I don’t think they say “No intellectual would be a socialist”, instead they say intellectuals are bad and evil. It’s a classic pattern among dictator cults of personality.
Dictators love the poorly educated.
No, they just need their votes.
Most intellectuals are socialist
I can recommend this piece from Hobo Johnson (“why socialism by Albert Einstein”)
And while you’re there just check out the rest of his work, man’s amazing.
Also, Einstein was offered a position as leader of the State of Israel. He basically said “fuck off and fuck Zionism.”
Source? Never heard of this
I remember a republican coworker arguing that Interstellar’s concept of time dilation was super unrealistic and that can’t possibly be how things are. All this to say, I’m sure Einstein is about to be cancelled and relativity denied as hard as climate change.
A customer told me they don’t believe in space last night 😞
I look forward to the collapse of civilization when all of the satellites stop communicating with our computers because our satellites are sending messages from the future.
Also, ruining GPS for everyone would be a really effective scapegoat for Tesla’s full self-driving failures.
All but those Starlink satellites….
socialism might be nice but just getting rid of billionaires is a great start.
Can’t do that without taking supremacy of Capital. There is no path to keep billionaires from existing within Capitalism.
I think we’ve been doing this capitalism thing all wrong. All these issues are because we forgot to do the sacrifices.
We should be taking the top .1% of capitalist and using them to perform routine blood sacrifice rituals to appease the capitalist gods.
We then use their capital to fund a festival that last until then funds run out.
Their purity of capitalism will surely appease the gods and end all these climate change issues we’ve been experience.
The crazy thing is that is clearly a bad and dumb idea and yet would be an improvement of our current system. That money would actually recirculate.
Through the blood offering, their capitalist spirit will be released into the ether for The Gods to redistribute to us, their worthy followers.
We will honor these sacrifices by engraving their names in the bricks we will use to build the temple to The Gods has has been foretold in these gold tablets I found that only I can see and read.
The tablets say if we fail to follow these edicts we will be doomed to live in an ever warming planet on fewer resources as punishment. The seas will rise. The cities will burn. The rivers will flood.
For Grofit! The wise and avaricious Parvos commends you!
Erm… Ok
isn’t that part of it
I would expect so. I said “but” as in, “even if we just do this and dont carry out other requirements immediately” kind of “but”
i don’t think we can get rid of them without socialism
I think a certain italian plumber says otherwise.
The thing with Adventurism is that it doesn’t change anything. The path to getting rid of billionaires requires organizing and toppling the system that necessarily gives rise to them, not by killing them as they crop up. Luigi played a valuable role in showing the Working Class that, actually, they have more in common with each other in their shared hatred of their natural enemy, but he didn’t get us any closer to taking down that system.
the billionaire is dead, long live the billionaire
I don’t know, it also seems very difficult to achieve world wide socialism. but then again it is also hard to cull people’s desire to become powerful over others. there will always be those aspiring to become billionaires but yet it seems easier to motivate majority of humans to do away with billionaires then to convince them to accept socialism.
He wasn’t a SeRiOuS intellectual though.
Need a sever lack if humor for that sweet sweet capitalistic greed.
And the name of that Albert Einstein…?
Carl Sagan.
Youd be hard pushed to find many who weren’t
It’s a little silly equating one (albeit learned and genius) guy’s opinion as something which will work across the board for everyone, everywhere. There’s nothing democratic about socialism, just as there’s nothing democratic about the unregulated and oligarchic capitalism we have today.
At a very simple and human level, there are a number of explanations for why some elites and intellectuals gravitate towards socialism, this has been discussed to death in many places, but here’s an accessible article.
https://iea.org.uk/why-intellectuals-are-so-upset-by-the-injustices-of-capitalism/
To add some economist perspectives, here’s another article
What I find interesting from the above article is that China currently does very efficient market socialism, which tbh if the U.S. was to implement would make the U.S. a more powerful economic force to contend with. The caveat will be that U.S. citizens will no longer have the right to means to production, or land ownership. Such systems have no respect for individual liberties. The relative rate of poverty and inequality in the U.S. does not merit this kind of shift versus what it sacrifices.
The only countries which have issues with capitalism are the economic loser countries. Here’s the problem though, there are so many examples of countries which could have been economic losers, but instead turned it around for them because those countries had good sense and controlled their levels of corruption. The only people in countries who have problems with capitalism are the economic losers. The best way to correct those woes is through taxation and social programs, not a forced or authoritarian formula of break-shit-and-take-shit.
Edit I won’t respond to any comments to my post, I just don’t have the time to poke at this today lol, but don’t take my no response as a signal of agreement, just saying
/lazyposting
For what it’s worth, I agree, one person’s narrow expertise does not directly translate to knowledge elsewhere. Einstein admits as such, yet explains exactly why Socialism is a necessary step forward and why he thinks those not trained traditionally in political economy should still have a voice. Further, Einstein’s essay just shows his thoughts on the matter, I don’t consider it a genuine work of theory, more a springboard to look into actual Marxist theory.
This is where our agreement ends. Socialism is, factually, more democratic than Capitalism. By collectivizing the economy, it can be democratically directed and planned, as already has been the case in many AES countries. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.
Your last point is just anti-intellectualism, and ignores that Marxism has, historically, been extremely popular among the working class, and in the Global South. Your article is very western-centric, only analyzing thoroughly Imperialist countries like the United States and Western European countries, and shuts out the vast majority of actual, practicing Marxists in the real world.
Edit: Oh, you changed your entire comment. You’re going back to defending Imperialism and suggesting a system where workers are heavily exploited are only problems for “losers.” This isn’t a serious point. You want to throw workers to the meat grinder and find poverty fine as long as the wealthiest live free, which is very sad.
(appeal to authority)
The anti-communist in the meme was also making an attempt to appeal to authority
It is not an appeal to authority… It’s called a rebuttal. If someone makes a claim that no real smart person can do x, an easy way to prove them wrong is to provide an example of a smart person doing x.
true ig i was wrong
(btw I’m not far right and fully agree with this, I just like being annoying and pointing out things like this)
I mean, kinda? It’s a meme, really. The actual article itself though isn’t an appeal to authority, rather, it outlines pretty well the basics of why a publicly owned and planned economy is logically the correct path to take.
“The good of the people” is a noble goal. The problem is that for the most part, people who deliberately seek power to lead these groups are vain, greedy, selfish, brutal assholes.
Collectivism, as Karl Marx wrote it, has never been practiced in any so-called “communist” country on Earth. It’s always been an oligarchy.
I think Parenti said it best, in Blackshirts and Reds:
During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
To that end, Marx’s conception of Socialism, that being a state run by the proletariat along the lines of a publicly owned and planned economy, has existed in many areas, and does to this day. These are called “AES” states. You’re partially correct in that no AES state has made it to the historical stage of Communism, which requires a global world government and a fully publicly owned and planned economy, but this is a historical stage requiring Socialism to be fully developed first.
I think you would gain a lot from reading some books on AES states, such as Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union. These aren’t “oligarchies,” or whatnot, but Socialism in existence, warts and all. We need to learn from what worked and what didn’t to progress onwards, it’s clear that Capitalism is in a death spiral and Socialism remains the way forward.
OP is talking about socialism, not communism?
Kinda. Einstein here is referring to an eventual fully publicly owned and collectivrly planned economy in a world republic, which is what Communists aspire to. Communism is that world-government stage, Socialism is the process of building towards that stage. So, when Einstein espouses the necessity of Socialism, he means in the process of building towards Communism.
All Communists are at first Socialists, because that’s the most immediate stage to reach.
Hmm, OK. Personally I believe in socialism (like democratic socialism) but I don’t think communism is going to work. Especially a planned economy has been shown to not work at least a couple of times.
Socialism is about collective ownership and planning of the economy, so I don’t really know what you’re getting at, here. If you’re talking about Social Democracy, like in the Nordic Countries, those are Capitalist with safety nets, and as such depend on extreme exploitation of the Global South, essentially trust fund kids bragging about how they’ve “made it” by working at their father’s banking firm.
Moreover, I don’t know what you mean by planned economies “not working.” There have been some issues, sure, but by and large AES states have been undeniable successes for the economy and the living standards of the working class. If you could give an example, then I would love to talk more, but I don’t really know what you’re referring to here.
Planned economy isn’t mandatory for socialism. Market socialism exists, for example the socialist market economy practiced (quite successfully) by China. (And no, I do mean democratic socialism, not Social Democracy or the Nordic model)
I think anyone can point to USSR and China as examples of failed planned economies, so I am quite surprised by you claiming to know nothing about that. I wouldn’t include Cuba because there have been a lot of unjust outside pressures against its economy. I will say I don’t know much about the AES states so I will have to look into that, but at a quick glance I don’t see anyone describing their economy as planned?
China is heavily planned. This isn’t really a point in your favor, China’s Socialist Market Economy works because it’s so heavily planned. The vast bulk of heavy industry like Steel and Energy is fully publicly owned, and finance is in the hands of government as well. Even the private sector is heavily planned and adjusted by the government.
Furthermore, again, I don’t know what you mean specifically when you broadly gesture at the USSR and PRC as “economic failures.” They have not been perfect, correct, but by and large both saw incredible growth and dramatic improvements in quality of life for the Working Class. Do you have specific issues you are trying to point out? Otherwise, here is a decent video going over the Soviet Economy’s myriad successes, and I recommend reading Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the USSR as well if you want to go much deeper.
As for AES, those are not the Sahel States as you might be finding, but China, Cuba, the former USSR, Vietnam, Laos, etc.
Edit: to respond to your edit about “Democratic Socialism,” such a name is redundant. Socialism is democratic, and that includes AES, or “Actually Existing Socialism.” What are you specifically talking about?
China is heavily planned.
Oh, OK. If that’s what you believes… (I wonder if you have talked with someone who actually live in China currently?) I don’t think there will be much more I can say that would convince you otherwise. But I do recommend you to read broadly and try to consciously combat your own confirmation biases.
The idea of socialism has a lot of appeal .
That is why wannabe tyrants latch onto it .
In general, actually, Socialism has a better track record than Capitalism when it comes to “tyrants.” You should read Blackshirts and Reds.
Indeed
"The economic disasters of socialism and communism come from assuming a blanket superiority of those who want to run a whole economy. Thomas Sowell " If the tyrant is going to use AI to control people we will be entering a dystopian nightmare. The smaller the government and the less influence they have on your personal life the better. This doesn’t apply to socialism only but also fascism. Free speech, liberty and property rights should be the core values of every society.
First off, Sowell is a crank economist that purely exists to push deregulation and allow for higher and higher exploitation of the working class for the benefit of the Capialist class.
Secondly, the economy is already planned, just by those directing it for their personal enrichment. Socialism changes that equation to be planned along a common goal, and democratizes that process.
Thirdly, Socialism and Communism have been economic successes, you’ll notice that the “disasters” are left undescribed. Rapid industrialization, stable and constant growth, and massive infrastructure improvements and projects have been staples of Socialist economies, and by and large the Working Class saw the most dramatic improvements.
Finally, there is the non-sequitor of “free speech, liberty, and property rights.” Not only are the first 2 entirely unrelated to Capitalism and Socialism, just vague “values,” the latter has nothing to do with personal liberty, but the ability of few small individuals to carve out the bulk of society and build their own kingdoms on the backs of the working class.
crank economist?
Really? Ever read basic economics? Even if you don’t agree with everything he says, by stating he is a crank economist you are disqualifying yourself.
https://rumble.com/v4u4a8i-basic-economics-by-thomas-sowell.html?e9s=src_v1_pr
I’m well aware of Basic Economics. I maintain that he’s a crank, just because you personally agree with him doesn’t disqualify myself, I could be just as dishonest and say that you disqualify yourself by quoting him.
Again, I elaborated quite well on some of his dishonesty from the single quote you provided, and I can go more in-depth than that even. His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
His purpose is clear: push deregulation so those who sponsor him can get wealthier and wealthier, no matter how he attempts to squirm to justify that goal.
See Argentina what a blessing deregulation is, we need a lot more Milei and less Marx. Socialism is one of the main reasons why Africa is still poor (read Magatte Wade - the heart of a cheetah). Economy is not a zero sum game - who cares that someone else is rich. Is that envy speaking?
Sowell started out as a Marxist btw. It is just a flawed ideology and in its most extreme form always ends in dictatorship.
https://rumble.com/vjzm8i-why-socialism-is-very-appealing-thomas-sowell.html
I’m well aware of Basic Economics.
So I guess you haven’t read it?
Argentina is collapsing. Its economy wasn’t great before, but austerity is destroying its own foundation for short-term profits for the wealthy. See again: Sowell purely works for the obscenely wealthy against the needs of the people.
As for Africa, it is not Socialism that keeps the various African nations under-developed. Like Parenti said, they aren’t under-developed at all, really, they are over-exploited. Imperialism from the Global North has carved out of Africa and South America the lion’s share of their resources:
But that expropriation of the Third World—has been going on for 400 years—brings us to another revelation—namely, that the Third World is not poor. You don’t go to poor countries to make money. There are very few poor countries in this world. Most countries are rich! The Philippines are rich! Brazil is rich! Mexico is rich! Chile is rich—only the people are poor. But there’s billions to be made there, to be carved out, and to be taken—there’s been billions for 400 years! The Capitalist European and North American powers have carved out and taken the timber, the flax, the hemp, the cocoa, the rum, the tin, the copper, the iron, the rubber, the bauxite, the slaves, and the cheap labour. They have taken out of these countries—these countries are not underdeveloped—they’re overexploited!
Please, elaborate on what you think Socialism is, if it is keeping African nations under-developed.
No, economy is not a zero-sum game, correct. However, one has to call into question the purpose of a system that is built to make a few people obscenely wealthy on the backs of the vast majority. Capitalism naturally suppresses the wages and material conditions of workers, whose conditions gradually, microscopically improve, or even deteriorate, while Capital concentrates in fewer and fewer hands. The end result of Capitalism is monopoly. Once a hypothesis, this statement is now a confirmed fact.
I’m aware of Sowell’s past as a “Marxist.” Many people have donned such a moniker and failed to genuinely grasp Marxism, and the existence of one such fellow-turned crank does not at all lend credibility to Sowell. Marxism does not turn to dictatorship, rather the vast majority of AES states represented vast democratization of the economy, from Cuba (previously a country of fascist slavers) to Russia (under the thumb of the Tsar) to China (under the thumb of the Nationalist Kuomintang) to Vietnam (under the thumb of colonialist France) and more.
I’ve read enough of Basic Economics to know that Sowell is a crank. I haven’t read it cover to cover, nor do I care to waste my time studying every crank in the world of economics in-depth. I don’t imagine you’ve read Marx’s works much either, nor do I expect you to, you clearly have chosen the side of Sowell and the microscopic few that profit off of the vast majority of the population via extortion.
Argentina is collapsing.
Jaja, I love real world examples. The opposite is true. You can see basic economics working in practice 😀
Poverty is down and lower than when Milei started his presidency. Do you really think the poor care that his policies will make a few rich folks even richer? They just want shelter, safety and some food.
Stalin , Mao , and Pol Pot types of leaders are every bit as much of a problem as Hitler , Pinochet , and Mussolini types of leaders
At this point it doesn’t matter what economic policies a tyrant nominally supports , the problem is the authoritarianism that they use that overshadows their economic outlook. Your freedom is just as screwed if you are a fascist labor conscript , or you are a prisoner working in a gulag on some trumped up charge.
You should read Blackshirts and Reds. Ultimately, the Communists and Nazis historically served entirely different classes and their interests, and to equate the two is a form of Nazi Apologia due to this vast difference.
The Communists doubled life expectancy, lowered wealth disparity, ended famine, reached near 100% literacy rates from around 25% literacy rates, had free healthcare and education, and full employment. The Nazis, on the other hand, served wealthy Capitalists and invented industrialized murder.
Further, the Communists dramatically democratized the economy. Consider reading Soviet Democracy and Is the Red Flag Flying? Political Economy of the Soviet Union for historical texts on how the USSR’s economy was democratized and how it functioned.
As a side note, Pol Pot denounced Marxism and did his own thing, he shouldn’t be grouped with Marxists.
Totally agree. I still think from a economic and personal freedom perspective you’re a lot better off in a capitalist society under authoritarian control than in a Marxist one. Nobody is safe in an authoritarian communist (or probably better term - collectivist) society. How much examples do you need. Mao was the worst. China embraced capitalism and significantly improved the living standards of its people after Mao, while still remaining an authoritarian regime. Pinochet made the economy thriving and under socialist Salvador Allende the economy was a mess.
I am certainly not in favor of an authoritarian regime but at least capitalism gives you more economic freedom and property rights.
China is still Marxist-Leninist, by the way. It isn’t Capitalist, it has a Socialist Market Economy. Gradually, it is increasing the strength of the Public Sector and folding the Private under its control as well. Deng didn’t “introduce Capitalism,” if you want to actually learn how the economy works in China here is a good introduction to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. The economy is run on a Marxist understanding of economics, if you’re praising it you’re praising Marxism.
Did he form these views before or after he lived out his life in the country that is the anthesis of socialism? 🤔
After. In 1923, he fled Berlin to the United States, and was a member of a liberal political party. He was thoroughly anti-soviet at the time, but eventually his views changed and balanced out. In 1949, he wrote Why Socialism? as he became increasingly convinced of the logical necessity for the transition to Socialism, and a world government. He also changed his tune on Lenin and the Soviets:
“I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity.”
Part of what changed his views were becoming friends with prominent American Communists such as the legendary Paul Robeson. Over time, he took increasingly gentle and in some cases supportive stances towards the Soviet system, and was anti-War, including the nuclear Arms Race that the US relentlessly pushed forward.
Einstein, however, had serious internal chauvanism. He was a supporter of Zionism (which, while faded over time, never truly faded), and had this to say about the Chinese:
“Chinese don’t sit on benches while eating but squat like Europeans do when they relieve themselves out in the leafy woods. All this occurs quietly and demurely. Even the children are spiritless and look obtuse… It would be a pity if these Chinese supplant all other races. For the likes of us the mere thought is unspeakably dreary.”
Overall, I believe he harbored extremely reactionary views, such as support of Zionism (which, while eventually fading, persisted), the shown racism towards Chinese people, and more. While the logical necessity of Socialism is elucidated quite clearly in Why Socialism? it appears he harbored western-supremacist views.
This stands in stark contrast to contemporary intellectuals like Frantz Fanon, who lived in Algeria and the USSR. I don’t think Einstein should be lionized, however I do think his essay Why Socialism? serves as a good starting point for those who think Socialism to be utter nonsense, and serve as a springboard for actual, genuine works of theory.
I deleted my comment because this is a masterful response. I want to remain on record, though, that you’re replying to an idiot who is trying to cause problems. You’re better than me for not pointing that out lol.
Oh I’m aware, haha. I just try to take the road less traveled in case any onlookers might have their views changed by seeing a genuine response.
Your comment taught me a lot that I didn’t previously know so thank you!
No problem! Glad you enjoyed!
(also pinging @Cowbee@lemmy.ml)
Sometimes*, it’s still worth replying to bad faith ‘debate’, not to discuss or even necessarily refute them, but to address their audience, including lurkers.
That said, it’s also good to have FAQs and links so you don’t waste 30 minutes of your labor replying to a downvoted sunken bad faith one-liner.
No thats a great mindset. I just have no faith in humanity.
I’ve had many people at this point DM or reply to me saying they appreciate my input and learned something new, and this helps me keep my faith up. There are also those who consider me a “troll” which is silly, and others who are eternally anti-Marxist-Leninist no matter what, but those aren’t the people I really try to reach, it’s the more reasonable people that are more receptive and act in better faith. Funnily enough, I have developed a bit of an “anti-fan club.”
In cases like this, it’s pretty much a lay-up for me to put a bit of effort in, as you can see from the response my comments are getting on this post. In other cases, I ignore because I can tell the other person’s mind is made up and there’s no chance of onlookers anyways.
Ultimately, it’s a balance.
That’s a very detailed explanation, as a scientist as much as I knew about him I didn’t know that much.
Although I do wonder why it would matter.
I mean by that, although a great scientist, politics is not is area of expertise. So I wouldn’t put that much importance in his opinions.
Not that you can’t be curious, but valuing it for his fame is a known bias we should avoid.
It’s especially true for intelligence. We tend to put it on a pedestal like it’s what made Einstein, or anyone, be successful. When it’s only a part.
I’d say intelligence is like a good soil, there is still so much labor to make it into food. Einstein did the work in physics but on any other matter your still just eating dirt.
Einstein directly asks and answers your question in the very first lines of Why Socialism?
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
He then goes on to make his case, then builds up why he believes Socialism is necessary. I agree that intelligence is multi-faceted and doesn’t necessarily imply “spill-over,” but that’s not what’s going on here.
Likewise, there are many things I clearly disagree with Einstein on politically and socially, such as his view of Chinese people and support for Zionism. I also am more sympathetic to the Soviet Union than he was. However, his position as an intellectual that came to understand the necessity of Socialism without dedicating himself to its study serves to highlight for those who think Socialism outlandish that it isn’t unreasonable at all, and the case he makes is largely on the nose.
I recommend reading it yourself.
Interesting, well I do have a lot to read on the subject but i’ll add it to my list, I might be pleasantly surprised.
Hobo Johnson has a “song” that’s basically just him reading part of the dissertation, it’s called exactly what you would expect (Why Socialism by Albert Einstein - Hobo Johnson), and makes it a bit easier to digest than reading it for the first time
As a general rule I think it’s best to take ideas on their own internal merit without attaching yourself too strongly to particular figures. People are fickle but a well founded idea can transcend its author.
That doesn’t mean you should esteem someone for having one good thought or withhold your contempt of their general character though.
This interview with Noam Chomsky explains why we should listen to intellectuals when they speak of matters that are not necessarily in their field of expertise:
Some years ago, for example, I did some work in mathematical linguistics and automata theory, and occasionally gave invited lectures at mathematics or engineering colloquia. No one would have dreamed of challenging my credentials to speak on these topics – which were zero, as everyone knew; that would have been laughable. The participants were concerned with what I had to say, not my right to say it. But when I speak, say, about international affairs, I’m constantly challenged to present the credentials that authorize me to enter this august arena, in the United States, at least – elsewhere not.
Anyone can give their opinions on football teams, movies, recipes for cooking. But, for some reason you have to be an expert to talk about economics or politics. The reason- those discussions challenge the accepted power structures of authority. So, those discussions are guarded, and any challenge dismissed.
Chomsky is right here, but it’s also worth noting that even “experts” can be either minimized or magnified depending on their usefulness to the Capitalist system. Chomsky himself has a fair amount of skeletons in his closet.
I think Gabriel Rockhill would consider Chomsky as part of the compatible left. It’s essential to separate the ideas from the person. I tend not to expect too much from libertarian socialists like Chomsky, and they rarely disappoint me. He can be a resource for early radicalization and dissident thought though.
I agree, I just think that with figures you describe as the “compatible left,” they need to be taken with consideration as to their broader views and roles. Disclaimers are handy, such as Paul Cockshott, whose work on economic planning under Socialism is valuable, yet TERF extremism and transphobia is actively harmful.
Nobody is perfect, of course, but some people’s works need to be examined from a critical lense to separate the good from the bad more than others.
It’s a valid point. But if you want to juge the ideas of anyone I think you also need to educate yourself to a degree.
I do think discussion/debate are a good way to learn though. Although a good debate must be anchored in reality, established knowledge and studies…
In the end I think it comes to what are you gonna trust or challenge. In learning I don’t think you can only rely on one, you need a healthy balance.
(I’d say the more you know the easier it is to challenge more often. A new student might trust his teacher often while researchers might always challenge their peers.)
And I don’t think that apply only to economics or politics, although entertainments might be taken less seriously.
Alternatively I believe in politics there is also a part that’s subjective, depending on your values and culture.
deleted by creator
