Why Socialism According to Einstein

Warren Buffet has complained that as one of the richest men in the world, he pays less taxes than his secretary or cleaning people.
And it's not rich people who are complaining most about his remarks.
People would rather the middle class and those less-well-off pay more in taxes and lose benefits or programs than the super rich be taxed a bit more.
The media says that increasing taxes for the rich would not make a dent in the deficit so 'why bother?'
Not that I expect the rich to foot the bill but zut alors something ain't adding up here.

America is built on the fallacy that anyone can become a billionaire.

Buffet doesn't pay less than his employees. Rather, he pays a lower tax rate, overall, than his employees. For example, capital gains are taxed at 15% and that is why billionaire hedge fund managers pay less percentage-wise than their secretaries. One should note that hedge fund managers do not create, produce or invent things. Quite disgusting.

The bottom 33% of people in the US own 1.5% of the wealth. The top 1% own 33% of the wealth. Increasing the highest marginal tax rate on those making more than $250,000 per year by 4% (35%--->39%) would yield $700 billion (e.g., $0.7 trillion) in revenues over a decade. Anyone who claims this will not contribute significantly to solving the deficit is an idiot, not to mention a mathematical moron. During the Clinton Administration the highest marginal tax rate was 39% and unemployment was admirably low. When Bush started two wars (ultimately costing trillions of dollars) and concomitantly lowered the highest marginal tax rate to 35%, unemployment went up. (Historically, wars are paid for by increasing taxes.) Now, the lower tax rates persist yet unemployment is unacceptably high. I'm not claiming there is a causative relationship between higher tax rates and lower unemployment. OTOH, it is equally true that, contrary to the Republican dogma, higher tax rates do not cause increased unemployment.

I believe in capitalism, but regulated capitalism. When free markets are unregulated, they quickly stop being free markets. Just like you can't play Monopoly without rules, regulations are needed in a market to keep it free, fair, and functioning. So, even though it may seem paradoxical, a truly free market in the real world requires regulation.

This is one of the biggest reasons I'm in support of a Flat Tax. Not only is it fair to everyone, it removes almost all of the hassle of the IRS and unpredictable tax code. Best part? A Flat Tax would drastically increase our government income... now to convince the government not to find new ways to spend it...

A flat tax is not fair to everyone. Why should a poor person have to pay the same proportion of his or her income in taxes that a rich person does when the rich person, for whatever reason, is in a better position to exploit the national infrastructure, workforce and financial machinery of the nation. Here is an exemplary situation. Say I'm a wealthy trucking company owner. My truck fleet causes much more wear and tear on the roads than any poor or middle class individual who commutes to a job. Taxes are used to fix the roads. Why should a commuter have to pay the same percentage in taxes to fix the roads as I, who, through my trucking company, use the roads more and, also, cause more damage to the roads? Indeed, a wealthy trucking company owner has made his or her fortune largely by using public infrastructure and should pay more accordingly.

It is absolutely critical for the US to maintain a healthy and thriving middle class. Currently, the middle class is suffering and its future is uncertain.

I believe in capitalism because it is the most efficient and effective way to distribute resources. It provides the greatest incentive for risk and innovation. However, I believe in balance, something not appreciated or understood by either extreme of the political spectrum. Capitalism without regulation (to keep things fair and ethical) quickly leads to oligarchy.
 
This is one of the biggest reasons I'm in support of a Flat Tax. Not only is it fair to everyone, it removes almost all of the hassle of the IRS and unpredictable tax code. Best part? A Flat Tax would drastically increase our government income... now to convince the government not to find new ways to spend it...

Flat taxes are bs. It would just stagnate the middle class, make the rich richer and keep the poor people from gaining any wealth. Let's put the rate at 20%. I currently gross $2000/mo but I would have to pay 400 in taxes a month. That's fine but I'm trying to save so that I can pay rent and put myself through college. A person who makes 20,000/mo will pay 4000 in taxes a month. Same fraction of income being paid but I need that $400 waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the rich person. The extra money they save will make them richer if they play it smart but I don't save any money because it goes to living expenses so I stagnate/am still a poor mf. Meanwhile, I'm running up a student loan and trying to find another job just to support myself.

I'll pay 20% at the amount of money I make a month very happily but I expect everyone else to be doing their part meaning they pay what's fair to keep the government running and functioning for it's people. If you have the ability to pay more, you should pay more. Shit girl, if I grossed 20,000/mo, the IRS can take 50% and I'd be good.

I'd pay more taxes where I'm at right now if everyone else did and it got people lower tuition and maybe even some help with the rent. Wouldn't that be nice! The right to an education and not having to worry about covering all the extras, where do I sign up?!
 
Flat taxes are bs. It would just stagnate the middle class, make the rich richer and keep the poor people from gaining any wealth. Let's put the rate at 20%. I currently gross $2000/mo but I would have to pay 400 in taxes a month. That's fine but I'm trying to save so that I can pay rent and put myself through college. A person who makes 20,000/mo will pay 4000 in taxes a month. Same fraction of income being paid but I need that $400 waaaaaaaaaaaay more than the rich person. The extra money they save will make them richer if they play it smart but I don't save any money because it goes to living expenses so I stagnate/am still a poor mf. Meanwhile, I'm running up a student loan and trying to find another job just to support myself.

I'll pay 20% at the amount of money I make a month very happily but I expect everyone else to be doing their part meaning they pay what's fair to keep the government running and functioning for it's people. If you have the ability to pay more, you should pay more. Shit girl, if I grossed 20,000/mo, the IRS can take 50% and I'd be good.

I'd pay more taxes where I'm at right now if everyone else did and it got people lower tuition and maybe even some help with the rent. Wouldn't that be nice! The right to an education and not having to worry about covering all the extras, where do I sign up?!

If the government taxes you more for making more, what is ones incentive for making more, growing businesses and creating jobs? It's high risk and that's why it yields high rewards. That's what's great about the USA. Anyone has the capability to make the big bucks if they are willing to work hard, study the playbook, and roll the dice. Personally I get sick of people trying to turn the US into europe, if you like the way the pseudo-socialist countries work than why not move to a pseudo-socialist country? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that at all. I think for many it's the right decision. Personally; I love a free market, I love that there is no limit to the amount of success I can have if I work at it, I love that I have unlimited access to knowledge here.
 
I would love to pick up and just move to a pseudo-socialist country.
Unfortunately, I imagine that it takes a ton of money to be able to do that successfully in the first place and then hope for citizenship in order to land on your feet in a career over there that will support your stay.
Besides. What a cop out. America has some serious policy issues. I think the responsible thing to do is to face that reality and address it in a way that benefits just about all.
 
A flat tax on income is very much unfair. It leaves the poor to pay much more than they can afford, while allowing the rich to to pay less than their fair share for the public service of having their greater private property protected by the state. Those who already own enough don't have to work, but get life of the interest and dividends of the money they invest, or the rent of property they own. Taxing income is a subsidy to those already rich, and a barrier to entry for the privileged class.


A flat tax on total wealth would extremely fair, and extremely progressive. The poor have very little that the government protects, so they pay very little for this protection. Those already very rich are required to may more for their property to be protected. Those who are currently poor but are working hard to advance themselves benefit most from the system, while those to lazy to work or invest wisely slowly loose their advantage.

The problem with flat taxes on wealth however is that most forms of wealth can be hidden or moved out of the jurisdiction collecting the tax. Perhaps the only truly feasible wealth tax is the Land Value Tax. Taxing the natural capital exploited from nature rather than that accumulated from years of labor is also probably fairer to those who have worked hard in the past.
 
If the government taxes you more for making more, what is ones incentive for making more, growing businesses and creating jobs? It's high risk and that's why it yields high rewards. That's what's great about the USA. Anyone has the capability to make the big bucks if they are willing to work hard, study the playbook, and roll the dice. Personally I get sick of people trying to turn the US into europe, if you like the way the pseudo-socialist countries work than why not move to a pseudo-socialist country? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that at all. I think for many it's the right decision. Personally; I love a free market, I love that there is no limit to the amount of success I can have if I work at it, I love that I have unlimited access to knowledge here.

What you imply is that, if a person is in the second to highest tax bracket, when offered a raise, he shouldn't take it because it may elevate him into the highest tax bracket and he'll make less money? Obviously, he'll make more money but he'll pay a bit more taxes on it. So what! If paying an extra four cents on the earned dollar is going to paralyze an executive then he or she is an idiot and should never be in business. I've started three companies and tax concerns were never a consideration in starting them or hiring people. Rather, inventing new things, bringing great products to market, employing people, and doing exciting things were the motivations. Company executives who think they shouldn't pay taxes and that the little guy should pay for all the public infrastructure (and this includes education) that allows their companies to succeed are, at best, short sighted. So, I've started companies, I've made a lot of money, I invest in all kinds of equities, and I'm proud to have paid my taxes for the very reason that I appreciate the need for public infrastructure, the governmental apparatus that makes business possible, and a system of law that works. In short, I'm a real capitalist.
 
If the government taxes you more for making more, what is ones incentive for making more, growing businesses and creating jobs?

There's always incentive to make more, as long as there's not a salary cap or something like that where the gov takes everything you make over a certain amount.

50% of 250,00 is 125,000.

20% of 50,000 is 10,000.

I'd rather be in the 50% tax bracket.

The idea that there would be diminished incentive to make more is a flat out lie and something that was made up by the great conservatives in America that believe everyone's after their damn money. Anyone who says this raises a flag that they know very little about the system and just want to be left alone in a corner with their money.

Not everybody has the capability to make big bucks. We're all born with different skill sets and have varying abilities in those sets, some of which aren't in demand. That's the market's way of saying "you suck, now go die in a ditch".

Btw, you don't have unlimited access to information and there is a limit to the amount of success you can have.

And I would love for there to be a european model in the states but you know what I hate the most about your condescending statement? It's that you tried to put it off as if you weren't making an a**hole statement. I'm a part of this country too and it's dynamic so if someone comes a long with an idea, don't say "that's not how we do it here, go over there" when they are also AMERICANS! It's like me telling you to build a time machine to get back to the Regan era.

The free market can do good things but it's also an opportunity for people to screw each other over for personal gain (which is popular). There are some serious problems with it, which is why it needs to be regulated.
 
Here's the complete essay by Albert Einstein -

Why Socialism?
Albert Einstein

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 toward 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 supranational 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 beings 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. In so far 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 the 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 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?

http://www.bigissueground.com/politics/einstein-socialism.shtml
 
I believe in capitalism, but regulated capitalism. When free markets are unregulated, they quickly stop being free markets. Just like you can't play Monopoly without rules, regulations are needed in a market to keep it free, fair, and functioning. So, even though it may seem paradoxical, a truly free market in the real world requires regulation.

I couldn't agree anymore with this statement. And no offense to Einstein, but he was no social scientist. The laws for human behavior are much more variable than physical laws, because as Norton pointed out, people game the system. Some idealistic, utopian happily ever after scenario is inevitably naive. Governments are developed out of anarchy, in which no laws being in place, we are free to develop laws in which to try to control and regulate our baser insticts. Unless you want to try to promote genetic engineering and eugenics in which to modify human behavior, you are left with the same premise that we've begun with.
 
I couldn't agree anymore with this statement. And no offense to Einstein, but he was no social scientist. The laws for human behavior are much more variable than physical laws, because as Norton pointed out, people game the system. Some idealistic, utopian happily ever after scenario is inevitably naive. Governments are developed out of anarchy, in which no laws being in place, we are free to develop laws in which to try to control and regulate our baser insticts. Unless you want to try to promote genetic engineering and eugenics in which to modify human behavior, you are left with the same premise that we've begun with.

Rubbish....governments developed out of fuedalism not anarchy

I strongly suggest that you look into the real definition of 'anarchy' and not the use of the word that Fox news applies to it
 
Last edited:
Rubbish....governments developed out of fuedalism not anarchy

I strongly suggest that you look into the real definition of 'anarchy' and not the use of the word that Fox news applies to it


an
 
You are using the definition often used by the mainstream corporate media which equates anarchy to chaos eg 'last night there was anarchy on the streets'

This however is a deliberate missuse of the word when discussing socio-political matters. The reason they do this is to hide the idea of anarchy which is defined in point 3 of your quote

They want people to think anarchy means disorder not order because they want to maintain the status quo of mixed economy capitalism, but this is false....anarchy DOES mean order, just not order imposed from above

You seem to have been pretty dismissive of Einstein but the man was clearly a genius. You've also peddled out the classic terms designed to discredit socialism such as: 'utopian', 'naive' and 'ideaslitic'; just because you are accusing the idea of these things doesn't mean you are right

To say that socialists believe in a 'happily ever after scenario' is also ridiculous

All socialists are saying is that they believe that the system could be arranged better....that's all

With the global economic 'crisis' raging i think now is a pretty good time for people to be researching ideas such as anarchy and socialism

Or they can try and shut down dialogue by branding new ideas as 'naive' or 'idealistic' or whatever but really that would be trying to stem the tide of evolution

You're free to believe whatever makes you happy, muir, but I ask you not to imply clearly false conclusions about me. This is a lesson in reading comprehension, please follow along in the bolded text.

I couldn't agree anymore with this statement. And no offense to Einstein, but he was no social scientist. The laws for human behavior are much more variable than physical laws, because as Norton pointed out, people game the system. Some idealistic, utopian happily ever after scenario is inevitably naive. Governments are developed out of anarchy, in which no laws being in place, we are free to develop laws in which to try to control and regulate our baser insticts. Unless you want to try to promote genetic engineering and eugenics in which to modify human behavior, you are left with the same premise that we've begun with.

 
You're free to believe whatever makes you happy, muir, but I ask you not to imply clearly false conclusions about me. This is a lesson in reading comprehension, please follow along in the bolded text..

You were dismissive of Einstein!

You did peddle the usual buzzwords designed to elicit a shut down response in the reader!

You did use the word anarchy in the wrong way when discussing socio-political matters which seems to be policy for mainstream corporate media!

I have not qualified anarchy in any way, shape, or form. I DID qualify my opinions on socialism, and you're free to demonstrate why I'm wrong in that regard.

As far as I am aware you have yet to make any sort of alternative proposal for an effective form of socialism, except for being dissmissively vague and general in response.

I'm not sure i can actually decipher what it is you meant in your first post because you were too dismissively vague and general

What i caught was that you falsly claimed that government came out of a state of 'anarchy' (you've said you meant a state of lawlessless) and that as well as usuing all the turn off buzzwords you also chucked in the word 'eugenics'; a word so heavily laden with negative baggage that it will send a shiver down the spine of even the toughest readers!

How about you stop trying to attach negative associations to socialism and start actually looking at what it is?

Also just because Einstein was a scientist doesn't mean that he can't have a good grasp of socio-politics
 
You were dismissive of Einstein!

You did peddle the usual buzzwords designed to elicit a shut down response in the reader!

You did use the word anarchy in the wrong way when discussing socio-political matters which seems to be policy for mainstream corporate media!



I'm not sure i can actually decipher what it is you meant in your first post because you were too dismissively vague and general

What i caught was that you falsly claimed that government came out of a state of 'anarchy' (you've said you meant a state of lawlessless) and that as well as usuing all the turn off buzzwords you also chucked in the word 'eugenics'; a word so heavily laden with negative baggage that it will send a shiver down the spine of even the toughest readers!

How about you stop trying to attach negative associations to socialism and start actually looking at what it is?

Also just because Einstein was a scientist doesn't mean that he can't have a good grasp of socio-politics

muir, exactly what do you think I mean when I use the term 'anarchy'? You imply that I mean disorder and chaos, but in reality I said we are free to develop laws and government since nothing is yet established to inhibit us from doing so.
And that is about as factual as I can make it.

You have to have force to enforce laws; those with force, i.e. military force, have power to establish and enforce laws.
A military is a group formation and thus has to have some merit in which to exhert its force as a coherent entity, i.e. any disagreement or alternative has to have some merit in which to build social support in order to exhert themselves as a whole.
 
muir, exactly what do you think I mean when I use the term 'anarchy'? You imply that I mean disorder and chaos, but in reality I said we are free to develop laws and government since nothing is yet established to inhibit us from doing so.
And that is about as factual as I can make it.

You have to have force to enforce laws; those with force, i.e. military force, have power to establish and enforce laws.
A military is a group formation and thus has to have some merit in which to exhert its force as a coherent entity, i.e. any disagreement or alternative has to have some merit in which to build social support in order to exhert themselves as a whole.

The point i'm making is that government evolved out of feudalism. There wasn't lawlessness before government it was just a different structure of law. You can keep tracing this process back and you probably end up with a sort of 3 caste society developing with the rise of cities, then you can go further back and you will have tribal systems then go back and you have hunter gatherer groups with their own spoken and unspoken rules

There was never really a state of chaos....there have always been communities living by their own codes of conduct

Governments have serious limitations and Einstein talks about it in this passage:

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?

As Chomsky says there are many things that are called socialism but aren't actually socialism; socialism is when the workers own the means of production. So anyone who says China or cold war Russia were 'socialist' are wrong. The US elite had an interest in using the word socialism because it allowed them to associate the idea of socialism with what appeared to US citizens to be a failing and coercive system and the Russian government had an interest in calling it 'socialism' because they wanted to trade in the high moral currency of socialism.

Einstein's passage above warns us that a planned economy has dangers with it. lets say for example we took all the means of production off the capitalist class tomorrow and put it under the control of a large government bureacracy; we have freed ourselves of the tyranny of the private concentrations of wealth but we have put ourselves under the tyranny of a buerocratic and all controlling government instead

He asks: how can we centralise yet not allow the administrative apparatus to become too controlling and how can the rights of the individual be protected against a centralised bureaurocracy?

These are some of the big questions surrounding a planned economy.

I personally do not trust big government which is why i advocate libertarian socialism. This advocates that the workers own the means of production but there is no centralised power structures that could oppress the workers

This is why conspiracy theories talk about a 'communist plot' to take over the world. That actually sounds more credible when you think that David Rockefeller who is behind many of the influential think tanks in the US wrote his thesis at Harvard on fabian socialism. Further more US historian Prof, Carrol Quigley wrote about the plot to create global government being carried out by powerful financial interests.

These interests might argue that world government is the way to prevent future wars. But as an anarchist i believe that such a centrally controlled system would become incredibly controlling possibly to the point of totalitarianism

The question of how to protect against abuses of power is to avoid any concentrations of power, for power to be exercised from the bottom up, by the people through consensus democracy

I'm pretty convinced its the only way to avoid the worst excesses of the abuse of power....i don't think it would 'happy ever after' because life is about struggle, but it would be a damn sight better than capitalism with its many gaping flaws that are now beginning to be exposed in the worlds economy in dramatic fashion!
 
There are, in my mind, two main problems with capitalism:

  1. Money can be created from thin air.
  2. Inheritance.

Money can be created from thin air because the value of a product or service increases with each transaction it is involved in. For example, if I buy a house for $250,000 now, it is possible to sell it in six months for $270,000, and so on. The problem with this is that the actual value of the house remains fixed to the average salary of an American citizen, whilst the asking price of the house continues to rise. Eventually, the intended consumer niche can no-longer afford said house and its value will crash back down to an appropriate level, causing whoever owns the house to take a potentially massive loss or hold onto the property for an unspecified amount of time.

This was also what lead to 2007 banking crisis: banks sold each other collections of mortgage loans (some good, most bad) and passed them on around a metaphorical chain. When the packages turned out to be worth less than the paper they were written on, the banks that bought them were screwed, and the inventors were relaxing comfortably in the Bahamas.

The bottom line of the first point is that infinite growth is an impossibility, and investment in industry and small businesses is the only 'true' way of increasing GDP, since the city's style of suicide trading is not viable.

My second point is that inheritance leads to an inherently unfair system. I would think this to be fairly self-explanatory but I'll spell it out anyway. Families that have money, keep money - even if the next generation has not contributed anything to society in return for this money. Money is power, and I'm sorry to say that there's a fairly finite amount of money that planet earth can produce. Inheritance makes it difficult to spread that money amongst the population based upon what an individual gives to society.

I agree with socialism because I agree with the statement:
 
You know what I never "get" about the common argument I hear against socialism? People criticize it and the people that want a true, socialist society (not Communist) as idealists and say it won't work. Then they point to China and the USSR for examples of how people will take control, trample the masses and steal their individualism. Fair enough.

On the same hand though, some of those same people are die-hard Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters for instance. And that philosophy requires the exact same level of naivety, to think that Capitalism will just magically regulate itself and businesses won't abuse an unregulated system. The end result will still be the same; large mega-corporations rarely allow freedom of expression or dissent among their employees without those people risking losing their jobs and, in that kind of society, ending up starving in the streets due to lack of any social programs to help.

The point is, in America, you mention an extreme form of Liberalism like "Socialism" and people walk away thinking you're a traitor to the American way of life. You mention an equally extreme form of Conservatism like Libertarianism and people cheer and wave flags around at each other. They're both delusional, but one's a little more of an acceptable delusion.

[video=youtube_share;4Ue3HMnpKCw]http://youtu.be/4Ue3HMnpKCw[/video]
 
Aaah how i would like to live in a mushroom house in the forest as part of a cooperative community!

I'm getting there bit by bit....the mushroom house might be difficult....alternatively taking mushrooms in my house would probably be easier

If anyones interested here's an introduction to anarchist communism; it has some interesting ideas about alternative ways of engaging with capitalist society and of building a parallel system:

http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/afed_introduction_anarchist_communism.pdf
 
im a socialist, and i think all of you should read Marx to understand what socialism really is. You first need to understand core things like historical materialism, alienation, ect
 
Back
Top