Talk:Why Socialism?

Citation to Rowe 2008

I.e., Rowe, David, and Schulmann, Robert. [What were Einstein's Politics? http://hnn.us/articles/39445.html] History News Network. 25 June 2008. Retrieved 16 August 2010.

The linked article does not even appear to be written by Rowe and Schulmann. It as just an untitled review, which makes it a very weak source. Not to mention that the book to which the anonymous review refers already cited. Even more vexing, the cited quote is from the original article so why refer to a spurious anonymous review that happened to reproduce Einsein's own words in the article? I removed this for all of the above reasons.--Jamil (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to repostings of "Why Socialism?"

Is Reference 3 somehow a different paper from Einstein called Why Socialism? because from the glance I got of it it looked like a reprint from 1989 ? Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its simply another (one of the better) sources I found where the same essay is written. ValenShephard (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I just wasn't sure when i was going to source it. I will get on it now. (the whole reprinting thing makes it a little confusing b/c it comes from Monthly review but the reprint comes from CBS!)I hate citations; they are so annoying to fiddle around with! Thanks!--Schwindtd (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem buddy. As other editors have also mentioned, your enthusiasm and willingness to learn (and work!) are very welcome. ValenShephard (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no reason to cite any other than the original source for the article ValenShephard. What on earth would make another source "better"? The whole point of Einstein's article was to support Monthly Review so your insistence on adding "better" links is an affront to the very essence of the essay. Please refrain from adding such spurious links. Regardless, the link to the "1989" article was broken anyway so I removed it. If you want to list the places that have republished the article do so in an external links section. In all cases, however, it should cite the original publication.--Jamil (talk • contribs) 20:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Non-centralized

One should note that Einstein does not speak against (as I interpret the text) the centralization of the planned economy. He does however point to the need of some counterweight to balance the power structure... (namely - democracy). Centril (talk) 23:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you elaborate? I would be happy to add something like that if you know of any sources. Best wishes. ValenShephard (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ! quote:

In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. [...]

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? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

centralized but non-bureaucratic society. --86.75.184.219 (talk) 19:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"supposed"

I removed this term from text. You and I know that Capitalism is unsurpassed and unsurpassable in its ability "to meet the human potential for creativity", the end to which history drives and the perfect social order, but let's humor these wiki fussbudgets and let the work stand without correction, in this time of Capitalism's great triumph which this deluded individual in 1949 can perhaps be excused for not appreciating. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no we don`t know that..leave it to a capitalist to argue with Einstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.144.152 (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was more than just that, whence my changes after consulting the primary text. Although Einstein does discuss, individuality at some length, he does not state, that socialism needs a "while often stressing the need to safeguard individualism" clause in the manner of a press release for a corporation. That text carried an anti-socialist bias which I at first naively took up when I went to the original text to source it. The actual summary and operative text is in ¶ 20:

"This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career."

That socialism needs as a result of some fundamental flaw, presumably revealed by socialist states formed in the last century, to protect the individual from its inherent "nature" as an enemy of individualism is diametrically the opposite of what Einstein's text actually says. For that reason I redacted the text to its current state. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 11:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Signing because unlike Race and intelligence, I will take an active interest here. Lycurgus (talk) 11:33, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3

These leads nowhere at present. Could some editor fix this please? Smokey TheCat 11:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the large blockquote in the end of the article needs reworked

Its sort of odd that nobody caught that. But the blockquote contains the last paragraph THEN a prior paragraph- and not even the one immediately before it.The blockquotes imply that is the order from the essay. It is poor form to rearrange the essay in such a manner. I'll fix it up if nobody else does in a few days. Know Einstein (talk) 01:19, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better would be to summarise only the most quoted parts of Einstein's essay with analysis from secondary sources. The article's use of quotes falls afoul of MOS:QUOTE: While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style and may be a copyright infringement. It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate.

If you have time to spend on improving the article, I'd see if you can find a contemporary source that analyses why Einstein wrote the piece (which you can paraphrase). — Bilorv (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mass media vs priests

"It highlights control of mass media by private capitalists making it difficult for citizens to arrive at objective conclusions"

This is clearly stated-good job. However in the second paragraph of Einstein's essay it mentions:

"The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior."

No mention of priests made it to our article. I am not sure how to address this issue. NoahEdelson77 (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The real purpose of socialism -Thesis statement missing

"the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development" Where should we mention this thesis statement? NoahEdelson77 (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]