Bitcoin Forum

Einstein supported socialism.

Pyschos like Trump support capitalism.

I myself grew up in the USSR. I know well the ideology of socialism, and from today's position I can say that socialism is just a utopia, an unfulfilled dream of idiots. It seems that it was just a dead end development of society. It gradually distorts values and unofficially introduces a double morality. Socialism in the name of the people destroys its people. It is better to simply develop, improve and humanize a society without any ideological superstructures.

I have no doubt you live in a capitalist country.

I don't get why so many socialists are interested in bitcoin. Bitcoin is against governments and states , it's all about liberalism at its more pure form.

Socialist countries like Venezuela and north Korea control its fiat an manipulate it like any other capitalist country does.

I don't understand when people claim to not follow any ideology or founding societies without any ideological superstructures. I claim that ideology is everywhere, you can't really escape it. "Lack of ideology" gets rendered a ideology itself so to speak.

As far as socialism goes, even if intentions are good, it just ends in more taxes on the middle class, since the elites always find a way to escape and end up paying no taxes. Socialists are impotent against this fact, they can't do nothing, so they end up fucking up the middle class until there's no middle class.

In an ideal world the super mega rich should be helping the guys stuck at the bottom with 0 chances to improve, but we don't live in an ideal world. As long as capitalism is a thing, this will happen. If you have any ideas let us know.

there is no singular "ideology of socialism". on the contrary, it's a diverse range of ideologies that includes anarchism, democratic socialism and autonomism among other schools of thought. the USSR and marxism-leninism are not representative of socialism at all. that's a common rhetorical ploy that anti-socialists often employ---"look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"

it's totally illogical, but it works on a really basic level. it's hard to have an honest discussion about the merits of various socialist ideologies when these kinds of rhetorical devices are so rampant. in truth, many marxists actually see ideologies like stalinism and maoism as a perversion of marxist theory.

I agree with most of what you said, but anarchism is he exact opposite of socialism.

Anarchism would be a pure liberalism form . No state.
In socialism everything is government and state.


There is a socialist propaganda which want people to believe that anarchism would be a socialism goal, but it's not. Socialists do the opposite everywhere. Liberalism is much closer to anarchism


Everywhere in the world socialists want to make government assisted programs, so people will depend on government.
Socialist goverment also want to increase taxes and make subsidies... All that is contrary to anarchy

People also often forget about national socialism.. for some reason a lot of people think that hitler was far right when he was anti capitalist and wanted to prioritize resources for his people.

Of course we all know how that ended. I believe it's another form of delusional socialism. For it to work it would need to conquer the entire world which is as I said delusional. So any national socialist countries that start gaining power in the long term will just end up in the next world war and will get nuked, this is my game theory analysis on it.

specifically, anarchism advocates non-hierarchical organization. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism) by that definition, it opposes both governments and private property. anarchism was theorized in the mid-1800s and historically, it was always considered a socialist philosophy. its history usually traces back to pierre-joseph proudhon and his seminal work "what is property?" proudhon called himself a socialist, as did most anarchists in history, from the anarcho-communists to the market anarchists like benjamin tucker.

in fact, tucker's wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Tucker#Anarchism) touches on this issue:


the umbrella term is "libertarian socialism" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism). historically, "libertarian" and "anarchist" were always used to describe left-wing anarchists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#Etymology). outside of the USA, they still generally retain their original meaning. but in the 1960s, rothbard popularized the terms to describe capitalists and it took off in america:


of course rothbard knew this was just a rhetorical device, probably aimed at making right-wing politics more palatable to the dying "new left". he knew quite well that anarcho-capitalists were not anarchists and said so (https://www.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/1uz8ax/we_must_therefore_conclude_that_we_are_not/):



you're describing democratic socialism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism), which is just one school of thought which is very separate from anarchism.


key words, "his people." prioritizing the needs of germans over all others (and at any cost) is inherently anti-socialist. fascists actually weren't opposed to free enterprise or capitalist ownership, but they advocated for economic planning. economic planning =/= socialism. that's another common strawman. economic planning is employed by right-wing and left-wing authoritarians alike.

i think "national socialism" was an intentional misnomer. like rothbard with "libertarianism" and "anarchism", hitler used the word "socialism" as a rhetorical device. fascists like him advocated for capitalism. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism#Economy) they just viewed the national interest (viewed in ethnic/racial terms) as more important than private profit:

I think its all about perception and our attitude towards life. I have a friend when he was a bit younger, having grown amongst people who don't have enough and seeing someone else having excess, the best form of economic system to him at the time is an equal distribution of wealth where everyone one would be fairly OK compared to the current phenomenon. But today, he has few wealth, his thinking has changed.

For me, socialism is just a myth that does not have a place in the real world. The only way an economy would develop is if it allows individual initiative but operating in an ideal environment. A situation where some people would just be lazy and waiting for things to fall for them is nothing productive. The same Trump you blaming would have any chance to presidency if he had not built his empire through personal initiative.

The type of "socialism" Einstein supported, wasn't single party totalitarianism. I think Einstein supported a planned economy and other elements of socialism. A case could be made for him supporting the type of mixed economy most nations have today where the government manages some things like defense and healthcare, while maintaining aspects of capitalism. But to be honest, I'm not 100% remembering everything about this clearly.

In terms of history, the cold war was an excellent example of socialism (USSR) versus capitalism (USA). We saw the outcome of that. Socialist USSR died. Many unfortunate russians lost their state funded pension programs & benefits when this occurred. Capitalist USA continued to prosper.

We might see something similar happen in the future. Socialist china could die off the same way socialist USSR did. Capitalist america could continue as the world's dominant power. The reactions of china's leaders and the fragility of china's economy is being made manifest could hint @ this outcome.

You can call Trump names and say negative things about him but the truth is capitalism and the USA may well continue to prosper when socialist china is crumbling into irrelevence.

we do not need socialism for the development and implementation of the concept of social state. If the state works in a fair and orderly manner, the problems disappear.
The state is protecting the rich. The state cares about the big companies and the rich.
it doesn't justify tax cuts.
it doesn't help the poor more.
people hungry and unemployed. and governments that need to find a solution to this situation.
the current regime I want to mention here is not. how political regimes are implemented. for example, socialism was not implemented successfully. an oppressive and fascist administration emerged.
Do you think it would be wise to slaughter thousands of peasants?
freedom and justice are not the work of a political regime.
capitalism can be less harmful to humans if it is practiced in the right way. The means of production do not have to sell the state. Also you have to customize. this is entirely in the hands of governments.
To sum up, it cannot be interpreted as wanting capitalism or wanting socialism.

In my opinion, it should be recognized that socialism as an ideology opposing capitalism has long since exhausted itself. In fact, socialism has failed since the collapse of the USSR. In my opinion, the last country that still consistently supported socialist principles was Cuba. Now she is gradually returning from isolation to the industrialized countries. Other countries, such as North Korea, China, have long been combining a different ideology, although sometimes they don’t even want to admit this to themselves.

Looking from historical standpoint, I tend to believe capitalists "forced" socialism into countries like Russia or Cambogia because
with such ideology and poor industrial development to support it, it was inevitable to end up in tirany, fulfilling its role
of scaring people in capitalist countries in a way you described - "look at how bad stalin was! stalin called himself a socialist! that must mean all socialists are stalinists!"



Lots of logical errors here...also, Marx said its inevitable that socialism starts first in most developed countries...capitalists themselves
recognized this the best, so they did everything to scare people, including supporting socialism in poor countries. many americans
have no idea that Khmer Rouge were mostly supported by USA, while socialist Vietnam toppled them from power

American success is based on army and fake petro dollar...remove army and you'd be one of the worst countries to live on the planet

Everybody had their own view on this.It is doesn't mean,you are brilliant .If you had supported socialism or capitalism. My preference is Socialism. Most of the people like the socialism. Because in socialism, people is important. In a socialistic government, people will get atleast minimum need. Whereas in capitalist country, the government is work for the individual business man.The people in capitalist country also like socialism.

You definatly did not live in either socialistic or a communistic regime, the regime you lived in is best described as totalitarism. That is why you have such a negative view on socialism, because what you call socialism isnt socialism at all. In fact Comusinm is possible, to an extent at least, you dont understand it because you refuse to think or just simply brainwashed by powers that rule the modern world.

Unfortunately thats not an uncommon experience of socialism.   Socialism is great until it runs out of other peoples money then its a failure.    Main problem with this whole argument would be assuming Trump represents capitalism when he commands one of the largest most subsidised and unbalanced governments thats ever existed.   USSR fell over because they ran out of other peoples money, mainly their countrymen where as USA famously commands the world global reserve currency system and is able to print as much as required at will.  
  That too will work until it doesnt, right now its obviously not balanced because of such large deficits and trillions in debt, likely impossible to repay.   The debt of each USA citizen amounts to 70,000 each which does not appear to be a system which can continue.   My point being Trump also represents a failed socialist experiment

But what are even the achievement of socialism or socialist countries? They are not even practicing as they are preaching, they live a fearful life. They want to run away from trouble but trouble never seize to come  ;D


USA has always been a capitalist country before the emergence of Trump as president. Countries who openly practice capitalism are progressives, they present to you what they want straight up and give you what share you can get too. So before you start up anything, you know what you are bargaining for.

I remember that Karl Marx was one of the strongest proponents of capitalism . He might not like it though but he exposed both the benefits and demerits of it.

The wealthy people sabotaged the attempts at socialism.  They wanted socialism to fail around the world so they can keep their wealth and continue to dominate poor people.

In fact of the matter. Ideal socialism, with its slogan about the equality of all people, as well as its main principle: from each according to his ability, to each according to his work, looks good only on paper. In practice, no socialist state was able to fully implement it. The human factor constantly worked, namely: egoism, suspicion, vanity, arrogance, dullness of people who were in power and all good undertakings were distorted. For example, Stalin during the years he was in power because he put forward the idea that as socialism developed, resistance of anti-socialist forces would grow, he declared the enemies of the people and destroyed tens of millions of its citizens using the apparatus created by him.

I am surprised that many people still support socialism. Is it because they are undereducated or believe that having more money makes them richer? Let me use Poland as an example. Our "right-wing" ruling party gives 500 PLN (about 125 EUR) per month for the second and any consecutive children until they reach the age of 18. The aim of this programme is too boost child birth rate and guess what is happening. It barely affects it. Now we have to enjoy having 38 new taxes and higher VAT which won't decrease to 22% as it was planned.

I understand that some people might face financial problems not because of their own fault. However, giving away money to almost everyone is definitely not a solution.

I think that "smart people" are simply disillusioned and thoroughly understand the future implications of their actions. They know that you cannot win without somebody else losing given the current economic model. Finding a reasonable balance between the winners and losers is essential in creating a stable society.

There are plenty of dumb socialists and capitalists though, but hey, ignorance is bliss. Maybe it's the smart ones that are dumb...

If we are going to talk about the idea of socialism for me it is really good and i guess that is the reason why einstein supported it before.

I mean who doesn't want a fair system right?

However, if we are going to talk about it right now. All of its advantages are just purely theoretical.

Plus all those evil politicians were able to turned the tables around like what is currently happening in socialism countries.  They make the socialism advantages into their benefits

It is indeed that samart people would support socialism. Smart people would not go for the self-interest but for the common good of everyone. Those who support capitalist are those who support deprivation to everyone. Ever since, I've seen capitalism as something that is for the interest of a person. It causes a lot of problems, that's why I strongly support socialism right now.

Not all part socialism bad. Some part of socialism are good. Like sharing to poor people. I dont think all smart people like socialism but i do believe every body like sharing their happiness

Sabotaged is not a great description because any system which is going to encompass an entire country is going to require resilience and stand the test of time over many generations in order that we can draw the conclusion it has a worth and basis to value it within the laws of a country.
If socialism is that easily hijacked by a small but well funded section of society then it appears it does not qualify as safe to trust for the many millions who must work and sleep under its banner through all the stages of their lives.

Capitalism on the other hand is on the simple basis of free enterprise, available to all through human ingenuity.  At present most western countries compromised capitalism with over 50% of GDP caught in a super structure of government, thats not free enterprise

It's similar to how Bitcoin is awesomely resilient against attacks. Basically the better the incentives are to keep a system working the longer it will survive.

Capitalism will always prevail due crab in a bucket mentality of masses, masses always fail to cooperate to dethrone their masters, most of the smartest people will end up working for the elite. And when they do, new masters are formed replacing previous masters and the cycle goes on.

I would only start questioning Capitalism on the very long term, perhaps 1000 years from now humanity has somehow reached levels of cooperation never fathomed in current times that will make us look like inbreed savages. Until then, Bitcoin seems to be the thing that makes the most sense within the capitalist framework.

Guests should see this stability. No perfection is perfect. Socialism is better, but it is now early. Capitalism has come to an end and they have become battlefields between classes. Socialism is the future of mankind. Capitalism is only a flash in the pan, and future capitalism will lead to the division of the country.

30-40 years at most


And bitcoin is not resilient at all, its actually manipulated all the time

And also BTC seems to work best in socialist framework, Venezuelans use crypto a lot

People are mistaking what socialism is and what communism is in this thread.

First of all even China has McDonald so no country is truly pure socialist or pure capitalist or pure communist. You have to see there are some laws that resembles socialist ideas and there are some laws that is still quite discrimination based even to this day and there are of course laws for capitalists and communists.

For example, having the right to get an abortion whenever you want is quite socialist, yet the conservatives hate that law, however having guns are quite conservative idea and socialists hate it, these are all american laws, same country, two very different idea based laws.

Socialism, capitalism, communism, conservatism you can have laws for all of these, you can't become a country with full of same ideas, some laws will be right, some laws will be left. Usually whichever would make you get more votes as politician.

Well there are good things that happen to a country that support this ideology "if" it will be manage accordingly. The way government interact should under the influence of the community. However, most of this completely fails for people who are in the government position were greedy with powers so they control the community and this will bring to civil war. I do like this ideology but I do not usually like the people who run an ideology like this.

I do not really know about this if it is really that intentional when Trump supported capitalism. Maybe he is only aiming for the good of its constituents without observing any ideology.

Everyone has their own preference but I think definition is rather skewed at this point on what is socialism and capitalism. We live in an environment which is rather a mixture of both and I would say it is more of totalitarian than socialism or capitalism. There are countries where socialism work fine but you have to start from the begining, switching from capitalism to socialism is not easy as it requires many deep change in the society but as I said we don't live in capitalism either, we live in totaliterism if that's the wor :)d.

Maybe not the person but the knowledge that is beneficial to the world. Sometimes there are also smart people who like to be alone do not like to share (property) with others, but he will use his knowledge for the progress of the world and of course it will have a positive impact for many people. And this is far more useful than he shares his property.

Socialism (Nikola Tesla) is doomed in fight with capitalism  (Thomas Edison) despite been morally superior
as long as most of humanity don't mentally evolve to be more like Tesla than like Edison

I doubt that Einstein supported socialism, but this is not the case, the version of socialism that existed in the USSR was just awful, that is why Russia remained with a lot of debts and a government that continued to rob the country and the people!

Actually, debt-wise, USA is worst case by far...luckily, they have biggest army and plane carriers, so they don't have to repay
their debt (or, you can try to ask it repayed like Ghadaffi tried, and you saw what happened)


http://2oqz471sa19h3vbwa53m33yj.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/us-debt-ceiling-chart.jpg

Well, ideally, socialism is a good economic structure. If and only if everyone is doing an activity with a single goal in mind then we will see advancements left and right. The problem is, people become lazy if somebody else is pulling the slack. Capitalism on the other hand rewards those that work.

I remember a quote when I saw a left-right mouthwave.

"Look! You have 2 cows.
Socialism takes one of them for other persons. Communism takes both of cows, and gives you free milk.
Capitalism(Fascism) then, takes your cows and sells you milk."

This is true from a simple definition. But this is, after all, the way human beings form society. Socialism is not suitable for all countries, and it is best for you. The true degree of freedom of the socialist people should be higher than that of capitalism. However, the social system collapsed because it was too advanced.

I wonder how the level of the smartness of those people quoted and the basis of their conclusion. People who support Socialism were believing that people exist in a perfect world where certain inputs will surely bring about pre-determined output but it does not always work that way. The USSR that comes with a model of Socialism failed because of the inherent problem from within without adding the external forces who wanted to see it fail from the beginning. In short, Socialism is a model that is far from reality.

I think capitalist society is better. The most obvious evidence is that countries in Europe. They followed capitalism and America was very successful with that. I still support capitalism.

Saudi Arabia is capitalist, most oil money goes to few people
Norway is socialist, they made state fund where all oil money goes and everyone get equal share

Which country you prefer (I intentionally skipped Somalia, libertarian capitalists wet dream, where even army and police are private,
because they don't have much oil)

there have been many examples of developed countries because they adhere to capitalism. i myself prefer the system, because it can mobilize all abilities for personal glory

People often forget about national socialism ... for some reason many people think that the attacker was far away when he opposed capitalism and wanted to prioritize resources for his people. .

Socialism is good sign specially it allows fair and equal distribution of wealth to whole society but on the other hand it discourage those that have som extta ordinary qualities.

In some point of view you are right but in the other side it is a big no no for me. why? because ut depends on the people not on the status or the type it is the inner though of well being and someone like trump well he choice to pick it up but behind that chosen path it is because he wants them to move and fight on it.

So which term to follow. This focuses on people who dont do a ranik

Socialism is a utopian system. Assumptions may be correct. But you can not divide everything in a way that everyone would have equally. If, regardless of everything, everyone gets their share, the country stops developing. Because why should someone do something and get the same as the one who does nothing.

Those who lived in the USSR know what socialism is. I myself was born at this time. And I will say that there is nothing good in this. Socialism in the USSR and started badly and ended badly. Now the economies of the countries of the former USSR are economically lagging behind the countries of Europe and the USA by an order of magnitude. Economic growth requires free market relations.

Wrong, or Somalia would be the wealthiest country in the world

You made lots of wrong assumptions in your post, and disregarded circumstances

This is a political topic. Please note that no one is perfect. People of all ages will have poor and rich people. You only have to rely on your own efforts to adapt to survival, not to protest. Usually your protest is ineffective unless you can lead countless supporters. Otherwise, even the presidential election will not succeed.

We should not simply or roughly talk about the values that are vital to human development. After all, every system is not perfect. Some countries are now unable to implement socialism. Although this is the last goal of mankind, it does not mean that it is now suitable for all countries.

To me this only means that even if you are very smart in some area of knowledge that doesn't mean that you know everything, socialism in theory sounds very good and that is what makes it attractive to many people, but when you see the reality of how the world works you understand that it is never going to work, capitalism has many defects and we can all agree on that but at least it is a system that works, this is very similar to democracy, we can see the problems that democracy has but all the alternatives are even worse so we stick to democracy.

And the same happens with capitalism, despite all its flaws it is the best system that we have and until something better comes along and that it can prove that it can work for centuries or even for a longer time frame then we need to stick with capitalism.

As Marx predicted, socialism is for educated, rich countries.
Thats why it can work in Sweden, but can't in USA or Russia

Thats what i said that if everyone get same part of wealth than no one will will work hard and it will discourage those that have extra qualities of doing something.

Not true...look at Nikola Tesla as example...we have to change ourselves, not just the system

Smart people do not support any ideology, and in general are not engaged in politics. Smart people are engaged in self-development as well as caring for the opportunity to help those in need and to solve environmental problems.