When you think of Albert Einstein, what comes to mind? For many years I would think of a genius who helped to transform our understanding of the universe and ultimately helped humanity gain immensely. He was this, certainly, and his contribution in that respect should be praised (He certainly deserved being named Time Magazine’s “Person of the Century.”). He was also, it is largely forgotten and I came to learn only in recent years, an adamant humanitarian and socialist. Dr. Einstein opposed the use and possession of nuclear arms, war, racism, facism and capitalism. He truly was a great thinker, not only because of his scientific contribution but also because he had a compassionate and holistic worldview.
…
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
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. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
– Albert Einstein, “Why Socialism?“
Like Einstein, I advocate an engaging socialism that embraces democracy and seeks to alter the selfish and success-driven mentality that capitalism thrives on and confines us with. I believe in socialism because it is an effective and necessary tool in actualizing compassion and reducing suffering. In an era when we are overusing the world’s resources, overpopulating the planet, fostering vile wars, allowing disease and poverty to spread, destroying environments and permitting countless other tragedies to go unchecked, we need to grasp this truth that socialists live by and that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. once spoke: “An individual has not started living until he can rise above the narrow confines of individualistic concern to the broader concerns of all humanity.”
10 comments on “Why Socialism”
Like Einstein, I advocate an engaging socialism that embraces democracy and seeks to alter the selfish and success-driven mentality that capitalism thrives on and confines us with. I believe in socialism because it is an effective and necessary tool in actualizing compassion and reducing suffering.
Your thoughts on this parallel my own right now.
Though socialism is a very pleasant fantasy, I don’t think it will ever be practical under the current capitalist umbrella (sadly). You and I both know how capitalist countries (America) deal with any economic system separate from their own, and though I hate to admit it, they are largely in control at the moment. Greed is largely in control at the moment and the populace is too apathetic to really do anything about it.
For the time being (and I’m trying to be realistic here): I’d settle for stronger laws regarding corporate responsibility, environmental responsibility and a movement to close the gap between the rich and the poor (ie: tax the rich and give it to the poor). I think a lot of problems will vanish with the elimination of poverty, equal access to good education (all necessities), all of which would help generate ideological/racial equality and self-sustainability. All can come from the few fundamental changes within the capitalist system mentionned above. Like I said, no economic system is inherently evil: human flaws and ignorance mingle with it and then it spreads. What makes you think that greed couldn’t find a way with socialism?
People are just too apathetic. The fault is assuming that any form of capitalism can not work. The reason capitalism doesn’t work is because of greed, irresponsbility, and lack of compassion towards those with different value and belief systems. If the people mass together and think of a way to control those very pivotal issues (war falling under all three of those categories), things will smooth out (I believe). If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
If these issues really make their way into our culture, if they become debated in public forums LIKE THEY SHOULD BE (and we can right now we just don’t at the level we need to), you wouldn’t believe what we the people could do for ourselves. Peaceful (sometimes) revolution, baby. Not to say that we could create the society we’re looking for but we could certainly change this one for the better.
The thing about promoting socialism is that you’re ignoring that transition phases all together which makes it totally unappealing to anyone who actually wants to see change but doesn’t want to completely disassemble society and rebuild it from the ground up. There is a more realistic and comfortable way of doing it, that most people would actually agree with.
If someone said the word I’d get started on socialism tomorrow, but that’s just me. I’m not in charge, I only make $6.75 an hour. My influence is nothing at the moment.
Socialism is very attractive, though, so I suppose having the utmost faith in it makes me a socialist, albeit a realistic one.
Though socialism is a very pleasant fantasy, I don’t think it will ever be practical under the current capitalist umbrella (sadly). You and I both know how capitalist countries (America) deal with any economic system separate from their own, and though I hate to admit it, they are largely in control at the moment. Greed is largely in control at the moment and the populace is too apathetic to really do anything about it.
Socialism is not at all about fantasy for me. It’s as real as anything else. That people are too wounded and confused to embrace it at the moment does not deminish its truth or the need to enact it. Sure, it’s going to take a lot of effort to bring it into place, but what kind of cowards would we be if we gave up on humanity?
For the time being (and I’m trying to be realistic here): I’d settle for stronger laws regarding corporate responsibility, environmental responsibility and a movement to close the gap between the rich and the poor (ie: tax the rich and give it to the poor). I think a lot of problems will vanish with the elimination of poverty, equal access to good education (all necessities), all of which would help generate ideological/racial equality and self-sustainability. All can come from the few fundamental changes within the capitalist system mentionned above. Like I said, no economic system is inherently evil: human flaws and ignorance mingle with it and then it spreads. What makes you think that greed couldn’t find a way with socialism?
People are just too apathetic. The fault is assuming that any form of capitalism can not work. The reason capitalism doesn’t work is because of greed, irresponsbility, and lack of compassion towards those with different value and belief systems. If the people mass together and think of a way to control those very pivotal issues (war falling under all three of those categories), things will smooth out (I believe). If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
I wouldn’t settle for anything, but any step toward responsibility and compassion I’ll cheer and support in the ways I am able. I think that settling is dangerous, really. The elimination of any of the injustice you mentioned really can’t take place with apathy or half-efforts.
I believe you are wrong about systems not being inherently harmful (“evil”). Capitalism inherently promotes selfishness (an evil) and division. There’s simply no way around it, it’s a system of selfishness in which those who are least compassionate excell. Embracing that is folly.
Socialism, when structured well (Read Dr. Einstein’s warnings against centralized control and the need to promote compassion through a reformed education system), promotes compassion and thus reduces greed. The whole point of this is to combat the prevelent selfish, which is ultimately humanity’s greatest flaw.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not a capitalist (not that you thought that), in fact, I’d go as far as to say Capitalism has made my life a lot more uncomfortable than I’d like it to be. The very mindset you need to survive in a capitalist society is combined with fragments of extreme-selfishness, and those who do make the most money can be the most delusional of them all. It’s our culture’s obsession with materialism that is the core of all of its problems.
However, what I’m trying to say is that I do believe it is possible to have a market economy where people earn what they deserve based on what is required of their job and not be controlled by selfishness. I think it is possible to initiate a transition phase where salary caps justify elimination of poverty.
What I am trying to introduce here is the step that is necessary between Capitalism and Socialism. I don’t think you can rush into it without it being more harmful than good (Mao). I think like with all cultural movements, in order to work it can not be hasty. It needs to be cultivated and slowly brought into the picture: and the necessary transition stage that I’m advocating, in my opinion, can work without the extreme levels of greed.
It’s like diet Capitalism. Still Capitalism, but less of the baggage.
I guess at the root of this I just fear that too many people are slipping into Socialism and Anarchism only to refuse to work with the status quo in some kind of snobbed up elitism. I saw it very prominently at protests and the town hall meeting awhile ago: when some people go socialist, they fail to make the compromises needed to have any kind of transition stage, making everything very black and white. I’m not accusing you of this, I think I just saw a few trace sentiments.
…and this is still unfolding in my head as well, I’m still not as clear on the big picture as I’d like to be. I live with a business graduate so naturally this is an argument in process (a friendly one :D).
We do have to put up with elements of capitalism during the transition, but there’s a danger in becoming stagnant when things improve some due to a reduction in active greed. This is one reason I think we need to have socialism as a goal to always be aware of.
Sure, some folks can become fanatical, but they’re ultimately shrugging off the core of this to me, compassion. We need to have compassion for those who are deluded and work to help heal them. I believe we should take the middle way and work gradually, but we shouldn’t sacrifice socialism as our prime goal because a few folks get nutty.
Yeah, I agree whole-heartedly 🙂
If these issues really make their way into our culture, if they become debated in public forums LIKE THEY SHOULD BE (and we can right now we just don’t at the level we need to), you wouldn’t believe what we the people could do for ourselves. Peaceful (sometimes) revolution, baby. Not to say that we could create the society we’re looking for but we could certainly change this one for the better.
The thing about promoting socialism is that you’re ignoring that transition phases all together which makes it totally unappealing to anyone who actually wants to see change but doesn’t want to completely disassemble society and rebuild it from the ground up. There is a more realistic and comfortable way of doing it, that most people would actually agree with.
You’re dead wrong that I’m ignoring gradual transition. We need to both have the eventual goal and the situation-specific steps we can take to reach it in our minds. We need to think holisticly and promote compassion in any way we are able to. If we only talk about steps or limit our thinking to that we miss the big picture and mislead people. I’m all for looking at individual causes and issues, but everything is connected and ignoring that will only lead to further imbalance. Yes, lets do what is possible now, but lets not lose sight of what needs to take place.
I don’t want to skirt the issue, I want to work to present socialism to people in accessable ways. I’m doing what I can to become better at showing it to people clearly and from the view that to cultivate compassion is to cultivate socialism; that is, to live for the whole not just ourselves.
Okay, rephrase (and I hope this isn’t annoying):
I’m basically saying that capitalism isn’t inherently evil and the largest issues today should be addressed by the populace as a whole in a very outright method, all of which will lead to a shift in culture that would inevitably lead to the transition from our capitalist system to one which would foster many of the critical attributes socialists strive for: furthermore, it would pave the way for socialism down the road.
I just don’t advocate yelling “Socialism” at everyone and assume we’re going to jump into it. No one would follow. It needs to be introduced first, by raising contemporary issues in all public forums: only then can we transition, at a safe (non-violent) pace.
If you get these issues from the intellectual’s mouth and into the status quo, you can fuck up all sorts of established beliefs. It’s all about getting people to follow.
Nice stuff. Around the time I read that I also read Russell’s “What I Believe” and ummmm this collection of essays by Albert Schweitzer. What it gave me was an unshakable conviction that, as Kant put it, people should be ends in themselves rather than means to ends.
And one of the biggest prods that drives me to persist with ParDelib is the notion that some concepts /can/ be laid out and explored dialectically, like our relationship to capital.
BTW, as an aside: have you had any connection with Chebucto? I’ve had an account there since 1994 (mine is the 106th!!) and have been the webmaster for *counts* at least 4 sites, but I’m wondering if I could start an account there as an “information provider” even though I’m no longer in NS.
I haven’t read much by Schweitzer so I hunted down a few pieces to read before I head home to sleep. Struggle to Find Life’s Meaning was rich with insight; he nailed responsibility, love, spirituality and ethics with clarity in that.
I haven’t ready any of Russell’s work but I’ll add “What I Believe” to my next library mission list. I’d only really known of him through learning about the court case it was used in.
Dialectical reasoning really only fails when we deal with intangible or subjective points, so it has application outside of the “chocolate or vanilla” realm. I suppose the challenge is getting folks to separate the substance of beliefs from the flavouring.
Aside from reading a dozen or so of the sites based there, I haven’t had any connection with Chebucto. I took a look around the site and didn’t find anything addressing being an out-of-province information provider specifically, but I think they’d receive an inquiry well.
I sometimes think Schweitzer’s life has been buried because of aversion to anything that smacks of colonialism. He really was a fine thinker.
Russell’s book … I might have the title wrong … it might be more along the lines of “Root of Happiness” or something. Or maybe both!
🙂
“Dialectical reasoning really only fails when we deal with intangible or subjective points“: an online system (“augmented discourse”) that would dis-confound narrative from statements of “fact”. (In my ”hello” post to I wrote, “an object has a monetary value according to what it is, right? So this object (shows imaginary block of mineral) isn’t worth much cuz, far from being precious stone, it’s just a rock, yes? But it isn’t just a rock … it contains a very rare petrified skull and is worth $thousands. We don’t create our world … but we do create our experience of it.”)
Ahhh bravo … that’s exactly the thinking I’ve tried to implement in
“so it has application outside of the “chocolate or vanilla” realm.“
What I find really neat about this (and I thank my teacher for his instructions on madhyamika here) is that the concepts that serve us as terminals to the continuum, something like absolutes, like “hot / cold”, “short/long”, “good/bad” etc etc etc are not only /subjective/ but they are actually /relative/ … extremely so. 145F is a hellish hot day … for us on this planet. But, of course, for another critter here for for another day on another planet …
… so that’s what, for me, would be the ultimate payoff if ParDelib flourished to the size, scale, and scope of Wikipedia: we would map out the narrative/subjective aspects of those quasi-absolute concepts that serve us so frequently. We’d actually be engaged in substantial debate/discussion (“collaborative exploration with an inquisitive spirit” is how it’s depicted) … hence high light/heat ratio.
“I suppose the challenge is getting folks to separate the substance of beliefs from the flavouring.“
*grin*
Impossible … it’s fractal, mate … can neither seperate long from short nor seperate “length” from “space” … everything is self-referential … co-emergent, if you will.
But I take your point: what we /can/ attain is a lucid appreciation of what the hell is going on as we experience and communicate. Sounds like a step forward, ehh whot?
🙂
Thanks for the info on chebucto … nobody I connected with in Hali was actually active or interested in that … it’s nice to have some human content in cyber-operations. (Gawd my experience at SMU in ’95 was disheartening … /such/ a window of opportunity!)