Why Socialism? – Albert Einstein

Written By: - Date published: 6:53 am, July 24th, 2010 - 42 comments
Categories: Deep stuff, socialism - Tags:

Longer than your average blog post. But worth reading the thoughts of one of the greatest minds ever. Hat tip Information Clearing House. — r0b

Why Socialism?

By Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

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.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word ‘society.’

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call ‘workers’ all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is ‘free,’ what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the ‘free labor contract’ for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from ‘pure’ capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an ‘army of unemployed’ almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

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.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

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 to be an important public service.

42 comments on “Why Socialism? – Albert Einstein ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    24 July 2010 at 7:51 am

    Excellent. Rings as true now as it did 60 years ago in the rubble left by depression and war.

    • ZB 1.1
      24 July 2010 at 8:27 am

      Wait, does it. What would Einstein say about the internet as a means to educate the masses and avoid the private elites controlling mass knowledge. Sure, he’d say stop paying for Sky TV. But would he also point out that we now can educate everyone how utterly reliant they are on everyone else. My kettle was built in China! Yeah, China! China is a socialist run capitalist country. Its dealt with famine, desertification, its buying up massive iron ore and other resources, no western government could do that without the shrinks and howls of private business demanding government hands off. The simple fact is a government that works for the people, like China, will have a competive advantage, and the countries like the US, UK, OZ, NZ, EU countries, where the government is beholdant to private interests, limited by their needs over the needs of their populations won’t. As National put so well, tax cuts for the rich and tax hikes for the many, and its insulting ‘above $50 dollars’ a week. What we need is government that isn’t so excessively interested in business needs and wants, rather we need a government that isn’t, so that it can insure a working economy that business can thrive in. At the moment government policies in western nations have left businesses and citizen under water. Thirty years of Reagan, Thatcher, Rogernomics stupid economics of help business, business will save us, pushing business to aggressively compete with each other has led to the collapse of balance sheets, stock markets and a huge social, economic and environmental mismatch. I’d just like to say to every neo-Conservative, you complete and utter plonkers, you serious deluded bunch of self opinionated egotistical shi-ts, too much greed is worse that too little.

      • michaeljsavage 1.1.1
        24 July 2010 at 12:23 pm

        China is not a socialist country … it is built on the stalinist model as a foundation complete with repression of all kinds. China as a Government works on a xenophobic basis for its own cultural worldview – a Ruling elite calls the shots and now includes several of their new economic aristocracy – its “people” are just a means to an end – not the focus of its policies. China has a competitive advantage because it has built itself on the basis of having an industrial base built on low wages and virtual slave labour. Now they have to become rabid imperialists extending influence and hegemony to satisfy the populace’ desire for higher incomes and opportunity and keep the masses docile.

        This is where the next war is coming from.

        China is not socialist – it is building an empire of conquest .. it started with the illegal invasion of Tibet. It also includes colonisation by exporting its populace, capital and cultural ‘pull’ on ethnic chinese living in other countries among other tactics.

        • ZB 1.1.1.1
          26 July 2010 at 3:03 pm

          China is no worse than the US, the US has supported dictators, suspended habis… etc.

          Look China is a capitalist economy run by Communists. The US is a capitalist
          economy run by private capitalists. China is not in debt over its head, has no problem
          spending billions on deserts and wind farms, and really has a problem if it fails.
          The masses of Chinese will throw out their fat hair red behinds.

          So get a grip, Tibet was always going to be abused, its resource rich nation would have
          come under huge pressure from the West had it broken free from China.

          The problem is not left or right. Its we’re all fraked if we continue the oppression of
          Mother Earth. And no I’m not saying for Mother Earth’s sake, I’m saying for my fat
          hair green behind.

        • jack 1.1.1.2
          8 August 2010 at 2:54 am

          “”China has a competitive advantage because it has built itself on the basis of having an industrial base built on low wages and virtual slave labour. Now they have to become rabid imperialists extending influence and hegemony to satisfy the populace’ desire for higher incomes and opportunity and keep the masses docile.””

          hi mate, quite right, the desire for higher income are a result of inflation and the first few that got rich..

          The big war would be Currency War, not actual real gun-powder war … WW3 won’t happen so soon, as the world is too much diversified and bankers in EU can no longer start a war, as US can’t fight a double sided war (war on china and war within US) it’s not possible.

          Can only happen if a nuke exploded in US or China, which I see have very little chance.

          War can only happen if masses are supporting it, I see masses but no logical reason for masses to giveup their lives.

  2. burt 2
    24 July 2010 at 9:27 am

    People who fail to lear from the mistakes of the past…..

  3. ak 3
    24 July 2010 at 12:05 pm

    …….often attempt retrospective invalidation of great minds.

  4. coolas 4
    24 July 2010 at 1:39 pm

    Thanks for the link

    ‘Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development …’

    How relevant is that!

    Here we have a predatory arch Capitalist leading a bunch of vandals with such hunter food gatherer mentality they wanted to dig up our most precious land.

    Einstein’s warning of ‘seriously endanger(ing) the existence of mankind’ has come to pass and his friend’s question, ‘Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?’ is as shocking now. as it was then.

  5. Justin 5
    24 July 2010 at 1:51 pm

    The experiments of centrally planned economies over the past century have been abject failures.

    Look at Cuba for a start, Cuba produced 7 million tons of sugar in 1952. In 2009, it’s 1.5 million tons. Average monthly wage of $15 a month. Lets not forget the failure of the centrally planned economies of Eastern Europe. Or in New Zealand the terribly inefficient state owned enterprises of the 80s. And the bureaucracy of that era, high prices, inefficient subsidised industry and Muldoon’s socialist Think Big.

    The highly advanced capitalist economies based on private enterprise, are able to afford the most well developed social welfare and health care systems. The huge reduction in poverty in a country such as China, can be directly connected to the the flourishing of private business and competition. Sure capitalism is not perfect, and there are serious issues.

    But at the end of the day, socialism as a form of structuring society and economies, has failed.

    The debate now has moved past socialism vs capitalism.

    What then is more important is how we allocate the resources and structure modern capitalist economy.

    Do we follow the American model or a more welfare based Northern European model of capitalism? How do we place workers rights within capitalism? What is the role of the state?

    It would be interesting to see what Einstein’s views would be today.

    • ZB 5.1
      24 July 2010 at 3:40 pm

      Einstein was not a communist. Blair was the leader of the Socialist Labour party of the UK.
      Can some please explain to the hard of hearing that Social movements have made the west
      strong and vibrant and its only with the union bashing of the 70s that the financial
      party took over and crashed capitalism!

      • Bill 5.1.1
        24 July 2010 at 5:03 pm

        Einstein might not have been a communist, although he willingly and voluntarily defended communists and anarchists who were being persecuted during the McCarthy years and I’d suggest he was closer to both those political philosophies than he was to any ‘third way’ pap as perpetrated by Blair and the British Labour Party among others.

        edit. I know you guys are busy with important stuff and all, and all. But when you have a moment…..moderation release please?

        • jimmy 5.1.1.1
          24 July 2010 at 5:45 pm

          Im no third way fan and nor would I want to attach Einstein with it but this pasage reminded me of Giddens

          “As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings.”

          Excelent post ‘the standard’, Einstein’s the man.

    • Bill 5.2
      24 July 2010 at 4:38 pm

      Justin, you are wildly wrong on a number of points there and misled (or deliberately misleading?) on others.

      Before I go on, I’m not an advocate of central planning and have never had any time for state socialism or soviet style socialism or whatever label you might want to place on it. Just so that you know.

      Yes, command and control economies collapsed. But have you bothered to ask yourself why they collapsed. Was it the central planning that was at fault or was it the wider context within which central planning tried to maintain itself that ensured their demise?

      “Cuba produced 7 million tons of sugar in 1952. In 2009, it’s 1.5 million tons.”

      So what? Where did Cuba export its sugar to in 1952 and does that market still exist?

      “Average monthly wage of $15 a month.”

      So what? If $15 per month is enough to live off in Cuba, then fine. Maybe $15 per month is better than $1000 per month that beneficiaries get in NZ.

      “The highly advanced capitalist economies based on private enterprise, are able to afford the most well developed social welfare and health care systems.”

      So why are the health outcomes of the most highly advanced capitalist economy way behind those of Cuba?

      “The huge reduction in poverty in a country such as China,…”

      What reduction in poverty? Poverty is relative. And the introduction of the market to China has introduced a massive disparity in incomes, ie has created poverty.

      “socialism as a form of structuring society and economies, has failed.”

      Yup. Nobody who should be taken seriously either defends nor advocates the type of socialism you are referring to. Most would say that the forms of organisation you are referring to were never socialist, but were rather simple hierarchical structures designed to favour the elites in the higher echelons of the hierarchy and that the term ‘socialism’ was an available and convenient fig leaf that they were able to appropriate and use in much the same way as our elites have appropriated and use the term ‘democracy’.

      And it is not ‘the end of history’. There is no worthwhile debate about how to produce and allocate resources within a capitalist economy. That’s simply a question of how much regulation is applied to the market. Where workers rights place in a capitalist context is entirely down to the power that workers can or choose to exercise. And the role of the state is the same as it always has been. To manage everything in such a way that the market enjoys primacy in all of our lives.

      Why would it be interesting to see Einstein’s views today? The views he espoused at the time were standard socialist fare and contingent upon a particular place in time. As then, so now. Read some half decent contemporary literature concerned with alternatives to Capitalism and the market and you will be reading something fairly close to what Einstein would say today.

      You might not have noticed, but three of the last four paragraphs of the Einstein’s article were devoted to signposting the problem of central planning and the dictatorship of the ‘red bureaucracy’ as Bakunin termed it.

      “…it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?”

    • Draco T Bastard 5.3
      24 July 2010 at 5:20 pm

      Cuba produced 7 million tons of sugar in 1952. In 2009, it’s 1.5 million tons.

      And that proves what besides the fact that they’ve been under massive economic sanction since throwing out the USAs sponsored dictators?

      Average monthly wage of $15 a month.

      And what’s that in Purchasing Power Parity? I’ll give an example: Asthma medication in the US ~$50, same medicine in Cuba ~5 cents.

      The highly advanced capitalist economies based on private enterprise,

      Not a single high tech “capitalist” economy got there through private enterprise but through state support. We know this as the exact opposite (NZ’s economy has collapsed) has happened in NZ since Rogernomics was instituted.

      But at the end of the day, socialism as a form of structuring society and economies, has failed.

      Actually, it’s never been tried. USSR = State Capitalist, China = State Capitalist, North Korea = State Capitalist. Every socio-economic failure of the past century, including the Great Depression and the present Great Recession, has been the failure of capitalism. Some “capitalist” states have done slightly better but that’s because of their mild socialist leanings.

    • RedLogix 5.4
      25 July 2010 at 10:33 am

      The Spirit Level makes an interesting reference to Cuba somewhere in one of it’s later chapters. In the course of the book it makes a case for proposing a certain maximum GINI (Gross Index of National Inequality) beyond which societies become discoherent and over the long term, unsustainable social environments for humans to live.

      Also we know that highly industrialised nations tend to have carbon/resource footprints that are in the long-term environmentally unsustainable, while poorer nations consume far less per capita.

      Curiously enough Cuba is the only nation that meets the criteria for BOTH social and environmental long-term sustainability.

      The argument does claim that this makes Cuba some kind of utopian paradise on earth…. but it does suggest that what we define as ‘successes’ in the modern world are for the main part… short-term mirages.

    • mcflock 5.5
      26 July 2010 at 2:42 pm

      actually, a Cuban Friendship Society speaker recently reckoned that at the time of the revolution Cuba imported almost all its food, producing sugar to be exported at minimal Brownlee mining royalties prices.

      Apparently the goal is to be entirely self sufficient in food, rather than importing from the other side of the planet because the US boycotts folk who don’t boycott Cuba.

      So yeah, Cubans export less sugar to the West. Now they grow their own food (organically, apparently).

      • Gosman 5.5.1
        26 July 2010 at 11:34 pm

        Wow – organically eh? So I guess they haven’t bothered reading the science on that subject either.

        Great to see the Socialists holding up the totalitarian state of Cuba as a viable model to follow. What next – Zimbabwe?

        LOL!

        • loota 5.5.1.1
          26 July 2010 at 11:44 pm

          Well, in Cuba they live as long and as happily as anywhere else in the western world – for a fraction of the health spend. And cuban salsa is a great past time.

          Ummmmmm your Zimbabwe example is a bit disingenuous Gosman, life expectancy and per capita income in that country is going down the toilet – nothing like the Cuban situation.

  6. Jum 6
    25 July 2010 at 1:26 am

    The best lesson we can learn in life and death is that if humanity fails to survive it really does not ‘matter’. That is the best leveller of all.

  7. jbanks 7
    26 July 2010 at 10:59 am

    Not surprised. Einstein did get quite loony towards the end.

    • mcflock 7.1
      26 July 2010 at 2:47 pm

      Blown anyone away with your stunning intellect lately, jb?

      meh – when a tory demonstrates any mental ability beyond an 80 IQ, I might start to lend credence to their definition of sanity.

      • jbanks 7.1.1
        26 July 2010 at 3:37 pm

        Don’t feel bad, you’re not alone. Frauds and Quacks are always digging up bullshit appeals to authority, either outright fabricating quotes that they attribute to invariably Einstein or “a respected Nobel Laureate” or stumbling on one that has gone a bit loopy in his dotage.

        • mcflock 7.1.1.1
          26 July 2010 at 5:59 pm

          Of course, frauds and quacks can also use gross generalisations and unspecified references to fabrication in order to indirectly discredit precise and accurate quotes/data. And when all’s said and done, if somebody of noted intelligence (even genius) disagrees with with them they can always allege senility.

          Even in his “dotage” (if it ever impacted him significantly), my bet is that Einstein could still have beaten you soundly in logic, political philosophy and economics (note, of course, that physics requires expertise in logic and advanced mathematics, logic is required for political philosophy, and maths is essential for economics, although tory economics can do without logic and frequently maths).

          But keep telling us how you know better than Einstein in *any* field.

          • jbanks 7.1.1.1.1
            26 July 2010 at 8:10 pm

            Hahaha.

            You know you’re desperate when your claim to fame is a 60yr old article from a guy who was no longer capable of constructive contributions to physics. If he only bothered to study some sound economics, then perhaps he never would have written this intellectually shameful essay.

            [lprent: I see that you have the same level of understanding as your namesake. Economics resembles reading chicken entrails for insights more than it resembles a science. Probably why so many wingnuts think that they can understand it. ]

            • Gosman 7.1.1.1.1.1
              26 July 2010 at 11:32 pm

              Actually, if you read Freakonomics or Superfreakonomics you will see that Economics has quite a lot to do with Science, especially in the use of statistical anlysis to confirm validity of hypothesis.

            • McFlock 7.1.1.1.1.2
              26 July 2010 at 11:43 pm

              “from a guy who was no longer capable of constructive contributions to physics.”

              riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. I won’t take your word for it.

              For your next trick you’ll suggest he was on drugs or buggered farm animals in his later years?

  8. Kleefer 8
    26 July 2010 at 11:13 pm

    Einstein was a smart guy but boy, his economic knowledge was rubbish (not really surprising when he was a scientist not an economist).

    He ignores (or is simply unaware of) time preference, capital structure, the price system, the role of the entrepreneur and the capitalist in allocating scarce resources, basically everything one needs to know to understand fully why socialism is a stupid and extremely dangerous idea.

    For a better explanation read George Reisman’s essay “Why Nazism was socialism and socialism is totalitarianism” rather than this wet drivel.

    • McFlock 8.1
      26 July 2010 at 11:46 pm

      “not really surprising when he was a scientist not an economist”

      all note the admission that economics is not a science and that a thorough knowledge of the scientific method cannot enable any understanding of economics…

      • loota 8.1.1
        26 July 2010 at 11:58 pm

        Nice job McFlock.

        Sounded like Kleefer was about to tell us that Gandhi, the Nazis and Stalin were all on the same side.

        It is comorting to know how all these NACT supporters are so familiar with the limits of Einstein’s intellect 🙄

  9. jbanks 9
    27 July 2010 at 9:00 am

    lprent said: “Economics resembles reading chicken entrails for insights more than it resembles a science.”

    Ok, you said it. Then why would a theoretical physicist have any authority on the subject of economics then?

    Like I said, you guys are all “Einstein promoted socialism! he’s a Genius so haha we win” /fail

    How ironic that anyone who’s not a climatologist has an opinion on Global Warming, you’ll have a good cry about that.

    • loota 9.1
      27 July 2010 at 9:08 am

      Don’t consider Einstein just a theoretical physicist. Consider him one of the most intelligent and insightful people who has walked the planet and who thought more deeply about the workings of nature than either you or I have probably done.

      And certainly smarter than most peer published economists.

      • jbanks 9.1.1
        27 July 2010 at 9:31 am

        “And certainly smarter than most peer published economists.”

        Unless they supported socialism in the context of the 1940’s too right?

    • lprent 9.2
      27 July 2010 at 10:53 am

      E probably had no more knowledge than any other intelligent educated person of the time (awareness of economics was barely out of the fetus stage in 1949). On the other hand he was intelligent and observant of his society. He’d weathered at least two depressions and he was able to comment intelligently. Furthermore he was commenting largely on observed social patterns during his lifetime when he was talking about socialism rather than using some half-arsed theoretical model that doesn’t bear that much relationship to chaotic reality.

      Somehow I think that you fail on all counts as being someone worth listening to based on your comments here.

      I’ll listen to E

Links to post