Albert Einstein on Socialism

[Mac1958]

.

The problem is a political system that allows for moneyed interests to influence so much.

Properly & efficiently regulated capitalism could still be the best system ever created.

Removing the incentive to buy political influence would change much.

It's a problem that could be fixed, but we choose not to. Okay, well, here we are.

.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

.

The problem is a political system that allows for moneyed interests to influence so much.

Properly & efficiently regulated capitalism could still be the best system ever created.

Removing the incentive to buy political influence would change much.

It's a problem that could be fixed, but we choose not to. Okay, well, here we are.

.

Removing the incentive to buy political influence would change much.

If the government only controlled 10% or 12% of GDP, there would be much less interest in investing
money in political influence.

 

[SwimExpert]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this, but citing Einstein regarding economics is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Einstein was an authority on Physics. Speaking of, do you know what his position on quantum mechanics was? He rejected it. Which is ironic, seeing as he was essentially the person who gave birth to it.

 

[occupied]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Not sure where you're trying to go with this, but citing Einstein regarding economics is an appeal to authority fallacy.

Einstein was an authority on Physics. Speaking of, do you know what his position on quantum mechanics was? He rejected it. Which is ironic, seeing as he was essentially the person who gave birth to it.

Politicians speak authoritatively about economics all of the time in spite of not being economists and being nowhere near as smart as Einstein. I am not sure how versed he was in political science but in this case he was essentially correct. Labor is always the first scapegoat when the "job creators" fuck up and pay with their livlihoods.

 

[SwimExpert]

Politicians speak authoritatively about economics all of the time in spite of not being economists and being nowhere near as smart as Einstein. I am not sure how versed he was in political science but in this case he was essentially correct. Labor is always the first scapegoat when the "job creators" fuck up and pay with their livlihoods.

Nonetheless, it is still appeal to authority fallacy.

 

[BluesLegend]

There are plenty of thug murderous socialist countries who would love to abuse you libs, go ahead pack up and move there.

 

[BluesLegend]

.

The problem is a political system that allows for moneyed interests to influence so much.

Properly & efficiently regulated capitalism could still be the best system ever created.

Removing the incentive to buy political influence would change much.

It's a problem that could be fixed, but we choose not to. Okay, well, here we are.

.

Removing the incentive to buy political influence would change much.

If the government only controlled 10% or 12% of GDP, there would be much less interest in investing
money in political influence.

The 5 largest employers in communist liberal controlled Oregon are...state government entities with government employees paid for by taxes on the poor and middle class.

 

[occupied]

Politicians speak authoritatively about economics all of the time in spite of not being economists and being nowhere near as smart as Einstein. I am not sure how versed he was in political science but in this case he was essentially correct. Labor is always the first scapegoat when the "job creators" fuck up and pay with their livlihoods.

Nonetheless, it is still appeal to authority fallacy.

So-what? Do you think he was wrong or right and why?

 

[Toro]

Einstein may have known science, but he sure didn't know much about economics.

 

[SwimExpert]

So-what?

So....it is a logical fallacy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Hey Joe... There's nothing stopping you from being rich, but you.

And Joe, envy is a very ugly instinct.

 

[occupied]

So-what?

So....it is a logical fallacy.

Again, so-what? Does that automatically make the topic null and void? It seems Mr. Einstein had some ideas on socioeconomics that are clearly well thought out and held strongly enough to have been written down at some point. You have not said why you feel strongly enough to comment on this thread and attempt to detract from his opinion. No idea is wrong simply because it does not conform to official rules of rhetoric. Besides, the alleged logical fallacy was committed by OP and not by Mr. Einstein, do you actually have an opinion on the quote in question or are you just being difficult?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So-what?

So....it is a logical fallacy.

Again, so-what? Does that automatically make the topic null and void? It seems Mr. Einstein had some ideas on socioeconomics that are clearly well thought out and held strongly enough to have been written down at some point. You have not said why you feel strongly enough to comment on this thread and attempt to detract from his opinion. No idea is wrong simply because it does not conform to official rules of rhetoric. Besides, the alleged logical fallacy was committed by OP and not by Mr. Einstein, do you actually have an opinion on the quote in question or are you just being difficult?

It seems Mr. Einstein had some ideas on socioeconomics that are clearly well thought out

And clearly wrong. Still a cool guy, even if he was a socialist.

 

[Political Junky]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Hey Joe... There's nothing stopping you from being rich, but you.

And Joe, envy is a very ugly instinct.

Why aren't you rich?

 

[JoeNormal]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Hey Joe... There's nothing stopping you from being rich, but you.

And Joe, envy is a very ugly instinct.

You guys really do need a new shtick. I have over a million dollars in assets. I know, that's not really rich in today's dollars but it's way better off than most. this world is going down and the reason is human stupidity - just like yours. Just keep on buying into the current system. Let's see how far it goes.

 

[bripat9643]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

As an economist, Albert Einstein made a great physicist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Socialism is what protects nations from Communism.

Socialism ameliorates economic conditions in a nation, and thus reduces the chances of more radical movements, such as a communist revolution, occurring.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism is what protects nations from Communism.

Socialism ameliorates economic conditions in a nation, and thus reduces the chances of more radical movements, such as a communist revolution, occurring.

Wrong. All socialism does is make the government stronger. Of course, those who make their living off of government will always defend socialism. It's a feed-back loop. The more people that get on the government teat, the more people there are who have a vested interest in growing the government, and the more people you have who defend socialism.

Capitalism is what ended starvation and poverty, not socialism.

 

[Agit8r]

Just like with pure capitalism, a planned economy puts too much faith the goodness of a few men.

 

[gipper]

From a 1949 essay by Albert Einstein:

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.

Why Socialism

In the wake of technological advances which increasingly benefit only the rich, I think everyone should open their minds to the possibility of what the world could be instead.

Hey Joe... There's nothing stopping you from being rich, but you.

And Joe, envy is a very ugly instinct.

You guys really do need a new shtick. I have over a million dollars in assets. I know, that's not really rich in today's dollars but it's way better off than most. this world is going down and the reason is human stupidity - just like yours. Just keep on buying into the current system. Let's see how far it goes.

Do you believe America's economy today is unfettered capitalism? If so, you could not be more wrong. America is a crony capitalist fascist oligarchy.

The problem with socialism, as with most economic systems, is it requires man to control it...and we all know man is a terribly flawed thing.

Has there ever been a nation with an unfettered capitalist economy?