• Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein
    40 replies, posted
If we define socialism as the workers owning the means of production then calling the USSR even an attempt at socialism is ridiculous.
Many people in Soviet Russia considered the (at the time) existing model to be a transitional step towards the 'true' communist utopia that would come about upon the perceived point of time where the party had vanquished its enemies, both internal and external, which would then allow the country to transition fully from a controlled economy to a socialist mode of production. There was also the belief that individual freedom was not at all as important as the wellbeing of the collective. Thus, it was not necessary for the means of production to necessarily be actually owned by the working class, so much as it was to be owned by the 'enlightened' individuals who understood the soviet model and its central tenets and therefore knew what was best for the collective wellbeing of the population. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union  For instance, the ideology explained that the CPSU's policies, even if they were unpopular, were correct because the party was enlightened.[1] It was represented to be the only truth in Soviet society, and with it rejecting the notion of multiple truths.[1] In short, it was used to justify CPSU Leninism was used as a means to an end.[1] The relationship between ideology and decision-making was at best ambivalent, with most policy decisions taken in the light of the continued, permanent development of Marxism–Leninism.[2] Marxism–Leninism, as the only truth, could not by its very nature become outdated.[2] Unlike liberalism, Marxism–Leninism stressed not the importance of the individual, but rather the role of the individual as a member of a collective.[4] Thus defined, individuals had only the right to freedom of expression if it safeguarded the interests of the collective.[4] For instance, in the 1977 Constitution Marxism–Leninism it was stated that every person had the right to express their opinion, but that opinion could only be expressed if it was in accordance with the "general interests of Soviet society."[4] In short, the number of rights granted to an individual was decided by the state, and could be taken away by the state as it saw fit.[4]
Well, Einsteins lover was Stalin's agent, soooo
If you're a socialist and not a Marxist or anarchist, you're just an edgy left-liberal. Einstein was right to identify a post-capitalist economy as the way forward.
What does this mean, exactly?
My favourite thing about the statement is that the majority of people, if forced to choose, would probably say 'edginess' resides more in anarchism than it does in socialism.
I wonder what Marx would say about welfare. They way he coined the term, socialism meant collective ownership of means of production (generating profit), not redistribution of taxes taken from capitalist system. Were there any welfare programs during Marx's time?
those people don't realise then that anarchism is a distinct political philosophy that isn't 'smash shit fuck the state'. theoretically speaking lib com/ancom/anarchist/syndicalist whatever thought is like the least edgy of the various far left theories.
I believe in worker and employee owned businesses but I don't agree we should have a classless and stateless society?
The word 'socialist' has two common uses today in the West. One is a snarl word for someone who wants free stuff, another is someone who wants Europe. Neither have anything to do with socialism, really. That has nothing to do with what I said though. I didn't say anything about edginess in general, you're equivocating. Marx: As far as the workers are concerned one thing, above all, is definite: they are to remain wage labourers as before. However, the democratic petty bourgeois want better wages and security for the workers, and hope to achieve this by an extension of state employment and by welfare measures; in short, they hope to bribe the workers with a more or less disguised form of alms and to break their revolutionary strength by temporarily rendering their situation tolerable. Also, since the guy you quoted was talking about universal healthcare, Engels: But of late, since Bismarck went in for state-ownership of industrial establishments, a kind of spurious socialism has arisen, degenerating, now and again, into something of flunkeyism, that without more ado declares all state ownership, even of the Bismarckian sort, to be socialistic. Certainly, if the taking over by the state of the tobacco industry is socialistic, then Napoleon and Metternich must be numbered among the founders of socialism. Basically, they see both as progressive (but not necessarily performed by socialists) in that it's a key part of developing consciousness, part of a historical trend of centralization which in turn brings class conflict to a national head, and ultimately showing the limits of capitalism and liberalism for proles.
Sounds to me like Marx thought workers were getting bribed out of ownership and Engels was straight up mocking these efforts.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.