• HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said “fuck off and fuck Zionism.”

  • rational_lib@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    I don’t think they say “No intellectual would be a socialist”, instead they say intellectuals are bad and evil. It’s a classic pattern among dictator cults of personality.

  • nifty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 days ago

    It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.

    At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.

    https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/

    To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/free-market-or-socialism-have-economists-really-anything-to-say

    What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.

    The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.

    Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying

    /lazyposting

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 days ago

      Can’t do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.

      • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        I think we’ve been doing this capitalism thing all wrong. All these issues are because we forgot to do the sacrifices.

        We should be taking the top .1% of capitalist and using them to perform routine blood sacrifice rituals to appease the capitalist gods.

        We then use their capital to fund a festival that last until then funds run out.

        Their purity of capitalism will surely appease the gods and end all these climate change issues we’ve been experience.

  • NutWrench@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 days ago

    “The good of the people” is a noble goal. The problem is that for the most part, people who deliberately seek power to lead these groups are vain, greedy, selfish, brutal assholes.

    Collectivism, as Karl Marx wrote it, has never been practiced in any so-called “communist” country on Earth. It’s always been an oligarchy.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 days ago

        Kinda. Einstein here is referring to an eventual fully publicly owned and collectivrly planned economy in a world republic, which is what Communists aspire to. Communism is that world-government stage, Socialism is the process of building towards that stage. So, when Einstein espouses the necessity of Socialism, he means in the process of building towards Communism.

        All Communists are at first Socialists, because that’s the most immediate stage to reach.

        • nialv7@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 days ago

          Hmm, OK. Personally I believe in socialism (like democratic socialism) but I don’t think communism is going to work. Especially a planned economy has been shown to not work at least a couple of times.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 days ago

            Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don’t really know what you’re getting at, here. If you’re talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they’ve “made it” by working at their father’s banking firm.

            Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by planned economies “not working.” There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don’t really know what you’re referring to here.

            • nialv7@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              9 days ago

              Planned economy isn’t mandatory for socialism. Market socialism exists, for example the socialist market economy practiced (quite successfully) by China. (And no, I do mean democratic socialism, not Social Democracy or the Nordic model)

              I think anyone can point to USSR and China as examples of failed planned economies, so I am quite surprised by you claiming to know nothing about that. I wouldn’t include Cuba because there have been a lot of unjust outside pressures against its economy. I will say I don’t know much about the AES states so I will have to look into that, but at a quick glance I don’t see anyone describing their economy as planned?

              • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                9 days ago

                China is heavily planned. This isn’t really a point in your favor, China’s Socialist Market Economy works because it’s so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.

                Furthermore, again, I don’t know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as “economic failures.” They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy’s myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.

                As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.

                Edit: to respond to your edit about “Democratic Socialism,” such a name is redundant. Socialism is democratic, and that includes AES, or “Actually Existing Socialism.” What are you specifically talking about?

                • nialv7@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  9 days ago

                  China is heavily planned.

                  Oh, OK. If that’s what you believes… (I wonder if you have talked with someone who actually live in China currently?) I don’t think there will be much more I can say that would convince you otherwise. But I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.

  • danc4498@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 days ago

    I remember a republican coworker arguing that Interstellar’s concept of time dilation was super unrealistic and that can’t possibly be how things are. All this to say, I’m sure Einstein is about to be cancelled and relativity denied as hard as climate change.

    • Indeed

      "The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn’t apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.

      • NekoKamiGuru@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        8 days ago

        Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders

        At this point it doesn’t matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.

        • Totally agree. I still think from a economic and personal freedom perspective you’re a lot better off in a capitalist society under authoritarian control than in a Marxist one. Nobody is safe in an authoritarian communist (or probably better term - collectivist) society. How much examples do you need. Mao was the worst. China embraced capitalism and significantly improved the living standards of its people after Mao, while still remaining an authoritarian regime. Pinochet made the economy thriving and under socialist Salvador Allende the economy was a mess.

          I am certainly not in favor of an authoritarian regime but at least capitalism gives you more economic freedom and property rights.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            8 days ago

            China is still Marxist-Leninist, by the way. It isn’t Capitalist, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Gradually, it is increasing the strength of the Public Sector and folding the Private under its control as well. Deng didn’t “introduce Capitalism,” if you want to actually learn how the economy works in China here is a good introduction to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The economy is run on a Marxist understanding of economics, if you’re praising it you’re praising Marxism.

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          8 days ago

          You should read Blackshirts and Reds. Ultimately, the Communists and Nazis historically served entirely different classes and their interests, and to equate the two is a form of Nazi Apologia due to this vast difference.

          The Communists doubled life expectancy, lowered wealth disparity, ended famine, reached near 100% literacy rates from around 25% literacy rates, had free healthcare and education, and full employment. The Nazis, on the other hand, served wealthy Capitalists and invented industrialized murder.

          Further, the Communists dramatically democratized the economy. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.

          As a side note, Pol Pot denounced Marxism and did his own thing, he shouldn’t be grouped with Marxists.