/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4830681]

Albert Einstein - 1948

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. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

[Anonymous No.4830686]

Niggers caused this.

[Anonymous No.4830699]

>>4830686

wut

[Anonymous No.4830708]

This has been my favourite article for the last few years - it has a paragraph about everything.

Whenever a total idiot misquotes Einstein, I can always find something in this paper that will make him look like a total idiot.

Nice thread.

[Anonymous No.4830786]

Einstein should have stuck to physics.

[Anonymous No.4830795]

>>4830786

Sounds like you're mad.

[Anonymous No.4830851]

>>4830795
I am so fucking buttfrustrated rite now

[Anonymous No.4830859]

There really is a mathematical argument to be made for socialism; Capitalism relies on the assumption that just letting the economy fester (subject to whatever regulations or lack thereof you believe in) is better than managing it.

This is similar to saying that letting people evolve resistance to disease and increased intelligence is better than scientifically working towards these goals with an understanding of medicine, nutrition and genetics.

While in the short term, you could make a band-aid argument for keeping things how they are, planning the economy is just numerically superior and we will need to figure out how to do it WELL if we ever want to take the next steps forward for society.

[Anonymous No.4830868]

>>4830786
pic related

[Anonymous No.4830897]

>>4830868

>can't argue
>HURR HE WAS A SENILE MAN XD

[Anonymous No.4831233]

>>4830868

Inb4 not science

[Anonymous No.4831242]

>>4830859
>planning the economy is just numerically superior
Historical precedent would disagree with you.

[Anonymous No.4831246]

>>4831242
well, he pulled the true scotsman, so that point is moot

[Anonymous No.4831310]

>>4831242

I don't think you get it "historical precedent" is meaningless - unless you're okay with my using industrial revolution era or third world capitalism as a "historical precedent" for why capitalism doesn't work. I wasn't saying anything about how people have implemented "socialism" or whether or not "capitalism" currently works, I said that the difference between capitalism and socialism is, at its core: "Should we plan the economy?" Now this is a question that every armchair economist and their aunt have a strong opinion about; for my part, the only thing we can objectively say is that an optimally planned economy is better than an optimally chaotic economy, period.

And, if you so choose to bring up historical precedent (for planned economies, not the social policies which "historically" accompanied them), the most successful economic endeavours in history have been the planned soviet transformation from fiefdom to the second most powerful country int he world followed by the economically planned american space race.

>>4831246

I see rhetorically why it's advantageous to claim that my post amounts to saying "socialism that doesn't work isn't true socialism" but in actual fact you missed the point and just wanted to use a cute turn of phrase you heard on the internet. If you define socialism to be a democratically planned economy (as Einstein did) then it is not axiomatically incorrect to say Soviets aren't socialists. Moreover, your argument is dangerously reductionist ex: "capitalism ruled by a dictator in sub saharan Africa isn't true capitalism" - congratulations, I've found the same "fallacy" in the system you prefer. Better to ignore politically charged one-liners and discuss intellectually.