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.
A customer told me they don't believe in space last night 😞
He wasn't a SeRiOuS intellectual though.
Need a sever lack if humor for that sweet sweet capitalistic greed.
Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said "fuck off and fuck Zionism."
socialism might be nice but just getting rid of billionaires is a great start.
Can't do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.
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.
Most intellectuals are socialist
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.
Dictators love the poorly educated.
No, they just need their votes.
Youd be hard pushed to find many who weren't
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to "tyrants." You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
I can recommend this piece from Hobo Johnson ("why socialism by Albert Einstein")
https://open.spotify.com/track/4LJ04AiwnuXqzufGnejnkx?si=ZtN5yWqDTE-5twhw9n2DmA
Did he form these views before or after he lived out his life in the country that is the anthesis of socialism? 🤔
After. In 1923, he fled Berlin to the United States, and was a member of a liberal political party. He was thoroughly anti-soviet at the time, but eventually his views changed and balanced out. In 1949, he wrote Why Socialism? as he became increasingly convinced of the logical necessity for the transition to Socialism, and a world government. He also changed his tune on Lenin and the Soviets:
“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”
Part of what changed his views were becoming friends with prominent American Communists such as the legendary Paul Robeson. Over time, he took increasingly gentle and in some cases supportive stances towards the Soviet system, and was anti-War, including the nuclear Arms Race that the US relentlessly pushed forward.
Einstein, however, had serious internal chauvanism. He was a supporter of Zionism (which, while faded over time, never truly faded), and had this to say about the Chinese:
"Chinese don't sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse... It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary."
Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.
This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don't think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.
I deleted my comment because this is a masterful response. I want to remain on record, though, that you're replying to an idiot who is trying to cause problems. You're better than me for not pointing that out lol.
Oh I'm aware, haha. I just try to take the road less traveled in case any onlookers might have their views changed by seeing a genuine response.
Your comment taught me a lot that I didn't previously know so thank you!
No problem! Glad you enjoyed!
(also pinging @Cowbee@lemmy.ml)
Sometimes*, it's still worth replying to bad faith 'debate', not to discuss or even necessarily refute them, but to address their audience, including lurkers.
That said, it's also good to have FAQs and links so you don't waste 30 minutes of your labor replying to a downvoted sunken bad faith one-liner.
That's a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn't know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn't put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can't be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It's especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it's what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it's only a part.
I'd say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
Einstein directly asks and answers your question in the very first lines of Why Socialism?
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.
He then goes on to make his case, then builds up why he believes Socialism is necessary. I agree that intelligence is multi-faceted and doesn't necessarily imply "spill-over," but that's not what's going on here.
Likewise, there are many things I clearly disagree with Einstein on politically and socially, such as his view of Chinese people and support for Zionism. I also am more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than he was. However, his position as an intellectual that came to understand the necessity of Socialism without dedicating himself to its study serves to highlight for those who think Socialism outlandish that it isn't unreasonable at all, and the case he makes is largely on the nose.
I recommend reading it yourself.
As a general rule I think it’s best to take ideas on their own internal merit without attaching yourself too strongly to particular figures. People are fickle but a well founded idea can transcend its author.
That doesn’t mean you should esteem someone for having one good thought or withhold your contempt of their general character though.
This interview with Noam Chomsky explains why we should listen to intellectuals when they speak of matters that are not necessarily in their field of expertise:
Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics -- which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I'm constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least -- elsewhere not.
Anyone can give their opinions on football teams, movies, recipes for cooking. But, for some reason you have to be an expert to talk about economics or politics. The reason- those discussions challenge the accepted power structures of authority. So, those discussions are guarded, and any challenge dismissed.
Chomsky is right here, but it's also worth noting that even "experts" can be either minimized or magnified depending on their usefulness to the Capitalist system. Chomsky himself has a fair amount of skeletons in his closet.
"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.
I think Parenti said it best, in Blackshirts and Reds:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime's atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn't go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
To that end, Marx's conception of Socialism, that being a state run by the proletariat along the lines of a publicly owned and planned economy, has existed in many areas, and does to this day. These are called "AES" states. You're partially correct in that no AES state has made it to the historical stage of Communism, which requires a global world government and a fully publicly owned and planned economy, but this is a historical stage requiring Socialism to be fully developed first.
I think you would gain a lot from reading some books on AES states, such as Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. These aren't "oligarchies," or whatnot, but Socialism in existence, warts and all. We need to learn from what worked and what didn't to progress onwards, it's clear that Capitalism is in a death spiral and Socialism remains the way forward.
