voice of liberty

2020-12-07 17:32:21

"Why socialism"

critique regarding Albert Einstein's essay. I don't intend to insult Albert Einstein, just intend to citicize the modern socialist, using him for their purposes. By this essay I intend to fight the living, not the dead.
Find the original here: http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

[long and unimportant introduction]

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being.

There is no way one can differenciate those two things. Everything an individual does, one does for his own pleasure. The expression of an individuals ability to for example earn money, is only a means to an end. It is a tool for everything one can ever dream for (see: Maslow's hierachy of needs).

It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; [...]

Is it society, which teaches an individual to think? Is it society, which works for the fruits of one's labor? This society is formed by oher individuals, so where do they get these things from?
Society is the sum of hard working people working for their individual goals. They can survive at their own, but choose not to, because the opportunity cost is simply too high, it is somply cheaper to buy bread, rather than baking it yourself.

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees.

A comparison between ants and humans is quite funny, but inaccurate. Humans don't have collective intelligence, nor do are they a natural subject to a leader. It is rational choice, which distinguishes us from those animals. One might choose to follow Lenin, but it only happens because one might believe, that Lenin is more suitable to fulfill your individual ambitions.

The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate.

Should this, if you could divide it this way, be a problem, if choosen by your own will? However: Here the conscious individual human takes decision, but above they were tribal animals?

Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

How does it come then, that free men don't choose to devote themselves to society, unless they want to rule those who choose to?

We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules.

• There is no "collective property". Every piece of property is the result of assimiliation of one's abilities to nature. There's no way people can do that in a collective, because they would a): miss a reason to work or b): some "egoist" would claim the property and might become something similar to a state.
• Described here is theft. What every relationship, an ideal free-market society consists of, is trade. Voluntary trade between two or more people. If you label this trade exploitation you judge the value-systems of yourself or others as irrational. If you recognise yourself as irrational, change your value-system. But recognising others as irrational is not possible according to the rationaltity trap.(you have missing knowledge of sb. consumption wants and needs)

Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs [...]

In this case, just choose another employer, who values you more.
A worker chooses to earn less than an employer, because of time preferences. Eugen Böhm von Bauwerk described it wonderful in one of his books.

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.

• "Private capital tends to become concentrated" no it doesn't. Just like freedom does not lead to slavery.
• competition leads to lower prices and therefore lower profits. Competition creates a price mechanism, which is origin and result of all decisions.
• technological development creates better products and more competition (unless state patents are granted). A seen formation of monopolies/oligopolies might not be a necessary product of technology itself, but rather a persuited political goal.
• technological development and an increasing division of labor disencourage the central planning, at one point it becomes impossible.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use.

Big profit is a result of a good product. Every consumer gives a vote for the best product suiting their needs and the producer with the best product gains the big cash. Of course one can choose to sell vegan chairs, but he might earn less, than a conventional chair producer, because he serves a minority of the people. Where people are willing to spend money, there are big profits and therefore the production is carried for profit, but the product is carried on for consumer needs and wants.

The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job.

Let's propose there are two bakeries in a city. Bakery A and B. 50 people live in the city. Bakery A bakes 30 loaves of bread a day. Bakery B bakes 4 loaves of bread, but at a lower cost. Bakery B will earn higher profits than A, because of the lower prices. The only way to challenge this is for Bakery A to reduce it's price to increase market demand, unless they want to go bankrupt. If they go bankrupt, because they are unable to serve consumer needs and wants, some employees will swap to different jobs, one might raise his own company and others will be employed by bakery B.
The fear of losing your job is a sacrifice I am willing to take to satisfy comsumer wants and needs.

Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all.

Technological progress results in a higher productivity and lower need of labor in one sector, which does not mean, that labor becomes worthless, it is simply redistributed to other sectors.

Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

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.

Is it a solution to substitute emotional instability with indoctrination of our children?

How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

The individual, which needs to be protected by enslaving it and forming it to a willing robot is no individual at all.

#socialism #Einstein #capitalism #liberty