I don't know whether Einstein meant "the intelligent few are more intelligent than the masses, collectively" or "individually," but it's not fair for you to say that one reading is "loose metaphor" while the other is completely straightforward; either interpretation is sensible.

One is completely straightforward whereas the other is ambiguous. Only one interpretation is sensible without making a big assumption about the author's views.

Your “straightforward interpretation” hinges of what he means by “produce some thing valuable for the community.”

Did he mean valuable things like bread, or only extreme value like electrodynamics? Well he didn’t say “extreme value” and it’s easy to argue the character of productive members of society is above that of pickpockets so that fits.

So IMO a straightforward interpretation would be calling the great masses of humanity dumb rather than extolling the virtues of bakers.

In the lines before he mentioned flying and electric waves, so I think he means that. Bread would fall under commodities.

There is really only one way to read his message. Which is a good thing, given that it is intended to be transmitted across 5000 years.

He calls out the lack of commodities as a problem to be addressed unlike flying which was a solved problem.

“everybody must live in fear of being eliminated from the economic cycle”

Thus emphasizing the critical nature of bakers.

> There is really only one way to read his message.

This thread is a clear indicator that ther are multiple ways to read it. One may seem more valid than others but it's not at all unambiguous.

I'd love to know what the people in 5000 years, if there are any, project onto this. Maybe they'll refer back to this thread and fall into two major camps.

No, what this thread shows is that however clear you express something, there will always be people refusing to understand it.

Irony levels of this thread are approaching 9000.

I don’t understand why the distinction matters?

The intelligent few will produce more novel ideas, combined or individually, than the masses.

Whom by definition produce nothing (at least nothing novel).

I think the distinction is that one interpretation is arguing that "truth by committee" is usually wrong, while the other is arguing for an elitist view where some people just carry all the weight.

Technically, defining something as being true only sometimes makes it true in fact ("All bachelors are unmarried", for example), in other cases (like this one) it only causes it to appear true...but then, if one considers the theory that reality is equal to people's perception of it, it is usually a moot distinction ...but not always.

To answer your question - "yes" I definitely could be projecting my own values. Just as everyone else reading it another way could be projecting their own. We all have our biases. I do recognize that. I'm also not beholden to the language used (incomparably). To me that reinforces my interpretation, but of course often the interpreters can assign more meaning to a word than the author intended.

I'm not saying mine is the right answer, but I definitely think it is an answer.

Keep in mind that Einstein was a German Jew, and 1939 was after Hitler had come to power, passed all sorts of extreme anti-Jewish laws, and then started World War II. So it's a fair bet this is really about "how could so many people vote for and support Nazis?"

This is a good video for answering that question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=830fVdBYJzc

Einsteins time period was the golden era of libertarianism and individualism were more mainstream especially during WW1, so it doesn't come to me as surprising that Einstein would write something like that. The famous books of that era have many central themes and elements of individualism from authors such as Orwell, Tolkien, Huxley.

Sure but Einstein was a socialist.

I love how to vote or rail against socialism is, in some sense, to say "Nah, Einstein don't know shit, surely I'm smarter than that man." Also don't call me "Surely"

Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?

yes they can be. most of this is just who 'owns' the capital. Does the individual own it? Does the state own it? Does the state allow an individual to own it and they dictate what happens? When the argument should be about how monopiles (either state controlled or people controlled) are typically bad for everyone except the monopoly (and whoever owns it). One thing the socialists did very well was to hide the fact that fascism is a form of socialism like communism is too. If you read the nazi manifesto there are many aspects that are spot on socialist. Even the word 'nazi' is short for national socialist. The word is bandied around lot when people want to end an argument or make their opponent look bad. Without any thought what those people stood for.

I agree with your assesment 100%, People are just really simple minded and don't want to be grouped in or compared to nazis in any way share or form. Just look at all the emotional arguments presented in this thread alone by people who presumably identify presumably with more left leaning socialist values.

Einstein didn't have the 20th century as reference.

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist? Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?

They're both high authoritarian societies. Nazis were just for murder along geographic and racial boundaries rather than class boundaries.

How would you characterize that basis of reference?

No, that is wrong. Read a history book and learn the correct answer. Your random guesses are just stupid.

You could let us know what you think is the correct answer? That's always an option, right...?

Yes it was a racial socialism as opposed to class socialism.

> Can a society/political movement be socialist and fascist simultaneously?

Sure, nothing really excludes one from the other I think. You can take all of Europe now, give them a superiority complex, and you’d have a fantastic facist socialist republic.

Not that I don't think they are in fact superior in terms of like "Yeah I'd take Euro cit over whatever I have now", but doesn't Europe already low-key believe that anyway or is that simply the American hegemony talking?

> Fascism rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism, political violence, and war as means to national rejuvenation.

Even though they have a long history of it, Europe still has a ways to go to get back there :P

I was referring more to the European (although maybe its more French aha) exceptionalism or superiority complex.

Cool take tho

Socialists want to pool resources to support the wider group. Fascists want uniform cultural norms throughout society. There's nothing contradictory about the two beliefs, but in our time people who subscribe to one rarely subscribe to the other.

I think my fair counterpoin to that is I never hear anything socialist sounding from modern-day Fascists (except maybe for the rich), as much as they are generally nationalists, they don't seem to have much care for their fellow countrymen...

You describe nationalism. Communism is the extreme left of socialism.

China is a communist state but wants and enforces uniform ciltural norms. The most oppressive regimes of today are communist regimes.

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist?

Because a fundamental principle underlying fascism is that words don’t have any inherent or collective meaning, beyond how they’re used in the moment by “the strong” to dominate “the weak.” It’s an irrational ideology.

>> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist?

Why did East Germany call itself the "German Democratic Republic"?

To set an example for the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

What is the deal with this schtick, legit? Why does NK of all hellholes call itself democratic for any other reason than the presumption that everyone is cool with their Great Leaders in perpetutity?

Because democracy is a key part of Marx/socialist thought. The whole idea is that collective ownership of capital would mean it would be democratically managed by the working class, for the interests of the working class, rather than for the interests of someone else. You can quibble about that if you want but it's a big part of socialist thought anyways. It's only in the modern period that democracy has become synonymous with the western capitalist system.

So to what extent is democracy MORE a socialist thought with regard to its respect and enforcement of socialism than is the Western Capitalism system to which its become more Modernly and Popularly associated?

Likewise why did it build a "Antifaschistischer Schutzwall" ("Anti-Fascist Protection Rampart").

Maybe they were being faschetious

The Nazi party was one of many on-the-fringe parties formed in Germany's post-WWI chaos, and it initially combined socialist and nationalist ideas. The opportunity of funding from big business lured it rightwards, and the nationalism, as it often does, turned towards racialism and antisemitism. From late 1919, Hitler was a significant player in driving that move.

It was because Hitler hated the Communist movement and wanted to set his party apart from the Communists.

The best way to capture that opposition was to get the Socialists on his side so that's what he went for by calling his party Socialist and setting them in direct opposition to the Communists.

Thanks! This makes the most sense to me

Actually Hitler objected to the socialist moniker. It was inserted into the name (to intentionally appeal to uninformed leftist workers) by the executive committee (the proposal was put forth by Rudolf Jung).

(Why Hitler?: The Genesis of the Nazi Reich, Mitcham, 1996)

> Also, why do the Nazis have "Socialist" in their moniker if they were fascist

I can't tell if you're being serious

They should have been, like, Nazifah or sumfing

What.

wat

Maybe socialist during his time meant something different than today's socialist. Imagine that.

Liberal used to mean libertarian prior to the 60s.

Einstein's time period was also one critical of fascism with one of the points of discussion from then on that was talking about how large masses of people can turn into horrible unintelligible creatures that lead to the likes of the holocaust.

> Could you also possibly be projecting your values on to Einstein?

I think this misses the forest for the trees. IMO, even if the GPs interpretation is wrong, it's still a far more interesting and insightful observation (that groups so often behave so much worse than individuals) than the alternative (some people are a lot smarter than others).

It’s ok to be wrong and insightful. It’s not ok to attribute it incorrectly.

The collective "intelligence and character of the masses" was a topic of the highest relevance back in 1939, particularly to a Jew like Einstein, while the average of its individuals less so (and of more interest to the racist ideologies he opposed). And this is not a metaphor: it is literally what is said in the note. On the contrary, it's a stretch to interpret it as a reference to the individuals in the masses instead of the masses themselves.