nov 2015

No one is saying 'the only, to the exclusion' but you, and you do that to avoid the very simple thing being discussed which is that the first of our priorities should be the least among our neighbors.

NurseJackie

(42,862 posts)
12. Well, those were your words, not mine. "...politics is all about serving those in need..."
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:12 PM
Nov 2015

You didn't say "mostly about", you said "all about". You were very specific, and I took you at your word.

No one is saying 'the only, to the exclusion' but you,

I wasn't quoting you. I was emphasizing the actual meaning of what you said, and pointing out how such a narrowly-focused emotionally-driven politician wasn't likely to be an effective one.

I totally get that this is important to you, and to others. It is important. But it's a mistake to pretend that it's the one issue that tops all others (even if you didn't actually intend to suggest that it 'excluded' all others).

 

MaggieD

(7,393 posts)
8. Words he didn't live by
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:46 PM
Nov 2015

His net worth when he died as about $1 million. That's about $14 million in today's dollars. I guess the world didn't own his means of production.

Gregorian

(23,867 posts)
10. You might be missing the point. No one said there would be equality.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 12:58 PM
Nov 2015

It's wild inequality that we're trying to eliminate.



 

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)
11. Yes and there is no global warming because it snowed this week.
Mon Nov 23, 2015, 01:02 PM
Nov 2015

He held some patents and earned from writing and speaking which is using one's own body as means of production. To get an idea of how little he took advantage of his own fame, his image and works generate 15-20 million dollars a year currently. Dead for half a century. So obviously Albert was not picking all the possible plums.....

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Who would Albert Einstein...