TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Why Socialism? (1949)

270 点作者 celtoid超过 1 年前

29 条评论

legitster超过 1 年前
&gt; Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?<p>It&#x27;s a pretty well written piece. I think people from all perspectives should take careful note of what he is actually advocating: discussing and figuring out the mechanisms of what a modern society should like rather than blindly following an agenda.<p>That said, this is a 70+ year old article, based on ideas and problems at the time. Capitalism will make people stop working and be less productive? If anything we worry about the opposite problem. College will only be a means to a career? Today academia is powerful and a political force unto itself. And we have so many welfare programs and safety nets and worker protects than Einstein was even able to dream about in 1949. In a way, we are living in a world he was advocating for.<p>If it was written today, I have no doubt Einstein would still care about inequality and education and politics and common &quot;workers&quot; enjoying life. But I also don&#x27;t think I would see him caring as much about Marxism and the labor theory of value specifically as a mechanism for understanding it anymore.
评论 #37411258 未加载
评论 #37410081 未加载
评论 #37411690 未加载
评论 #37411665 未加载
评论 #37418809 未加载
评论 #37413109 未加载
评论 #37410509 未加载
评论 #37412659 未加载
评论 #37411648 未加载
评论 #37417345 未加载
评论 #37412825 未加载
LordDragonfang超过 1 年前
This article has had substantial previous discussion:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=1182518">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=1182518</a> (2010) (66 comments)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2315391">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2315391</a> (2011) (45 comments)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4653939">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=4653939</a> (2012) (19 comments)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21384600">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=21384600</a> (2019) (28 comments)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30676628">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=30676628</a> (2022) (19 comments)
评论 #37409325 未加载
solatic超过 1 年前
&gt; 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.<p>Sometimes, the needs of the community are such that the work to fulfill those needs is distasteful to most people. Until such time as such jobs can genuinely be completely roboticized, to whom should janitorial work be distributed? Garbage collection? Plumbing out backed-up toilets? Going out in the freezing cold to plow snow from the roads? Does anyone <i>seriously</i> believe that such work would be happily accepted full-time by anyone over, say, an office job, because why, they&#x27;ll be socially celebrated for it? Or that it would be politically tenable to draft the wealthy and middle-class to occasionally take shifts for these jobs, as if they were a new kind of jury duty?<p>This is not a <i>serious</i> suggestion.
评论 #37414513 未加载
评论 #37413020 未加载
评论 #37413152 未加载
评论 #37412558 未加载
kyleyeats超过 1 年前
Human social structures concentrate power, not capitalism. It&#x27;s all still there under socialism.
评论 #37409078 未加载
评论 #37407857 未加载
评论 #37408523 未加载
评论 #37408027 未加载
评论 #37410759 未加载
评论 #37410906 未加载
评论 #37408151 未加载
评论 #37415242 未加载
评论 #37413899 未加载
评论 #37407935 未加载
intalentive超过 1 年前
&gt;The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value.<p>Einstein of all people should understand that “real value” is relative to one’s reference frame.
评论 #37409678 未加载
LordDragonfang超过 1 年前
I&#x27;d like to highlight one of the previous comments on this article:<p>&gt;Here&#x27;s some important things to think about:<p>&gt;First, socialism is defined as worker or public control of the means of production and distribution. This has been interpreted in both libertarian and authoritarian ways.<p>&gt;Second, if socialism is worker control, then it is fully compatible with free markets. Mondragon and Semco are both worker democracies, and operate successfully in the global market.<p>&gt;If socialism is public control, this does not equal totalitarianism. Social democracy is a form of democratic public control of resources.<p>&gt;I understand people&#x27;s reasoning for preferring capitalism (ownership defined by contract) or socialism (ownership defined by use), and I respect that, but I would love to be able to have political discussions about these issues which take into account the complexity and diversity of these two very broad terms.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2315657">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=2315657</a>
评论 #37415752 未加载
jmyeet超过 1 年前
The Red Scare did such massive damage to the working class in the United States. McCarthyism, the Cuban Missile Crisis (which the US precipitated with MRBMs stationed in Turkey) and of course Ronald Reagan, who spent $3T+ of the Social Security surplus on military build-up. Remember that whenever anyone talks about Social Security going bankrupt and also why SS is even taxed.<p>Fun fact: Abraham Lincoln was essentially a Marxist too [1]:<p>&gt; Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if Labor had not first existed. Labor is superior to capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.<p>Of course Americans don&#x27;t know what socialism is because of this history but the more disturbing part is most Americans don&#x27;t even know what capitalism is yet defend it anyway.<p>Capitalism is the exploitation of surplus labor value to the hands of the very few, the capital-owning class. It&#x27;s not markets. Markets occur in every economic system. It&#x27;s not &quot;free&quot; (no such thing) markets. It&#x27;s simply the system of exploitation. We&#x27;ve replaced the monarchs of feudalism with oligarchs. That&#x27;s all.<p>[1]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Portal:Organized_Labour&#x2F;Featured_Quote&#x2F;9" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Portal:Organized_Labour&#x2F;Featur...</a>
评论 #37407884 未加载
评论 #37407896 未加载
评论 #37408115 未加载
评论 #37408023 未加载
评论 #37409907 未加载
评论 #37407877 未加载
评论 #37408017 未加载
hx8超过 1 年前
Einstein talks of a planned economy towards the end. It&#x27;s easy to see how someone in 1949 might think it&#x27;s a good idea, but in 2023 the idea seems antiquated. All of the major economies are largely not planned.<p>Now I wonder if the idea of a planned economy was just tried too early. Was it missing the quantized world we live in now, with increases in information processing and communication? Is there an AI advancement in our near future that can outperform the free economy?
评论 #37408461 未加载
评论 #37412029 未加载
评论 #37411051 未加载
评论 #37409564 未加载
评论 #37411028 未加载
评论 #37408479 未加载
评论 #37410836 未加载
评论 #37414297 未加载
评论 #37411803 未加载
评论 #37408947 未加载
评论 #37408948 未加载
celtoid超过 1 年前
This observation seems to hold true no matter the time or place:<p>&quot;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.&quot;
评论 #37407599 未加载
评论 #37408003 未加载
评论 #37410856 未加载
评论 #37407781 未加载
WBrentWilliams超过 1 年前
I find socialism amusing. It is best, I think, to consider socialism as a critique of capitalism. My working thesis is that capitalism is unavoidable. Markets do not solve every problem, but they solve many. The fact that socialism creates anger among many capitalists is, in fact, a point in favor of socialism as a critique: The anger wouldn&#x27;t be there if the critique had no merit.<p>It is silly to attempt to achieve socialism. Better to use it as a gauge. Otherwise, it ceases to be a good measure and critique. Is the current system everything it could be? If not, then how could it be better and at what cost? This is like asking if a Market accounts for all costs. If it does not, that is, if a Market creates externalities, then it is time to consider, argue over, and politically implement alternatives.
评论 #37412319 未加载
评论 #37412956 未加载
PrimeMcFly超过 1 年前
It&#x27;s continually amazing to me that more than 100 years after Marx and Engels wrote their papers on Socialism and Capitalism, people can&#x27;t see past much more than those choices. Which seems to be very much a false dichotomy.<p>We have so much more, <i>significantly</i> more data and analytical and modeling capability, and no alternative proposals are taken seriously? It&#x27;s not like they don&#x27;t exist, they just never make it as part of the conversation.<p>It&#x27;s almost religious with which people limit themselves to the most known options and ignore any alternatives.
评论 #37410601 未加载
评论 #37409743 未加载
评论 #37411635 未加载
评论 #37409460 未加载
评论 #37410092 未加载
评论 #37411076 未加载
评论 #37410603 未加载
评论 #37408238 未加载
dahwolf超过 1 年前
It seems most -isms inevitably leads to the superficially similar situation of a tiny elite either having total power or owning (almost) all resources, and thus power. Most would still prefer capitalism as at least it offers more personal freedoms and a chance of upward mobility.<p>I think the recent rise of anti-capitalism gets it wrong. Capitalism within the context of a nation can be made to work in a way that whilst imperfect has a reasonable balance.<p>It is specifically global capitalism (globalization) that is the problem. It allows for corporate super structures where workers nor governments have any leverage. Worker&#x27;s rights cannot be defended so it&#x27;s a race to the bottom. De-industrialization has hollowed out the middle class. Corporations pay little to no taxes. The triangle of government, business and worker that would ordinarily come to some kind of workable balance is gone. It&#x27;s a never-ending stretch in one direction only: business.<p>Similarly, global capitalism allows corporations to hide all their dirty externalities. Dumping toxic trash in other countries, sweatshops, wrecking the environment, you just place that shit out of sight.<p>You would have considerable more outrage if a company would do that in their home country, close to their customer base.<p>I&#x27;ll end with the uncomfortable truth that the above has led to the stagnation of the West and various global problems. At the same time it has significantly uplifted the general wealth of many developing nations.
tap-snap-or-nap超过 1 年前
I wonder how many people here have genuinely read and comprehended the works of Marx. While he remains a controversial figure, his theories offer valuable insights into the complexities of capitalism and socialism. Marx provided a framework for understanding how the capitalist system operates and how it creates class contradictions through components like rent, interest, and profit. These ideas continue to be relevant today, especially in identifying and addressing the societal issues caused by large banks, major corporations, and big landlords, which collectively place burdens on us all.
wellanyway超过 1 年前
For the umphteenth time.<p>Go, be a socialist. Africa is waiting. 99.9% of people visiting this website is orders of magnitude more wealthy than average african citizen.<p>Eat the rich? You people are the rich. Set an example. Lead the way. Be the first communist to actually practice what they preach.
tim333超过 1 年前
&gt;I am convinced there is only one way ... a socialist economy... In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion.<p>There you have the problem. Things are controlled by &#x27;society itself&#x27; and practical decisions such as who to hire to do what for how much have to be made by humans and we end up with iffy corruptish politicians doing that.<p>Maybe a way forward would be to have an AI make the decisions. At least that could be open source and non corrupt. I&#x27;d vote to give that a try providing you could vote it out again if it screws up.
1970-01-01超过 1 年前
<p><pre><code> As to socialism, unless it is international to the extent of producing a World Government which controls all military power, it might more easily lead to wars than does capitalism, because it represents a still greater concentration of power. </code></pre> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;archive&#x2F;1945&#x2F;11&#x2F;einstein-on-the-atomic-bomb&#x2F;656626&#x2F;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.theatlantic.com&#x2F;magazine&#x2F;archive&#x2F;1945&#x2F;11&#x2F;einstei...</a><p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;5mXgz" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;5mXgz</a>
评论 #37410017 未加载
hirundo超过 1 年前
&gt; I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger.<p>I believe that this is fundamentally the same opinion that Oppenheimer held, that resulted in the establishment seeing him as an enemy and a threat. I would like to resurrect these two gentlemen, bring them up to date on the history of the United Nations, and ask them if their opinions have altered.
评论 #37407706 未加载
评论 #37407643 未加载
评论 #37407785 未加载
评论 #37407568 未加载
评论 #37407561 未加载
评论 #37407694 未加载
评论 #37407610 未加载
Deprogrammer9超过 1 年前
No system will last forever, especially capitalism. Money is debt &amp; debt is money.
8bitsrule超过 1 年前
My favorite sentence in his article still rings <i>completely</i> right-on:<p>&quot;the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.&quot;<p>Half unconsciously: Explains a lot. You&#x27;ve got your Joseph II&#x27;s and you&#x27;ve got your Suhartos.
hyperthesis超过 1 年前
\devil&#x27;s advocate Why should we take political advice from theoretical physicists? Is it any better than from actors?
ppipada超过 1 年前
Maybe one of the fundamental differences between a socialist and a capitalist lies in their degree of optimism about human altruism.<p>Socialists tend to be optimistic and believe that humans have the capacity to care for one another and collectively contribute to societal well-being.<p>Capitalists may be more skeptical of human nature, leaning on the idea that self-interest drives societal progress. They often argue that individuals are most motivated to contribute when they stand to personally benefit.<p>The article does shed a good light on humans relationship to the society it leans on and is hopeful of the possibility of a human system that can rely on a army of collective-good workers.<p>May be some day we will see such a system that doesnt discount the inherent competitiveness and survival bias of a individual.
ajuc超过 1 年前
Socialism is like LISP - at this point most languages adopted the best parts, and the remaining ones come with serious disadvantages.<p>USA could really use some more socialism tho.
wernercd超过 1 年前
&quot;Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development&quot;<p>That assumes that &quot;socialists&quot; are really trying to do this and not simply 1) jealous of those with more and 2) simply trying to replace who&#x27;s in power - with them at the helm.<p>Why socialism? 70+ years ago? why not. Today? why not socialism? 100+ years of history of the abject failures on every level of every promise and the hell on earth socialism creates.<p>For every promise of moving past the &quot;predatory phase of humanity&quot; that socialism makes... it breaks and does so in worse ways than capitalism.<p>Imperfect capitalism has proven better than imperfect socialism at every level of analysis. IE, from the article:<p>&quot;Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands&quot;<p>Inequality exists with capitalists? Guess what? No socialism structure shows that inequality ends with socialism - the inequality remains.<p>But... we can watch someone like Bernie talk about how evil capitalism is as he flys between his 3 houses, with all his super cars and buy seats to his shows and all his books. You can read all about it and talk about it on your iPhone at Starbucks drinking a latte.
评论 #37409472 未加载
评论 #37407948 未加载
FrustratedMonky超过 1 年前
The reason Socialism, Communism, Anarchy et.al. will never happen.<p>Is because the Human Species naturally groups towards Autocratic Structures. The Human Natural State is Autocratic.<p>Wealth and Power accumulate to the few, whether in a Socialist Government, or a Corporation.<p>We can&#x27;t handle Democracy.<p>And Free Market Economy is just a myth that is maintained for Corporations to maintain their power and convince people they are free.<p>Current Socialist programs are supported by the Rich. They are actually providing &#x27;just enough&#x27; help to maintain the population above the subsistence level below which they will carry out a violent revolution.
1letterunixname超过 1 年前
See also: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.democracyatwork.info" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.democracyatwork.info</a>
zackmorris超过 1 年前
<i>The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. 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. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.</i><p>This resonates for me in middle age, after rarely having more than $2000 free and clear despite a lifetime of hard work. I&#x27;ve lived movies like Pursuit of Happyness and In Time, but without the financial epifany. All I do is work.<p>If capitalism worked, then prices would get lower over time with increased per capita productivity. We got a brief taste of that for the last time in the late 1990s, but most people stopped getting raises after that, and now duopolies provide nearly all name-brand goods and services. As it stands now, it&#x27;s pretty much over. I don&#x27;t think anyone seriously thinks that homes, vehicles, food etc will ever decrease in price now.<p>We can generally agree on the causes being stuff like regulatory capture and not enforcing antitrust laws. But those aren&#x27;t root causes. The real problem is power imbalance from wealth inequality. To address that directly, we could either provide more wealth to the working class via UBI or redistribute wealth from the owner class via taxation. Note that neither of those have been tried at a national level in anyone under 50&#x27;s lifetime.<p>Which means that the national debt was planned. It represents the share of wealth transferred to the owner class, skimmed from the working class as a result of trickle-down economics.<p>The next 2-3 US elections are going to be really important though. Young people have a chance to democratically vote to substantially raise taxes on corporations and billionaires. This won&#x27;t be so much anti-capitalist as trans-capitalist.<p>I say that because socialism and communism require a roughly 6 hour workday to provide enough labor for the system. But the median value of labor will never rise again, because of AI and automation. Meaning that work hours will increase as pay decreases. Which is self-evidently unsustainable. Which means that the traditional alternatives to capitalism will most likely not be viable, but will still be used as straw men against the political left by politicians to lure in low-information voters.<p>I believe that we passed the tipping point around the time of Bush v. Gore in 2000, when we were set to widely roll out renewable energy and electric cars, but chose not to (see Who Killed the Electric Car). Instead we invaded the Middle East at the behest of the owner class to protect established industries around fossil fuels. We&#x27;re only achieving some semblance of self-sufficiency 20 years later despite capitalism, not because of it.<p>Admittedly, I don&#x27;t have much faith in the political system to correct itself. So I sympathize with the political right&#x27;s sentiment that government bad. But the government is We the People in the US, so that&#x27;s like saying people bad. Which is othering and division. As we grapple with the actual truth of our struggle and stop blaming victims for our collective plight, I have faith that we&#x27;ll solve these problems, perhaps summarily. Until then, I&#x27;m manifesting a more independent&#x2F;off-grid lifestyle in an attempt to provide resources that capitalism has so far failed to provide me beyond a subsistence level.<p>The proof of everything I&#x27;m saying is in the failure of any billionaire to challenge the status quo in a material way. They claim that their money is tied up in stock and they pay themselves a trifle. Yet we watched as Musk made $44 billion liquid to buy Twitter. Their FUD should be a rudder for the rest of us towards real answers and strategy.<p>Now I go back to my toil, hoping to win the internet lottery but knowing deep down that real work is in service to others. My separation from the real contributions to society that I would have made by following my heart is like being poor twice.
评论 #37413029 未加载
评论 #37412780 未加载
adasdasdas超过 1 年前
Can we stop rehashing arguments for planned economies; they are terrible because they ignore the million micro signals that drive the economic engine. Instead they over and under produce just about everything because the central planners have an impossible job. Furthermore, older socialist theories still operate under the assumption that production is the biggest economy, rather than service. You can&#x27;t translate the theories since the value add of service economies are rarely bound by the &quot;means of production&quot;(factories) and the labor value add fluctuates wildly with skill which breaks any sense of worker solidarity.
评论 #37409837 未加载
评论 #37410197 未加载
评论 #37410778 未加载
评论 #37410413 未加载
评论 #37410497 未加载
评论 #37410521 未加载
评论 #37408282 未加载
评论 #37409905 未加载
gorenb超过 1 年前
I’ve visited this site so many times before. I’m going to be frank with you. I’m not anti-socialist (I’m literally a communist myself) but I still believe that this off-topic, as this may not be the place for partisan economic discussion.
评论 #37411160 未加载
评论 #37410908 未加载
dist-epoch超过 1 年前
True communism was never tried.
评论 #37410674 未加载
评论 #37410469 未加载
评论 #37410650 未加载
评论 #37411998 未加载