Skip to main content

Kaili Joy Gray's FP diary led me to read more about Einstein .

I read wikipedia about him. I read the synopsis of his scientific work with interest. However, my interest was piqued by the reference to his socialism. This, in turn, led me to his article, "Why Socialism ?" .

I wondered what his penetrating intellect would contribute to the discussion of economics ?

Here are some snippets of what he wrote :

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 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.
So, let us consider the first statement :
It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

For profit companies are in business to make profit. They do this not only by raising revenue, but by reducing costs. Human labor is a cost. Reducing that to a minimum (providing that adding human labor costs does not increase revenue more than the increases in the labor costs) increases profit. All things being equal, therefore, for profit companies pay the lowest wages they can, without decreasing their revenue.

Now, let us consider a second part :

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 smaller ones.
Can I get a witness ? The six Walton heirs own more wealth than the bottom 48 million Americans. Wealth is more unequally distributed now in the United States than ever before.

Automation reduces the marginal cost of production. It can also make entrance into a market prohibitively expensive, discouraging competition. Walmart is a prime example of what Einstein wrote about.

Finally, let us consider the third part :

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.
How else can one rationally, in a fact based way, realistically explain tax law, laws regarding earned benefits, and the acts of the US Congress ?

A tax break of more than $70,000 for Willard's dancing horse ? What ?
Warren Buffet paying a lower tax rate than his secretary ?
Willard paying only 13 % federal income tax rate ?
The proposal by sociopaths like Willard Rmoney and Ryan to end Medicare ?
and replace it with vouchers that will not keep up with the 8% annual increase in health care costs ?
Subsidizing the profits of those who are threatening the ecosystems in the Earth, warming our planet dangerously ?
Privatizing profits but socializing losses ?
Astroturfing by AFP etc

What Einstein wrote is even more true in 2012 than when he wrote it.

Our capitalist economic system is fundamentally flawed.

Originally posted to Vote4Obamain2012 on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 07:59 PM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  didn't know Einstein was pro socialism :-) thanx (15+ / 0-)

    learn something new every day

    & in hindsight, totally not surprised

  •  Willie is only paying 13% taxes according to him (8+ / 0-)

    who seldom speaks truth. And he never claimed that it was 13% federal taxes... Could have been all his taxes including money paid to get amnesty.

    How can you tell when Rmoney is lying? His lips are moving. Fear is the Mind Killer

    by boophus on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 08:21:39 PM PDT

    •  I bet that includes (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Vote4Obamain2012, caul, ozsea1

      Social Security and Medicare taxes too. For 2011 and 2012 that adds 5.65% in taxes above and beyond income taxes.

      I paid 17.4% in federal taxes last year. I'm not complaining about that, but I think it's unfair that the middle class is taxed at a higher rate than the wealthy.

      A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

      by notrouble on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 09:11:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Social security has a really low (For Mitt) cap, (3+ / 0-)

        and neither of them is taken out of capital gains, anyways, so neither could account for a significant part of his taxes.

        I paid about twice what Mitt paid, at least if you count social security and medicare (Being single and having no mortgage makes a big difference, though I really should give more to charity, which would lower the bill).

        •  The social security and medicare taxes (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Flying Goat, ozsea1, eyesoars

          are great regressive tax system -- if you like that sort of thing (and I'm betting Mitt does.)

          A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by notrouble on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 11:11:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Some of our more 'concerned' kossacks (0+ / 0-)

            have pointed out that to raise the SS cap would require some "indexing" of increased benefits to the upper-income taxpayers as well.

            This avoids or at least mitigates the inevitable "welfare program" framing from the rightwing screech monkeys should this indexing not take place.

            Benefits would NOT increase on a 1:1 basis. The indexing would be based on actuarial math to preserve as much progressivity as possible.

            I am not happy with this reality, but politically, it may be the only way forward.

            "No man is rich enough to buy back his past." ~ Oscar Wilde

            by ozsea1 on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 08:32:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Romney has no EARNED INCOME since he left (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        notrouble

        Bain Capital, and even there, it appears that most of that was Interest Income or capital gains.

        So he hasn't paid ANY FICA taxes for over a decade now.

        So, no Medicare or SS taxes for Mitt Romney.

        * * *
        I like paying taxes...with them, I buy Civilization
        -- SCOTUS Justice O.W. Holmes Jr.
        * * *
        "A Better World is Possible"
        -- #Occupy

        by Angie in WA State on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 05:16:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I bet you're close to right (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Angie in WA State

          I suspect a few dollars got "earned" somewhere -- perhaps speaking fees or something. Rmoney's FICA tax rate must be about 0.1%, or something.

          I had this idea for a "fair" tax rate that is so simple it sounds good. It isn't as progressive as I'd like, but when you figure FICA taxes into the equation I suspect it would be more progressive than the current tax system My idea is based on a "flat tax" in name, but one that does not tax subsistence. It's wrong IMHO, in a country that professes a right to life and liberty, to tax that minimal income needed to keep a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

          Here it is:

          The current schemes for IRS and FICA taxes are scrapped in favor of a new "flat" tax. Every household gets a $10,000 deduction. Each dependent, adult and child, gets a $10,000 deduction. All income above the household and dependent deduction it taxed at 20%. All "earned" income and all "capitol gains" too. The sale of primary residences are not subject to taxes (not considered a capitol gain), a primary residence being the place you lived for 3 of the last 5 years (clearly over half the time.)

          A family of 3 with a $40,000 income would pay no federal taxes (household +3 individual deductions.) I would pay about $10,000 in taxes. If you add my FICA and IRS taxes I pay just a little bit more right now. Romney would pay about 18.6% in taxes, as his $30,000 exemption would be only a tiny offset to his $21 million income.

          A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by notrouble on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 08:14:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Oops, math error (0+ / 0-)

            Romney would pay about 19.97% in taxes, as his $30,000 exemption would be only a tiny offset to his $21 million income.

            A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned how to walk forward. Franklin D. Roosevelt

            by notrouble on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 09:54:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Is that 13% an average, or straight percentage? (0+ / 0-)

      Because if he's averaging in all the years he's been paying taxes, there may be a bunch where the actual percentage is less - like zero, or near-zero.

  •  It's Arithmetic Not Rocket Science. (10+ / 0-)

    Which is why creators of the New Deal, and all the way back to some of the framers, spoke up for checks against these tendencies.

    The framers sat down to debate more than a century after the threats from manufacture, trade, speculation and wealth concentration were known in Europe. But where the quill hit the parchment, they built us a system perfectly unaware of that then-century-old wisdom. The Constitution is founded on the ass-sumption that it can't happen here.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 08:26:40 PM PDT

  •  and some idjit Rethug said that Ryan debating (7+ / 0-)

    Biden would be like Einstein debating Forest Gump....

    Lotsa stupid there.

    I had no idea Einstein wrote on social and political stuff.   Time to do some reading up.

    Nothing in the world is more dangerous than a sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity. Martin Luther King, Jr.

    by maybeeso in michigan on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 08:33:42 PM PDT

  •  I'm jealous of Kaili Joy (5+ / 0-)

    I've been trying to get people interested in scientists and science since I've been here.

    Good for you V4O to go off an check out that Einstein fella.

    •  It would be great if more prominent scientists (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      palantir, Vote4Obamain2012, caul

      would speak out today. Even if they are demeaned by the ignoramuses on the right, their voices would lend some degree of authority and creditiblity to major issues of the day such as science education at all levels.

       For example, how can the children in Kansas be saved from only knowing the biblical version of creation and knowing nothing about evolution? (Its only a theory after all.)
      They are rapidly being left behind and their parents and legislators and keeping them that way. I pity the teachers in Kansas and Texas....

      The students from these schools can only get into kansas Universities or CCs. They can never enter or compete in the rest of the US or elsewhere.

      "There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing as simply messing about in boats ..." - Kenneth Grahame -

      by RonK on Sat Aug 18, 2012 at 10:07:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Buckminster Fuller spoke fondly of socialism & (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Calamity Jean

        his World Game

        http://en.wikipedia.org/...  promotes peace and balanced distribution of resources

        Bucky invented the geodesic dome

        bit more of trivia & controversial...

        He had an interesting theory on our early ancestors evolving on an island devoid of large predators......open savanah theory struck him as something that would have selected for larger teeth and claws as vs intelligence......

    •  Ty for encouraging us to do that and for the kind (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      palantir, caul, DEMonrat ankle biter

      words. Any recommendations (whom I should read) ?

    •  See, envy is not necessarily a vice. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      caul, palantir

      It spurs people to imitation and action. Where it becomes deadly is when it's combined with wrath.

      Which raises the question why conservatives are so wrathful.

      Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

      by hannah on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 03:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Compound interest is the most powerful force... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, DEMonrat ankle biter

    in the Universe."  Einstein.

    Sometimes I think their is wisdom in the Islamic view that compound interest is unlawful. When you extrapolate the consequences of compound interest, no economic system can survive.

    "Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities" Voltaire.

    by JWK on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 03:11:01 AM PDT

  •  Pointing to the legislative bodies as (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    caul, arlene

    the crux of the problem was prescient. However, that the legislative bodies are controlled by money got it wrong, at least as far as the national legislative body is concerned.  Congress has been tasked with the obligation to not only manage the currency, but to issue the currency.  Congress is the source of money.  If Congress then allocates more money to one segment of society than all others, then the fault lies with Congress.  

    That the banks have the power is a lie. But, that raises the question why any body of people or corporation would relinquish or deny its own power. The answer, I would argue, lies in the fact that, by design, it is the people who govern and the Congress, the people's representatives, preferring to act like rulers, rather than stewards, have found it convenient to delegate their obligations to the banksters, as their henchmen, and to assign any blame for mismanagement to them. The U.S. Congress is full of a coterie of unjust stewards.  
    Luke 16: 1-13

    Conservatives pulling the religious mantle around themselves shields them from being revealed as violators of the principles that all religious faiths share. We should recognize the Pharisees in them.

    Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

    by hannah on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 03:24:40 AM PDT

    •  In response I would observe (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      arlene, ORDem, Vote4Obamain2012
      Congress has been tasked with the obligation to not only manage the currency, but to issue the currency.  Congress is the source of money.  If Congress then allocates more money to one segment of society than all others, then the fault lies with Congress.  
      that Congress is made up of politicians, requiring money to make a run for office in the first place.  As G. William Domhoff observed:
      The candidate who spends the most does not necessarily win, but the person who does not have a large war chest to begin with usually is eliminated quite early.  It is the need for this large amount of start up money -- to develop name recognition, to gain legitimacy, to undertake direct-mail campaigns, to schedule radio and television advertising in advance -- that gives members of the power elite a very direct role in the [candidate selection] process right from the start, permitting them direct access to politicians of both parties.  Even if they do not tie specific strings to their money, as they often do not, the fund-raising process gives members of the power elite a chance to ensure that only people whom they consider sensible and approachable will emerge from party primaries.
      In other words, the cost of campaigning requires an up front buy-in from investors.  And those would be the wealthiest of our society, as they are the ones with the most ability to contribute the greatest amounts of funding in a short time frame.  And they are not likely to disburse large contributions to those who would call for some scaling back of their privilege in directing and dictating the direction of the system, so that the Congress will be pre-disposed to be made up primarily of those who will, in one form or another, defend that system which makes those wealthy donors wealthy in the first instance.  Thus monetary policy will be biased in favor of the uber-rich as a matter of course.
      •  The money argument is a faux argument. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GDbot

        Letting the quantity of money be a decision point is a matter of choice -- the sign of a lazy electorate.

        That the quantity of money is determinative is wishful thinking.  It's also part of a strategy to discourage change.

        Willard's forte = "catch 'n' cage". He's not into "catch and release."

        by hannah on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 06:40:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Single-factor causality fail (0+ / 0-)

      Or, as another great physicist, Wolfgang Pauli, sometimes said, "Not even wrong".

      Every effect becomes a cause of the next thing, which causes the next, and this chain of causes constantly loops back on itself. Congress has authority over money, and at the same time money has influence over Congress. On some points, money has been given more authority than voters. Why is that so hard to understand?

      The Constitution tries to set as many political causes as possible against each other in the Balance of Powers so that the rascals will whenever possible undo each other's crimes against the people. They feared and distrusted money power, and tried to rein it in, but there was no way that they could have foreseen a political party that would set itself to give greater personhood rights to corporations, money, and fertilized ova than to voting citizens.

      Hey, Mitt! Thanks for ObamneyCare. http://www.healthcare.gov

      by Mokurai on Thu Aug 23, 2012 at 07:27:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Einstein. Nobel Winner Krugman. (4+ / 0-)

    Why listen to them? Let us listen to the wise serious words of University of Ohio at Miami grad, Paul Ryan.  

  •  Most "isms" should not be made into systems. (5+ / 0-)

    Capitalism, socialism, communitarianism, even communism all are tools. The "system" that best accomplishes the goals of society is a metaphorical tool box with all of these available. Imagine if you opened your tool box and there was nothing in there but a hammer. You wouldn't get much done and probably nothing done well.  

  •  hmm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GDbot

    Pick a beach..any beach put it back in the deck..now shuffle the deck

    http://www.youtube.com/...

    Every goddamn day I think about Bradley Manning!

  •  James Madison also warned that (3+ / 0-)

    the legislature could be the downfall of our democracy. In Federalist 10 he said that it all depends on the kind, yes the kind, of people we send to Congress. He said that the two kinds of people, yes he talked about two kinds of people, would be different in the way they treated the People. Madison wrote:

    The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose.

    On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people.

    It is self-evident that we have been suffering under the actions of the latter kind of men. And this means that the system we have for choosing our representatives is a failure and must be replaced.

    Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

    by hestal on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 07:14:25 AM PDT

    •  Some kind of candidate lottery, pre-screened (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hestal

      according to some rubric than can be agreed to and altered periodically, designed to increase the risks of buying candidates.

      The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Clayton Act, Section 6.

      by Ignacio Magaloni on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 11:09:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think you are headed in the right (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Ignacio Magaloni

        direction. The ancient Greeks, the folks who invented democracy, did not like elections because they thought that they were easily corrupted. They relied on random selection for most of the offices they needed to fill. They even built a special machine which was designed to make sure that the selections were truly random.

        Might and Right are always fighting, in our youth it seems exciting. Right is always nearly winning, Might can hardly keep from grinning. -- Clarence Day

        by hestal on Mon Aug 20, 2012 at 08:34:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  BREAKING: Scientists are smart people (3+ / 0-)

    Film at 11!

    I was just re-reading Einstein's lovely little book on Relativity.  Even in translation it is one of the clearest pieces of writing on a very complex subject I've ever encountered.

    It's not at all surprising to find a great mind like his found little confusion about economics.  

    What is surprising is that so many people would rather listen to demagoguery and drink snake-oil.

  •  I've always loved Einstein (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IreGyre, Vote4Obamain2012

    This just adds to more love!

    "I have spent many years of my life in opposition and I rather like the role." - Eleanor Roosevelt. I would like to add that I am a happy atheist!

    by Rogneid on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 09:29:15 AM PDT

  •  Just excellent. Thanks, am forwarding this! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Vote4Obamain2012

    "extreme concentration of income is incompatible with real democracy.... the truth is that the whole nature of our society is at stake." Paul Krugman

    by Gorette on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 09:37:23 AM PDT

  •  And remember how this was done (5+ / 0-)
    The six Walton heirs own more wealth than the bottom 48 million Americans.
    Walmart would go into an environment where there were dozens of Mom and Pop entrepreneurs, undercut their prices, force them out of business and then raise their prices for the customers after they had no place else to go to get things.

    Meanwhile, paying their workers so little that State governments had to take up the slack on healthcare.

    In other words, in terms of the well-being of communities, their workers, and the nation at large, the Waltons are basically vampire turds.


    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 10:15:20 AM PDT

  •  Einstein wrote preface to telepathy bk: (0+ / 0-)

    Mental Radio by none other than Upton Sinclair.

    Tis a nifty book.

  •  Einstein: How I See the World (2+ / 0-)

    This is a good segment of a PBS special on Einstein. The one minute mark shows interviews about Einstein's beliefs. He was a pacifist and he rejected the hostility, immorality, and weakness of what amounts to the present day iteration of the ancient economy and empire. Science has different profiles of risk than economy does. Time matters little in the world of science. Ethics are important.

    He didn't work on a problem with the constraint of time and risk. There wasn't an accountant looking over his shoulder blabbing about the change in earnings and some lunatic, rigged markets.

    The first minute or so talks about the simplicity of his work and then they give more of his history.

  •  Can't agree to the conclusion... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    niebuhrsbulldog

    ... as to fundamental flaws in the economic system.   It is, in fact, the worst system in the world -- until you compare it to the other "systems."  Indeed, the mistake is putting your trust in systems.  Economics, security and liberty do not derive from "systems," they are fundamentally human processes.  It is not any algorithm from which those things derive, it is the process we as citizens follow that creates our collective and individual greatness.

    Indeed, as a system, the appeal to me is that it is a "non-system."  The United States is the first true experiment in balancing libertarian and egalitarian principles, and it is going ok, although the pendulum does slip too far in either direction at times.  Ours is an anti-pattern evading characterization as free-market or collectivist.  We do quite a bit of both, and try to live free or die in the process.  The chaos is a beautiful as it is frightening, and the American Experiment, until now, has been a brilliant success.

    Competing principles are not a bad thing.  No "system" can embody all good for all people.   As mere humans, we do the best we can with that with which we are dealt.

    However, the truth of many of Einstein's remarks are apparent.  This is why the Citizens United case is a travesty -- it essentially memorialized forever the hegemony of money in campaigning.  On top of this, the mechanisms by which monied interests can assure anonymity makes this no less than a demonstrably certified mode of graft.

    American "capitalism/non-capitalism" under the New Deal and after Anti-Trust laws, struck the balance that led us through great prosperity and a burgeoning middle-class.  A genuine land of opportunity.  That system, though flawed, is now at risk, and whether or not its flawed, its still the best system I have seen.

    The American Republic, in contrast, was struck down by a single 5-4 vote.  The spate of vote suppression and kow-towing to moneyed interests to fund media access and to purchase talking heads to support messaging is where I see the fundamental flaw.

    •  This. Excellent post. (0+ / 0-)

      Also the original post ignores the positive aspects of capitalism.

      For example, minimizing costs means that the worker can buy products for as cheap as possible.

      The second aspect of his point, about gross inequality, is a legislative problem and not an economic one.

      No economic system can reach a 'perfect level of equality' (if you believe absolute equality is a good outcome). Does capitalism, as practiced today, have an egregious level of inequality? Yes but the only countries which have acceptable levels of equality and prosperity (what's the point of absolute equality if everyone has nothing) are mixed-market capitalist countries in Europe.

      I know those countries are 'socialist,' but for all intents and purposes, the word 'socialism' has tragically been destroyed and distorted in America. Socialism = Communism in America even if it shouldn't, and no matter how much we protest or lecture the country, that's the way it'll stick.

      So unless you believe in Communism, anyone on the Left who proclaims themselves a 'socialist' is both sending the wrong message and - in my opinion - is counterproductive to the cause, because communism is so rightfully reviled in this country. Even if you're technically right, its not what you say but what the audience hears that matters.

      •  One of the poorest arguments for avoiding using (0+ / 0-)

        necessary language I have ever read, if I do not misunderstand, niebuhrsbulldog.

        Socialism = Communism in America even if it shouldn't, and no matter how much we protest or lecture the country, that's the way it'll stick.
        So unless you believe in Communism, anyone on the Left who proclaims themselves a 'socialist' is [. . .] sending the wrong message

        Socialism as a word must never be avoided simply because of the ignorance of the American mass-media viewership. Your principle, generally applied,  would leave us unable to speak nearly any country's name, or even refer to President Obama as an American, in some neighborhoods--and your proscription is even more onerous for any serious political discussion. I suspect it would eviscerate our language faster than any language restriction in Orwell's 1984!

        I do not see Einstein as oversimplifying the flaws in capitalism--he is only pointing to an obvious problem as it interacts with democratic representation. As we all know, socialism can also uses capitalist market forces as it pursues practical an equitable economic outcomes; in fact, much of the New Deal safety net (including the separation of the speculative financial world from more mundane banking support of the economy) is straightforward socialism, and is (less and less each year, sadly) a part of normal American economic organization.
        Libertarian romantic/gothic/horror/sci-fi fantasies that ignore the structure of the post-agrarian world have caused great damage to the political culture.
         I do think there is a bit of necessary confusion in all our posts as we make educated guesses about the proportions in  which words like capitalism and socialism contain their economic and political ideas--difficult to sort out in a diary. Wizardwerna's  concessions to truth in Einstein's socialist observations--presumably with which the diarist agrees--are inverted in relation to the diarist's use of Einstein's words  when capitalism is used as a politico-economic term with her qualifications. So, what are we saying here?

        Capitalism re-tasked and monitored politically to provide a world we can live in for generations without consuming the world like a mold IS socialism. Today, some would reject Adam Smith's moral boundaries for capitalism as socialist!

        A healthy socialist response to current oligarchic abuses would be a very wise, and very American, reform.

        I suppose I am saying there is more common ground than the friendly criticism implies.

        The labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce. Clayton Act, Section 6.

        by Ignacio Magaloni on Sun Aug 19, 2012 at 11:00:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site