Einstein on Socialism

[edgray]

An interesting read, thanks to Kim for the link:

http://www.socialist-alliance.org/page.php?page=828

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.

 

[Zorak]

Wait... I don't understand any of that. It jump's around so much, leapfrogging from point to point with no explanation, example or relevance.

I'm sure he's trying to make a valid point, but it's so cluttered it's hard to make out what it is beyond individual destruction (Which is ironic considering his individual success from his background)

 

[edgray]

Wait... I don't understand any of that. It jump's around so much, leapfrogging from point to point with no explanation, example or relevance.

I'm sure he's trying to make a valid point, but it's so cluttered it's hard to make out what it is beyond individual destruction (Which is ironic considering his individual success from his background)

it's tough to understand and follow his chain of thought, but there's some great points in there.

 

[Zorak]

Really?

"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."

I challenge anyone to find an economic study that verifies that.

 

[edgray]

Really?

"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."

I challenge anyone to find an economic study that verifies that.

you have to remember when this was written, Zorak. Back then, there simply wasn't the consumer market there is now. There was no budget range. The poor weren't provided for at all. We only have the cheap consumer market because countries like china make everything using such cheap labour.

 

[Zorak]

In fact, there more I read it, the more I think it's simplistic.

"Production is carried on for profit, not for use" Find me a company that's made a profit out of a product that has no use.

Then statements like: "Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all."

At first I was critical of his lack of examples, but now I realise he didn't need them. His ideas are so simple and sweeping they don't even require them.

 

[Zorak]

you have to remember when this was written, Zorak. Back then, there simply wasn't the consumer market there is now. There was no budget range. The poor weren't provided for at all. We only have the cheap consumer market because countries like china make everything using such cheap labour.

Surely that serves to show then that this is out of date? And therefore, completely irrelevant.

 

[Zorak]

Irrelevant isn't the wrong word. But it might be a tad strong. I don't want to start anything overly heated lol.

What I mean to say, is, what value can you or me or anyone get out of these musings, Edgray?

 

[edgray]

In fact, there more I read it, the more I think it's simplistic.

"Production is carried on for profit, not for use" Find me a company that's made a profit out of a product that has no use.

he's not talking about the use of the end product. He's talking about the drive behind production, which is to make profit. An example: Microsoft don't make Windows to make the world or society better, or because it's needed, they make it to make money - profit above all else. That's why their products are shit. This can be applied to the far majority of manufacturers in all areas. It's profit driven, not need driven.

Then statements like: "Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all."

You're arguing against that?

Almost all industries have shrunk due to technological advancements apart from the technological industry itself. The point there is wasted man power, which capitalism relies on to keep the workforce cheap and the profits high.

At first I was critical of his lack of examples, but now I realise he didn't need them. His ideas are so simple and sweeping they don't even require them.

Again, you have to remember when this was written. The evidence at that time of the evils of capitalism were far move obvious than today, and socialist philosophy, being so new, was generally talked about in more general and philosophical ways rather than with examples.

 

[Zorak]

he's not talking about the use of the end product. He's talking about the drive behind production, which is to make profit. An example: Microsoft don't make Windows to make the world or society better, or because it's needed, they make it to make money - profit above all else. That's why their products are shit. This can be applied to the far majority of manufacturers in all areas. It's profit driven, not need driven.

But Microsoft couldn't make a profit if there wasn't a use for their product. People didn't buy the Amstrad e-mailer phone, and that was profit driven over need driven.

You're arguing against that?

Almost all industries have shrunk due to technological advancements apart from the technological industry itself. The point there is wasted man power, which capitalism relies on to keep the workforce cheap and the profits high.

No, of course not.
But, Einstein and I must disagree on the idea that unemployment is "wasted labour."
From a purely capatilist viewpoint, an unemployed worker has no bearing on production.

Again, you have to remember when this was written. The evidence at that time of the evils of capitalism were far move obvious than today, and socialist philosophy, being so new, was generally talked about in more general and philosophical ways rather than with examples.

Well, I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about socialism. It's like debating the philosophical value of Accrington Stanley FC (I'm sure some people love them, but they're still rubbish) :jk

 

[edgray]

Irrelevant isn't the wrong word. But it might be a tad strong. I don't want to start anything overly heated lol.

What I mean to say, is, what value can you or me or anyone get out of these musings, Edgray?

I just thought it's interesting to see one of the greatest minds our planet has ever known get behind socialism and their reasons why. I suppose it gives the philosophy some more weight? I don't know. Just thought it was really interesting to see how someone who has contributed so much to modern life feels about how we organise ourselves.

 

[edgray]

But Microsoft couldn't make a profit if there wasn't a use for their product. People didn't buy the Amstrad e-mailer phone, and that was profit driven over need driven.

The point isn't that their products have no use, obviously some people find them useful, the point is the drive behind their products: it's not usefulness or serving a purpose, the drive is for profit. Many of Microsofts products, for example, are created first, then a purpose is figured out later. A prime example: Surface.

No, of course not.
But, Einstein and I must disagree on the idea that unemployment is "wasted labour."
From a purely capatilist viewpoint, an unemployed worker has no bearing on production.

You don't think an unemployed person is a waste of labour? I don't understand where you're coming from there I'm afraid.

Well, I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about socialism. It's like debating the philosophical value of Accrington Stanley FC (I'm sure some people love them, but they're still rubbish) :jk

It's all thought gymnastics really. Though debating something like socialism does have a purpose: it's how the worker has had some success over the capitalists.

 

[Zorak]

The point isn't that their products have no use, obviously some people find them useful, the point is the drive behind their products: it's not usefulness or serving a purpose, the drive is for profit. Many of Microsofts products, for example, are created first, then a purpose is figured out later. A prime example: Surface.

I don't know Surface.
But still, of course the drive is for profit. But products can't succeed without a use. :dunno
As much as I'm sure microsoft or others want to, they can't quite yet drive a useless product to profit.

You don't think an unemployed person is a waste of labour? I don't understand where you're coming from there I'm afraid.

It's only a waste, if the labour is required. Which of course, if it was required - it would be employed. Ad usum.

It's all thought gymnastics really. Though debating something like socialism does have a purpose: it's how the worker has had some success over the capitalists.

True. But now I can only think of my favourite Simpsons episode

Waif: You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
Burns' Grandfather: The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!
Mr. Burns: Oh, if only we'd listened to that young man, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.

 

[edgray]

I don't know Surface.
But still, of course the drive is for profit. But products can't succeed without a use. :dunno
As much as I'm sure microsoft or others want to, they can't quite yet drive a useless product to profit.

The point Einstein was making, I believe, was that the effort could be put to better use than building/making things just for profit. Sticking with Microsoft, was Zune necessary? no, of course not: the iPod does the job already. Microsoft could have focused on something of benefit instead, but what they did was create an item for profit. There was no need for Zune. An awful lot of manpower to make a few people even richer.

It's only a waste, if the labour is required. Which of course, if it was required - it would be employed. Ad usum.

One of the main drives of socialism is to lower the burden of necessary work. You see, if you think about it, the majority of work done these days is totally irrelevant and there just to serve the profit system. If all the unemployed and people engaged in pointless work shared the burden of necessary work, we'd have a lot more free time on our hands.

True. But now I can only think of my favourite Simpsons episode

Waif: You can't treat the working man this way! One of these days we'll form a union, and get the fair and equitable treatment we deserve! Then we'll go too far, and become corrupt and shiftless, and the Japanese will eat us alive!
Burns' Grandfather: The Japanese? Those sandal-wearing goldfish tenders? Ha ha! Bosh! Flimshaw!
Mr. Burns: Oh, if only we'd listened to that young man, instead of walling him up in the abandoned coke oven.

:24: :24: :24:

 

[Minor Axis]

I'm not really sure if this is where you want to go with this conversation, but I'll take a chance...
I've never liked the concept of "at will" a term used in the U.S. that says that you work at the will of the employer and that he can fire you at any time, without cause. Since I'm covered in my job by a collective bargaining agreement, I don't have to worry about this, but otherwise the deck is clearly stacked overwhelmingly in favor of the Employer. Yes, I realize there is a forum contingent who thinks that is how it should be.

 

[edgray]

I'm not really sure if this is where you want to go with this conversation, but I'll take a chance...
I've never liked the concept of "at will" a term used in the U.S. that says that you work at the will of the employer and that he can fire you at any time, without cause. Since I'm covered in my job by a collective bargaining agreement, I don't have to worry about this, but otherwise the deck is clearly stacked overwhelmingly in favor of the Employer. Yes, I realize there is a forum contingent who thinks that is how it should be.

Take the conversation in any direction you fancy!

Employers generally hold all the cards: they expect 110% of your effort and loyalty but will drop you in a second as and when it suits them.

 

[Minor Axis]

I'll add that I have misgivings about Socialism, but that when Capitalism gets too far out of balance between haves and have-nots, in other words, when greed takes over, it makes Socialism look more attractive.

 

[edgray]

I'll add that I have misgivings about Socialism, but that when Capitalism gets too far out of balance between haves and have-nots, in other words, when greed takes over, it makes Socialism look more attractive.

I'd love to see an example of when the balance between the haves and have-nots has ever been acceptable!

 

[Minor Axis]

I'd love to see an example of when the balance between the haves and have-nots has ever been acceptable!

Well, if you are talking "haves", come on, it's always acceptable!! But remember the "haves" always deserve what they have worked hard for.

 

[hart]

I don't know.........I know this wasn't a debate re are Unions good or not, but I have mixed feelings about them too....I've seen Companies where the Union is all about the UNION OFFICIALS, but not the Union members and they end up sticking it to a company not to HELP members. I even had a union official tell me (a quasi-management person) that he didn't care about the person he was representing he just wanted to screw the gvmt.

Then I have seen practices like Wal-mart and the shitty way they treat their employees and I think they Need a union there.

Sorry to digress, this line of thought just popped into my head.