Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I do so love Albert Einstein's writing, though I've never read The General Theory (not to be confused with Keynes's General Theory, which I've heard was written and built upon the structure of Einstein's book).  I have plenty of thoughts, but a comment would be too long, so I'll try to post a diary after I reread it.  There's a lot to cover.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 12:51:55 PM EST
Thoughts?

Damn -- that guy was smart!

Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Feb 14th, 2006 at 03:32:39 PM EST
The problem with trying to operate a "planned economy" is, of course, that people form plans from their own knowledge, including specific knowledge of persons, places, tools, and so on -- knowledge of costs and opportunities that cannot be written down on forms, collected in a central office, and processed into a "plan". Economic activities are planned by the people with the knowledge -- that is, by the people, and in a distributed and unpredictable way.

To the limited extend that central planning is possible, it functions as a supplement to these dispersed plans:

  • It places some actions out of bounds via law and regulation.

  • It changes incentives via taxes and subsidies

  • It makes specific things happen via purchase of goods and services.      

  • It influences broad levels of activity (via macroeconomic fiddling).

The original, historical "socialist planning" contemplated far more than this. It failed for fundamental reasons rooted in the distributed nature of societal knowledge. (Sweden is in no sense socialist, in the original sense.)

Einstein's thought was directed toward finding simple, universal, all-embracing principles. This was not a good background for contemplating the super-human complexity of society.

Words and ideas I offer here may be used freely and without attribution.

by technopolitical on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 02:47:06 AM EST
I have not much to add, just thanks for posting this.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 07:20:22 AM EST
I did not know Einstein was pro-Socialist. I wonder whether this fact (and the article, for that matter) effected his life in the USA. And I wish we had read this piece last semester in my IPE course (International Political Economy).

Interestingly, even George Soros wrote an article on the dangers of capitalism for a society of humans ("The Capitalist Threat," Atlantic Monthly, Vol.279, No.2, February 1997). Although it was much later.

A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government -- Edward Abbey

by serik berik (serik[dot]berik on Gmail) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 08:57:02 AM EST
I did not know Einstein was pro-Socialist. I wonder whether this fact (and the article, for that matter) effected his life in the USA.

Yes. He was observed by the FBI.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 11:40:08 AM EST
[ Parent ]
well if it isn't mr.relativity with his nutty theories again!

seriously chris....good catch.

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 10:54:39 AM EST
If you are not for yourself, who will be?
If you are just for yourself, what are you?

The essence of socialism in an old Hebrew saying.

by shergald on Wed Feb 15th, 2006 at 03:52:18 PM EST
Interesting historical document, but not really earth-shattering in its content. To me it looks like his views on Socialism was pretty close to the "mainstream" among European intellectuals of the time.
by Trond Ove on Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 12:07:44 PM EST
Yes, you're right. But the fact that it was written by one of the most respected men in America, a man who was a hero to millions of school children (and adults), is what I find fascinating. I also thought it was clear and well written, unlike some essays by European intellectuals of the time ;<)

Do not feel safe. The poet remembers.
Czeslaw Milosz
by Chris Kulczycki on Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 06:09:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Many eminent figures in US popular culture were in favour of some form of Socialism, or were politically committed to "heretical" points of view like anti-militarism.  This is conveniently whitewashed out of their biographies as taught to school kids, and out of their writings as collected in popular anthologies.  Twain's passionate and scathingly-expressed opposition to US invasion of the Philippines is largely forgotten, as is Paul Robeson's commitment to Socialism and labour rights as well as civil rights for American Blacks.  Helen Keller (another "all American Disney heroine") was an active Socialist.  American textbooks of my generation managed to cover the works of GB Shaw without mentioning his Socialist or vegetarian views!

In American discourse, Socialism is inherently "evil" (wchurchill recently posted something to this effect I believe) rather than merely a flavour or point along the spectrum of legitimate political thought or opinion.  [I forget who once said that the "broad spectrum of American political discourse ranges from the pale greenish blue to the pale bluish green" or wtte.] It's the Scarlet Letter of American discourse, as contaminating as (at one time) was adultery, mixed-race love, Jewishness, divorce or homosexuality.  There is an old fashioned, prudish horror of Socialism, as if it were syphilis.  If any cultural hero was "weak enough to succumb to it" then we don't talk about it in front of the children :-) as that would (a) set a bad, bad example or (b) undermine a cherished national myth by exposing the dirty laundry.

A similar Bowdlerism or revisionism excises surgically from popular consciousness the outspoken antisemitism of Henry Ford, and until quite recently the pro-Nazi sentiments of "Lucky" Lindbergh.  Horatio Alger's fascination for teenage boys can now be spoken of  -- at least by US historians and literati -- in hushed tones;  I think it may many decades before Americans can bear to discuss the socialist speeches or essays of an Einstein or a Helen Keller.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Feb 16th, 2006 at 08:46:10 PM EST
All too true.

One case of bowdlerism I find both very instructive and sadly amusing concerns Francis Bellamy, the Baptist minister who wrote the original Pledge of Allegiance in 1892.
I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.'
He started with an act of self-censorship, omitting the word "equality", which, he knew, would not be accepted. Equality? With blacks and women? We'll have none of that, sir! So, to Bellamy's great personal grief, exit "equality".

Then came a rewrite in 1924 by the National Flag Conference to change "my Flag" in "the Flag of the United States of America" (and no other flag) and then a further rewrite by Congress in 1954 to add the obnoxious "under God".

And it is how what has become the symbol of all that is wrong and rancid with America nowadays, was originally written by an utopian Socialist. But don't worry, the kids will never hear about Bellamy himself.
by Francois in Paris on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 05:52:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Utopian Socialist he may have been, but still he took republic and indivisibility for granted. Two reasons why the original pledge could not be accepted by a majority in Spain, quite apart from the Franco-induced allergy we have to our flag.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 06:03:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Twain's passionate and scathingly-expressed opposition to US invasion of the Philippines is largely forgotten, as is Paul Robeson's commitment to Socialism and labour rights as well as civil rights for American Blacks.

The Manic Street Preachers ("Karl Marx's favourite band") have a son (not that great as a song but anyway) about Robeson.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:39:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and he was such a good writer too.  I didn't remember him as such a good writer, having only been exposed to his mathematical writing about Relativity.  And even tho I took Honors Calculus, the Theory of Relativity is not the easiest set of concepts to understand.  AS a result, I remembered him differently.  

He touches all the right places doesn't he?  This almost last para is the one that says it all for me.  It is why I have been such a societal interloper all my life.

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.

Thanks a lot for tuning me on to this essay.  I'll return to reread it.

alohapolitics.com

by Keone Michaels on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:10:44 AM EST
Funny, I found his original papers on Relativity (the General one specially) clearer than most textbooks, with the definite exception of J.A. Wheeler's.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:19:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Relativity" is a gorgeous little popular science book. Very readable.

Never occurred to me that digging out his original papers might be a useful thing to do. My understanding of Gen Rel still isn't very good.

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:27:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There is a little booklet of original papers of relativity published by Dover. In 1915 physicists didn't know about differential geometry or tensors, so Einstein actually had to explain the geodesic equation and all that, and he does it better than most textbooks.

I'm not saying that the subject is easy, but that (as happens so often) it's better to read the original than some thrice-regurgitated version. Of course, the writing of Wheeler is also original and has the benefit of 50+ years of hindsight, but still...

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:42:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My first 'popular' relativity book was the one by Landau, which has lots of cartoons. I got it when I was 10 and it took me quite some years to understand it ;-)

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 22nd, 2006 at 10:44:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series