| | Thank you Sarah, for calling attention to the political fumblings of this otherwise intelligent man!
Disclaimer: this post exceeds 1000 words--read at your own risk
What follows is a point-by-point rebuttal to the notable "Einsteinian political contradictions" in this essay:
--------------------
Contradiction 1
"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."
Explanation 1
"[S]ocial drives" is, in this context, a mere floating abstraction--begging for a more precise definition. If pressed for definition, Al may have outlined a need for belongingness or relatedness or, in the worst possible case--sacrifice. At that point, I'd ask him how individually producing values is antithetic to these "social drives"--and whether value grows on trees to be shared with others in egalitarian glee. As Rand said: [blank out]
--------------------
Contradiction 2
"Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society."
Explanation 2
This enthymeme involves an unspoken premise: that value (meaning) is intrinsically an other-serving phenomenon. If pressed, Al may retort that some folks (such as the miser who never leaves his pile of gold) have made themselves miserable by being "self-serving." My response would be to question whether such short-sighted and narrow-minded behavior (of a paranoid miser) can even be logically construed to be in the miser's rational self-interest. And whether there is a more rational, long-term method of self-interest available to man.
--------------------
Contradiction 3
"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 ... "
Explanation 3
First of all, the hideous notion of "collective labor" ignores the source of values (individual minds). And the abominable notion of "unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits" presumes a jungle-law dynamic of limited resources and an equivocal quality of "labor" among men. True, IF men were bees (or ants), THEN socialism would be a human good--but our nature differs from that of bees and ants. What an incredible oversight from someone of such intellectual prowess!
--------------------
Contradiction 4
"In so far 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 and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs."
Explanation 4
This point ignores how "real value" is increasingly made accessible to humans (from private ownership). Again, it is as if values grow on trees, and capitalists are merely feudal landlords who merely own the land on which the trees "naturally" produce--the direct opposite of the reality of this matter. At this point, I would ask Al about why it is that lifetime labor--from early childhood until death--was largely eradicated in the West. What made it possible for us to work less and have more?
The historical perspective--regarding the increasingly available values, the consequence of capitalistic division of labor and profit motive--belies Al's position on this matter. And this pragmatic justification still leaves out the more important point about the morality of rational individuals requiring, as part of their natural make-up or identity, the freedom to trade values, instead of a forced redistribution of value--with no regard for the individual sources of its production.
--------------------
Contradiction 5
" ... 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."
Explanation 5
In a constitutional republic devoted to upholding individual rights and rule of law--this point becomes mute. That some powerful men can be corrupt is no argument for the arbitrary, centralized power associated with socialism. On the contrary, it is an argument for the decentralization of power and a re-doubling of effort at upholding rights--ie. it is actually an argument for a constitutional minarchy.
--------------------
Contradiction 6
"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."
Explanation 6
This contradiction is the most excusable of the bunch, as it has only recently been decisively contradicted by empirical data--ie. the internet. SOLOHQ is a world leader in this regard--enabling a forum "for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." Indeed, the mere fact of this very online dialogue (about political thought) is antithetic to Al's position on the matter!
--------------------
Contradiction 7
"But taken as a whole, the present-day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism."
Explanation 7
None required (interested parties are merely directed to CUI for decisively-illustrated contradictions to this bogus notion)
--------------------
Contradiction 8
"Production is carried on for profit, not for use."
Explanation 8
Presumes an intrinsic, sacrificial nature to value production. In a truly free market, no instances of production "for profit" could be mutually exclusive to production "for use"--only continual "use" could sustain continual "profit."
--------------------
Contradiction 9
"There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment ... "
Explanation 9
Irrelevant. And even if ASSUMED relevant (for hypothetical purposes), this statement presumes a "perfect life of heaven on earth" guarantee on that which is merely of contingent or conditional nature. It divorces means from ends. NOTHING guarantees "full employment." This is merely emotional ejaculation on Al's part.
BESIDES, it is CAPITALISM that has employed masses like nothing else has. Here is a mental exercise:
-Note the astronomical increase in employment by a single capitalist, Henry Ford, in a single lifetime
-Now multiply that by merely 100 similar capitalists
-And note how much of the world would be employed (and feeding themselves), from the work of this mere subset of our world's successful entrepreneurs
--------------------
Contradiction 10
"Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence."
Explanation 10
This presumes the consumer-driven theory of production. But the logical prerequisite for the concept of "consumer" stems from the actuality of producers. In reality, only producers consume (because they have produced some value to trade).
--------------------
Contradiction 11
"Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all."
Explanation 11
This statement is guilty of a scope violation. Technology makes a capitalist richer. A richer capitalist does one of 3 things with this new profit (all of which increase employment). Adapted from Hazlitt's Economics in One Lesson, the 3 things that capitalists will do with their profits:
1) re-invest in their business (which increases employment in society)
2) invest in the business of others by buying stocks (which increases employment in society)
3) increase their standard of living--e.g. yachts, mansions, maids, cooks, etc. etc. (which increases employment in society)
--------------------
Contradiction 12
"The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions."
Explanation 12
In actuality, it is central planning (where the optimizing mechanics of supply and demand have been subverted) that leads to increasingly severe depressions--capitalism is merely the scapegoat that society has erroneously found acceptable as the blame for this phenomenon. Numerous examples abound--though the most poignant point was offered by Rand: we have not ever had a fully-free market (only mixed economies)--and this is a necessary requirement that must be met, before we attempt to place any blame on one!
--------------------
Contradiction 13
"Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor ... "
Explanation 13
On the contrary, unlimited competition leads to incessant REDUCTION in the cost of production!
Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 5/15, 10:33pm)
(Edited by Ed Thompson
on 5/15, 10:39pm)
|
|
