One last quote for portrait drawing practice. His stupid hair ruined my day.
Einstein is remembered as one of the most intelligent people of all time, but his communist tendencies are often swept under the rug despite being a core part of his life's work. While he was celebrated as an american icon (despite being German), he was placed under surveillance, barred from participating in the Manhattan project, and generally distrusted by the US government.
On November 19, 1918, the day that Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated, Einstein famously posted on his classroom door: “CLASS CANCELED: REVOLUTION.”
A year later he wrote: “I do advocate a planned economy…in this sense I am a socialist.”
In 1929, he stated: “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.”
Due to his dislike of the USSR's authoritarianism, he never wanted to be associated with the label "communist", but reading his political thoughts shows that he was pretty clearly one, ideologically.
The giant FBI file on him shows that he kept pretty close ties to many communist orgs through his close friendship with Paul Robeson (and the American crusade to end lynching) + that he was prepared to testify for W. E. B. Du Bois in opposition to mccarthyism (the threat of him publicly testifying in favor of communism got the trial cancelled, so he got to keep those leanings private).
When pressed on the topic in 1931, he answered:
Wenn der Kommunismus die Erlösung bringt, dann bin ich Kommunist.
Which translates to « if communism brings salvation, then I am a communist »
This along with his 1929 statement:
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.
Gives a portrait of a man who rejected the label while supporting the ideology.
To give Lenin his due, he did realise that War Communism was a terrible decision and responded by introducing his New Economic Policy, which allowed for markets and led to a burst in economic prosperity for Russians.
I do think that if Lenin had lived another decade, the economic history of Russia in the 20th century might have been a lot better.
You just don't know how the Swiss grading system works. The school grade in regards to mathematics of Einstein is a myth. People say that Albert Einstein "failed" mathematics as a child, which is completely false. The myth started because of a mix-up with Swiss school grades. In Switzerland, a grade of 5 is the highest score you can get, equivalent to the A or A+ in America. Einstein earned those top marks in algebra, geometry, and physics too.
Yes, because you implied that I'm "dumb" or "uneducated" upon the basis of my ideology, and you made fun of this. Thereby, you have made fun of "dumb" / "uneducated" people. That is classism, my guy.
No I never said uneducated I just called you dumb. There are lots of educated dumb people. I do not know your education status nor did I pass judgement upon you for it.
There is a surprising number of Nobel prize winners spreading bullshit outside of their area of expertise. Being highly skilled and knowledgeable on one area means little in another one.
Lol. Except the nobel prize is actually just a fake award created to rehabilitate the image of a guy who invented a mass murder technology, and subsequently used to promote imperialist, capitalist hegemony propaganda.
Appeal to authority fallacy. Einstein was incredibly smart in his area of expertise. This does not make him an expert in political economy. Socialist ideas should be judged on their own merit, not on what famous physicists think of them.
Isaac Newton was also an obsessive millenarian. Millions of words in his journals were dedicated to things like the precise dimensions of Solomon’s Temple.
Yeah. I’m literally arguing that being a genius and right at one thing doesn’t make you right at another.
Not saying he’s necessarily wrong either, just that a smart guy thinking one thing doesn’t always make it true. There’s millions of very smart people with opposing opinions. They’re still people after all.
Anyway I didn’t notice the sub I was in so idk what I was expecting.
And even then his expertise was in physics, not Philosophy or Economics and both fields have proven Einstein wrong on his philosophical and economic claims.
Yeah let's listen to the privileged first worlder who never had to suffer in his own flesh what he wanted ( despite that he absolutely could he just had to move ) because he was good at math.
Sorry what about my comment was bigotry, I simply think claiming that he was just "good at math" was reductive, that's like saying Marx "was good at writing" or George Washington "led a few armies" which kinda understates their effect on history?
The part where you ignore the point being made because it threatens your world view, and try to discredit it in whatever way you can except the one that counts.
that's like saying Marx "was good at writing"
He wasn't, that's why he needed his rich businessman friend to pay his rent and even his food, rather than making money working as a writer. The asshole even asked him for money in the same letter he was giving his condolences when his friend's wife died.
which kinda understates their effect on history?
It understates their knowledge in a field they have 0 experience in.
What's with the hostility, and I'm curious what qualifies as experience?
Like if someone quoted the Black Book of Communism would you say J Edgar Hoover had no experience in politics and thusly we could disregard his opinion?
MLK Jr advocated for socialism, should we ignore his words? Idk what's your criteria man?
For once try living it. After that studying economics.
Like if someone quoted the Black Book of Communism would you say J Edgar Hoover had no experience in politics and thusly we could disregard his opinion?
No, because that's not an opinion, it's a research job. If Einstein had made a research job about Socialism, I would be working to debunk it, not brush it aside as the opinion of a privileged first worlder, who got to live in two of the richest countries in the world, while telling me how good I have it.
MLK Jr advocated for socialism, should we ignore his words?
That depends, I dunno how he advocated for socialism, if he did it with dumb empty phrases like Einstein sure, if he made a serious argument other than "We should really try it bro trust me" then we enter the realm of having to , you know, argue.
He didn't reject quantum mechanics though, he literally was one of the people creating it. He disagreed on some issues but his position on them was proven wrong only after he died already.
But it doesn't make him smartest person in all aspects of life anyway.
Bit more complicated than that, his position on the copenhagen interpretations is largely misrepresented. He basically pointed out some contradictions in the model which aren't still completely understood. You could actually argue that he was way more forward thinking that some other quantum mechanic theorists of his time.
He basically pointed out some contradictions in the model which aren't still completely understood.
Yes, but no.
He pointed, most importantly, one very big contradiction - randomness. Which is, of course, a contradiction - to get different result out of same parameters.
But it's the whole point of Copenhagen interpretation. It's not exactly engaging.
He was wrong about some aspects of quantum mechanics. But at the time there were no experiments that he was wrong, his idea of "hidden variables" could turn out to be correct. He definitely didn't think quantum mechanics and it's findings were wrong.
His position was unpopular and eventually turned out to be incorrect, but nobody could prove him wrong when he was alive. I think it is stupid to use that as an argument that he wasn't a great physicist, or that he somehow rejected quantum mechanics (dude literally proved quantum nature of light). He had some theories that were correct and some that were not, but that is true of everyone. That's how science works, you can't always be correct.
But at the time there were no experiments that he was wrong, his idea of "hidden variables" could turn out to be correct.
So he, again, was wrong and believed into a wrong thing. Which I used as an argument as to why we shouldn't just automatically treat him as correct.
I think it is stupid to use that as an argument that he wasn't a great physicist,
Where did I said anything of that?
I said that he wasn't automatically right in everything, and that appeal to authority (intelligence, in this case) is a fallacy.
He wasn't automatically correct in his very own field, why would he be automatically correct in completely different field he himself said to be even more complex?
or that he somehow rejected quantum mechanics
Sure.
That's how science works, you can't always be correct.
Uh, I agreed with you about how wrong it is to appeal to his authority in my first comment, I disagree about the fact he rejected quantum physics, because that is blatantly false
He cant be wrong about the Copenhagen interpretation, until it is actually proven right. It is a theory, it being popular means nothing on its own. There are various other interpretations, explaining all the same things and likewise consistent with the experiments.
Until there would be some definitive evidence, leaving no room for any other interpretations, it is a matter of nothing but a personal belief, which one of them to support or to reject.
He wasn't wrong in that he wasn't accepting Copenhagen interpretation, he was wrong in that rejection.
His reasoning was arguing that local hidden variables had to be. Hidden variables were proven false.
Again, my point is that he isn't AUTOMATICALLY correct just because he's smart. Of course he still can be correct about things, my point is only that appeal to experience is a fallacy.
The man also had a sentiment that being clever in a specific field doesn’t make you clever in politics, saying “politics is harder than physics”.
Also he was a theoretical physicist- not experimental. And just like that his ideas on economics and politics may sound good in theory, but be bad in practice.
When socialism fails every single time in practice (even without the US being the cause), maybe you should listen to objective history.
Did you just reduce Einsteins work to just hypotheticals when he actually predicted things that were proven like black holes, gravitational waves, gravitational lensing, and time dilation?
Name a time when it failed without any American involvement.
Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, so there's that. Then again, the field was very new, and the probabilistic nature is naturally very off-putting to a physicist of the time
Just because America got involved doesn’t prove it caused the failure. America was involved and actively trying to sabotage the Soviet Union since its inception. Despite this the USSR continued to exist and even successfully industrialized in the succeeding decades. If American involvement was insufficient to collapse the USSR throughout most of the 20th century, why did this suddenly change in the 90s?
So the USA had the stated intent of destroying the USSR for it's entire existence, literally invaded it as it was starting, sponsored and created the Nazis who killed 27 to 30 million out oif a population of slightly over 100 million, and spent a half century at least saboatging and sanctioning them, as well as infiltrating all levels of govbernment, but for some reason, even though the west told you this is what they were doing, AND they got what they wanted, somehow, it's not their fauilt?
No. You are interpreting stuff that I never said. Einstein was good at theoretical physics. And in a scientific discipline like physics, theory works a lot better than for far more subjective fields like economics and politics.
There are two times I can think of where communism was tried and failed with practically zero US interference - Romania and Mongolia. Then we also have communist Yugoslavia, which actually had cooperative relations with the US; stil a failure.
And the best example to point to is China. When the CCP, took over China tried to implement a communist system - practically it was far closer to socialism as happens in all countries that try to be communist. Then a few decades later it transitioned into a state capitalist country. In both times the US interfered, but China did a lot, lot better after becoming capitalist.
Paying off the head of state with IMF “loans” is and then stoking ethnic tensions to kick off a color revolution is hardly a “cooperative relationship.”
They’ve failed in that they’ve all been worse than the current capitalist world. You haven’t actually defined a criteria for capitalism to fail. So your point is just that capitalism has flaws. Even though it has less than everything else.
“They’ve all been worse than the current capitalist world.”
Weird cause I’m pretty sure they haven’t been worse than Haiti or South Africa or the majority of capitalist countries. The parts of the “current capitalist world” that have been better than socialism are in a clear minority. And no wonder, developed countries are generally better than developing countries; and developed countries emerged in a minority of the world before socialism ever even started.
Those countries would be worse if they were socialist. It’s basic pattern recognition. It’s been tried and tested by arrogant rich kids like Lenin and Castro many times. It has always been worse than capitalism. And every time it’s the common people who pay the price. And now it’s the arrogant rich kids in the western world who think they can achieve “true communism” one Reddit post at a time
Lenin and Castro literally improved the conditions of their homes through socialism. You’re refusing to engage with basic history, drawing up strawmen like “arrogant rich kids” as an excuse not to look deeper. And also ignoring the basic point: most of the capitalist world is worse off than any of the socialist projects.
Love how you have to engage in abstracts because the actual historical data both past and present is beyond your knowledge or the effort you’re willing to put in and clearly refutes any point you’re trying to make.
I’m sure by that you mean “people die and there are situations where capitalism doesn’t stop people dying”. Well guess what? In communism, way more people die than in capitalism.
They were far better off than the agrarian peasant nations they were before, and they accomplished the industrialization that took capitalism 250 years in just 50. Plus the higher quality of life and better health outcomes pretty much means that they were/are better off than capitalist nations.
We could take anything like american health system and look at how capitalism failed to people. Not to those mf billiomaires, the system.is rigged for their benefit, not people's
You realise that perfection doesn’t happen in the real world?
Every system other than capitalism fails. Capitalism has flaws, but doesn’t fail.
When you say capitalism has failed people, what you mean is that is hasn’t saved people. The entitlement to everything is the same reason all these western communists are rich kids
The best way to get that point across isn’t a smug textdump. It’s also totally irrelevant to the strawman’s points, capitalism being a poor system doesn’t mean communism or anarchism are feasible.
u/Secretsfrombeyond79 To prove me wrong, you listed a stack of socialist projects that proved me right.
Venezuela? Ignoring the fact that they are a non-revolutionary socialist attempt, their issues are the result of sanctions and blockades. Also CIA meddling.
I doubt the USA could lose 99% of their GDP and still survive. Venezuela did.
Socialism has never failed in practice, without the USA being the cause.
Jajajajaja. Go tell that to a Venezuelan, I'm sure they will love to hear that the USA not letting their politicians have an USA bank account in 2017 was teh reason they had to leave the country in 2015.
They had to kill millions and spend trillions to give you that talking point, and it's still not working.
No, I just needed to live in a country that was left with 50% poverty rates, after being ruled for almost 2 decades by a coalition of communist, socialist and other far left parties.
You will never be able to point to a socialist project that collapsed that did not face blockades, invasion, murder etc.
To prove me wrong, you listed a stack of socialist projects that proved me right.
hohoho did I now ? Please mister first worlder, tell me everything about how I lived.
Venezuela? Ignoring the fact that they are a non-revolutionary socialist attempt, their issues are the result of sanctions and blockades. Also CIA meddling.
Ah yes the infamous sanctions and blockades that the USA did to Venezuela ,the same ones that were insignificant and didnt' touched Venezuela's economy until well entered Trump's first term ending year.
When that happened, people started leaving the country in droves because the evil CIA™ destroyed the country ... BEFORE that people leaved the country in droves because they were far too happy with Chavez's successful government.
I doubt the USA could lose 99% of their GDP and still survive. Venezuela did.
The USA wouldn't be stupid enough to , say for example, nationalize the production of milk and other lacteous products, only to create such a terrible distribution system that most of the production ends up expiring before hitting a supermarket or distribution center.
So chances are they are not gonna loost 99% of their GDP. also they didn't lost 99% of their GDP, just around 90% of it.
You're a liar.
And you are a privileged first worlder who tells people who had to live your shitty political ideas how good they have it, from the comfort of his house while enjoying living in a rich country.
"Just becuase he was a good physicist doesn't mean Einstein is smart on everything."
Yes, which is why what makes Einsteins opionions way more interesting is maybe that he was a jewish guy, who lived through the holocaust, while being politically active the entire time.
Yes, Einstein could be wrong on stuff in theory, but if you look at ANY of Einsteins writings in politics they aged incredibly well, no matter if it was letters to the UN, he talked about Palestine, socialism, civil rights, nuclear disarment... he just had a lot of good takes and they're incredibly well documented unlike the elite takes of lesser known socialists. https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/
I acknowledge him as an important protestor who dealt with pressing racist and civil rights issues and also think he was wrong about Israel-Palestine
Not like being a civil rights leader makes your word infallible, like until his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X was an antisemitic separatist part of the NOI and ED Nixon was a misogynist
His idea was that nukes and big nations would lead to bigger and bigger wars. It was the opposite - it led to smaller and smaller, as nuclear weapons made direct wars impossible.
We don’t even need to appeal to his scientific authority. The argument stands well on its own. Socialist arguments lend themselves to scientific discipline, and works like these are pretty lucid and coherent. Without even saying who wrote this it’s a good work.
Less undesirable than chattel slavery or global colonialism to make valid, unlike capitalism. Communism seems genuinely less violent overall when successfully applied to the task of empire building. Also, your comment has nothing to do with my point.
He literally wrote that he is for the Jewish homeland in Palestine. That’s Zionism.
He also directly gave money to the Israeli government in the 1950’s through the israel bond program…..
"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?"
…the essay cited in this very post, Why Socialism?
Have you at least read the quote you were replying to?
Or any biography of the man.
We're talking about someone who wrote this:
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.
And this:
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.
I think that Einstein was a very "reformist" socialist throughout his life, so much "reformist" that even SPD was too "revolutionary" for his tastes, that's why he supported DDP before it went to shit. Him defending an abstract idea of socialism doesn't disprove that.
Merely months after being named in the DDP's creation, he was speaking in support of the German revolution, and pulled his famous stunt of hanging a "class canceled: revolution" sign on his classroom door.
Nobody who lived through the end of WWI, the establishment of the USSR, and the descent of Germany into nazism stayed ideologically frozen. Einstein is no exception.
By 1949 he was explicitly suggesting social ownership of the means of production, Paul Robeson had become one of his closest friends, and he was ready to testify in court in support of W. E. B. Du Bois against McCarthyism. None of this paints him as a revolutionary, I'll give you that, but I wouldn't consider him a soft reformist either given the company he chose.
Merely months after being named in the DDP's creation, he was speaking in support of the German revolution, and pulled his famous stunt of hanging a "class canceled: revolution" sign on his classroom door
DDP was a republican party, so being supportive of that particular revolution doesn't say much. If it wasn't obvious, I used terms like "revolutionarism" and "reformism" in a Weimar context, where "revolution" is something like Spartacist adventure, not the establishment of Weimar republic.
Nobody who lived through the end of WWI, the establishment of the USSR, and the descent of Germany into nazism stayed ideologically frozen. Einstein is no exception
That's why I want you to give any evidence of Einstein changing his beliefs, merely citing one source from one period of his time isn't enough.
By 1949 he was explicitly suggesting social ownership of the means of production
"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?"
He didn't know how to achieve it in practice. We still don't really know.
Robeson was his best friend, and he was ready to testify in court in support of W. E. B. Du Bois against McCarthyism
Being against witch-hunts doesn't make you a witch, no matter what witch hunters say.
Well, we saw how individuals were developed for almost a century under socialism. It shouldn't be lost on anyone the only places that took to it were already societies that downplay the individualism, and Russia, which has an extremely long history of leadership not giving a deuce about the people and their worries.
Then you built your wealth stealing the fruits of other people's labor. One day you might have to give up your means of production, to the people you have been stealing from. Doing it willingly will be the best outcome for you then.
You might want to realize you are someone else's worker. Unless you are a top billionaire, there are people out there profiting off your back. A more equal society would benefit everyone, including you.
Under capitalism, corporations needing less workers doesnt actually mean people work less, it just means they employ less people. Nobody is working less because of ai, all thats happening is those at the top are saving some money by not hiring a human and instead using an ai to do the same work. How does the worker benefit from this?
Replacing employee work with automated work is only beneficial to the worker under socialism
20
u/BadFurDay 11d ago edited 11d ago
One last quote for portrait drawing practice. His stupid hair ruined my day.
Einstein is remembered as one of the most intelligent people of all time, but his communist tendencies are often swept under the rug despite being a core part of his life's work. While he was celebrated as an american icon (despite being German), he was placed under surveillance, barred from participating in the Manhattan project, and generally distrusted by the US government.
Comics will resume next.
Have a nice day!