One World or None

[InterestedParticipant]

In 1946, just months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Federation of American Scientists came together to express their concerns and thoughts about the nuclear age they had unleashed. In a small, urgent book of essays (an eighty-six-page paperback), legends including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Robert Oppenheimer try to help readers understand the magnitude of their scientific breakthrough, saying in the words of Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold C. Urey, that "There is No Defense."

In this report, scientists and journalists come together to tell us that, to prevent nuclear wars, we need a World Government.


One World or None (http://www.amazon.com/One-World-None-Report-Meaning/dp/1595582274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233957384&sr=1-1) (Amazon)
One World or None (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217759/1946-Einstein-Oppenheimer-and-Co-One-World-or-None-OCR-by-mrkva2000) (online download)
One World or None (http://books.google.com/books?id=jOFCnXvan6gC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=one+world+or+none&source=bl&ots=W5YU85d7s2&sig=wN6Me5JxIH8wDJrbmKKDec_pwuM&hl=en) (Google Books)
One World or None (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XzxTjHK210) (YouTube video)

While I have only scanned the book, I view this text as a threat to the public: you either acquiesce to world government or we'll destroy your world. I'm curious if others interpret it this way.

[AJ Antimony]

Simple.

Give me liberty or give me death.

[InterestedParticipant]

Simple.

Give me liberty or give me death.
What, you think they're bluffing? You think trite little answers have any meaning, any relevance?

[Maximilian American]

What, you think they're bluffing? You think trite little answers have any meaning, any relevance?

Are you implying that they would destroy the parts of human population that breaks free?

Kinda like what they did when the Axis Pact changed the program?

Maybe, but I have in evolution doing its part, we just need our freedom and a little patience to change the worry.

[lucius]

In 1946, just months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Federation of American Scientists came together to express their concerns and thoughts about the nuclear age they had unleashed. In a small, urgent book of essays (an eighty-six-page paperback), legends including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Robert Oppenheimer try to help readers understand the magnitude of their scientific breakthrough, saying in the words of Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold C. Urey, that "There is No Defense."

In this report, scientists and journalists come together to tell us that, to prevent nuclear wars, we need a World Government.


One World or None (http://www.amazon.com/One-World-None-Report-Meaning/dp/1595582274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233957384&sr=1-1) (Amazon)
One World or None (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217759/1946-Einstein-Oppenheimer-and-Co-One-World-or-None-OCR-by-mrkva2000) (online download)
One World or None (http://books.google.com/books?id=jOFCnXvan6gC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=one+world+or+none&source=bl&ots=W5YU85d7s2&sig=wN6Me5JxIH8wDJrbmKKDec_pwuM&hl=en) (Google Books)
One World or None (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XzxTjHK210) (YouTube video)

While I have only scanned the book, I view this text as a threat to the public: you either acquiesce to world government or we'll destroy your world. I'm curious if others interpret it this way.

Perfect, scribd.com download...will read it when I get a chance.

[Original_Intent]

What, you think they're bluffing? You think trite little answers have any meaning, any relevance?

It's only trite if you don't mean it.

[InterestedParticipant]

Are you implying that they would destroy the parts of human population that breaks free?
People are destroyed all the time if they do not serve the needs of the system or stand in its way. This is not new.


Maybe, but I have in evolution doing its part, we just need our freedom and a little patience to change the worry.
First, you realize that Darwinism and evolution are elitist creations that serve their mechanisms of control, right? Second, this is a very wide chasm between needing our freedom and getting it. So, do you think patience is simply the answer here?

[Knightskye]

In 1946, just months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Federation of American Scientists came together to express their concerns and thoughts about the nuclear age they had unleashed. In a small, urgent book of essays (an eighty-six-page paperback), legends including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Robert Oppenheimer try to help readers understand the magnitude of their scientific breakthrough, saying in the words of Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold C. Urey, that "There is No Defense."

In this report, scientists and journalists come together to tell us that, to prevent nuclear wars, we need a World Government.


One World or None (http://www.amazon.com/One-World-None-Report-Meaning/dp/1595582274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233957384&sr=1-1) (Amazon)
One World or None (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217759/1946-Einstein-Oppenheimer-and-Co-One-World-or-None-OCR-by-mrkva2000) (online download)
One World or None (http://books.google.com/books?id=jOFCnXvan6gC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=one+world+or+none&source=bl&ots=W5YU85d7s2&sig=wN6Me5JxIH8wDJrbmKKDec_pwuM&hl=en) (Google Books)
One World or None (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XzxTjHK210) (YouTube video)

While I have only scanned the book, I view this text as a threat to the public: you either acquiesce to world government or we'll destroy your world. I'm curious if others interpret it this way.

So the premise is, since there's one government, there's no enemy to fight.

But people would be fighting over who controls the government, and factions would break out, and the whole thing would be even more of a police state.

Yeah, so much better. :rolleyes:

[mczerone]

First, you realize that Darwinism and evolution are elitist creations that serve their mechanisms of control, right? Second, this is a very wide chasm between needing our freedom and getting it. So, do you think patience is simply the answer here?

They have certainly been USED by statist regimes as means to an end, but there is no question that the evolutionary model is, structurally, correct. There are still some open debates in the methods of evolution, but saying that "Darwinism is a statist creation" is like arguing that you shouldn't believe in "Newtonianism" as a statist creation of the workings of gravity. Newton wasn't 100% correct, but that doesn't mean that he was just a rube and his theory of gravity should be ignored. Same goes for Darwin.

It takes some compartmentalization to get through life: not all things are connected, even if it sounds better in a schizophrenic delusion. Science isn't wrong just because your political enemies use it to their advantage.

[BarryDonegan]

the quest for one world government is not a scientific breakthrough, it is a way of renaming the imperialist quest by a nation to take over the world.

you know, the thing we accused hitler of and demonised him for.

my own grandfather worked on the redstone missle project in the '60s and was reassigned to nuclear warheads when they lost their NASA contract, for him it was simple, work at Jim Dandy for the rest of your life.

just because other scientists don't have the balls to be a gentleman like my grandfather and walk away, doesn't mean it's impossible.

and, just for the record, my grandfather might have gotten in 20 fights while i was still alive, he was the most pugilistic war veteran ever, not a peace-nick hippie, but he was not down to be the guy who makes nuclear warheads.

[Nanerbeet]

Honestly I wouldn't mind a one-world government as long as it was the USA-- not that will ever happen but I'm just saying the only reason I oppose NWO is the type of government that it will be will not respect or even acknowledge individual liberty. It is, in its very essence, a collectivist and totalitarian NWO.

[itsthepathocrats]

Honestly I wouldn't mind a one-world government as long as it was the USA-- not that will ever happen but I'm just saying the only reason I oppose NWO is the type of government that it will be will not respect or even acknowledge individual liberty. It is, in its very essence, a collectivist and totalitarian NWO.
So, it okay if the majority of the world is oppressed, if the people making the decisions that affect their lives are half-a-world-away, just as long as you're not the one who is being oppressed? Have I parroted your opinion back to you accurately?

[AJ Antimony]

What, you think they're bluffing? You think trite little answers have any meaning, any relevance?

No, I believe in it

[yoshimaroka]

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein



This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

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.

Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has - as is well known - been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. 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.

But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called "the predatory phase" of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But 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.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. 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. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: "Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?"

I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept "society" means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society - in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence - that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is "society" which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word "society."

It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished - just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. 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 time - which, looking back, seems so idyllic - is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.

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.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production[B] - although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. 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. Insofar as the labor contract is "free," what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists' requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.

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.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the "free labor contract" for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from "pure" capitalism.

Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers' goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.

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.

I am convinced [B]there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. 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. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.

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?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

[yoshimaroka]

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/e/i.htm


Bohr's Report of his Discussions with Einstein and Einstein's Reply.

As the world situation deteriorated, Einstein spent more and more effort in promoting pacifism including the establishment of a War Resisters' International Fund. In a famous exchange of letters with the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud[/b], Einstein speculated on the psychological basis for the war and fascism he saw around him. In a discussion of epistemology with the Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore, Einstein defended basic philosophical materialist positions and in particular indicated support for the Pantheism of Spinoza.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and emigrated to England, moving to the U.S. in 1935 for a position at Princeton where he lived for the remainder of his life. From this time, Einstein urged Europe to arm and prepare for the inevitable war with Hitler. Most Western nations at this time regarded Hitler as a good anti-communist and Einstein's advocacy of war was given as little heed as had his pacificism.

In 1939, Niels Bohr, told Einstein of Lise Meitner's success in splitting the uranium atom, and speculated on the prospect for the creation of an atom bomb. Though Einstein was sceptical, he was persuaded to write to President Roosevelt to begin atomic-bomb research. He was not included in the team that worked at Los Alamos and did not learn that a nuclear bomb had been made until Hiroshima was razed in 1945. He then joined those scientists seeking ways to prevent any future use of the bomb, his particular and urgent plea being the establishment of a world government under a constitution drafted by the US, Britain, and Russia.

By 1937, after years of failure advocating peaceful attempts to change the world, Einstein became involved with Communism. For the remainder of his life he would be a member, sponsor, or affiliate of at least 34 Communist organisations; and chaired three Communist organisations. Einstein spoke out against capitalism, and it's concentration of power into the hands of the few, and stressed the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalist governments. Such ideas did not go unnoticed: the FBI began documenting his activities and speeches, and filed claims against his "communist-anarchist" politics, ammassing into a 1,427 page report by the time of his death. In 1949, Einstein's agitation gained wider attention when he wrote Why Socialism?, explaining that the only way for humanity to rid itself of the evils of capitalism is through the adoptation of Socialism. Einstein did not fully approve of Stalinist Socialism; arguing on several points in letters to Soviet scientists that freedom is necessary for Socialism to work.

{Einstein is closer to the "Trotskyist" camp of Communists}

The rejection of his ideals by bureaucrats on both sides did not break him, however, because his prime obsession still remained with physics. He published his new version of the unified field in 1950, a most meticulous mathematical essay that was immediately criticised by most physicists as untenable.

Compared with his renown of a generation earlier, Einstein was virtually neglected and ostracised in his later years; he said that he felt almost like a stranger in the world. His health deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer play the violin or sail his boat. On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in his sleep at Princeton Hospital.

[Xenophage]

In 1946, just months after atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Federation of American Scientists came together to express their concerns and thoughts about the nuclear age they had unleashed. In a small, urgent book of essays (an eighty-six-page paperback), legends including Niels Bohr, Albert Einstein, and Robert Oppenheimer try to help readers understand the magnitude of their scientific breakthrough, saying in the words of Nobel Prize-winning chemist Harold C. Urey, that "There is No Defense."

In this report, scientists and journalists come together to tell us that, to prevent nuclear wars, we need a World Government.


One World or None (http://www.amazon.com/One-World-None-Report-Meaning/dp/1595582274/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233957384&sr=1-1) (Amazon)
One World or None (http://www.scribd.com/doc/217759/1946-Einstein-Oppenheimer-and-Co-One-World-or-None-OCR-by-mrkva2000) (online download)
One World or None (http://books.google.com/books?id=jOFCnXvan6gC&pg=PA130&lpg=PA130&dq=one+world+or+none&source=bl&ots=W5YU85d7s2&sig=wN6Me5JxIH8wDJrbmKKDec_pwuM&hl=en) (Google Books)
One World or None (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XzxTjHK210) (YouTube video)

While I have only scanned the book, I view this text as a threat to the public: you either acquiesce to world government or we'll destroy your world. I'm curious if others interpret it this way.

I haven't seen anything that says this book is about world government.

[Xenophage]

Einstein, Albert (1879-1955)

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/people/e/i.htm


Bohr's Report of his Discussions with Einstein and Einstein's Reply.

As the world situation deteriorated, Einstein spent more and more effort in promoting pacifism including the establishment of a War Resisters' International Fund. In a famous exchange of letters with the Austrian psychiatrist Sigmund Freud[/b], Einstein speculated on the psychological basis for the war and fascism he saw around him. In a discussion of epistemology with the Indian poet, Rabindranath Tagore, Einstein defended basic philosophical materialist positions and in particular indicated support for the Pantheism of Spinoza.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, Einstein renounced his German citizenship and emigrated to England, moving to the U.S. in 1935 for a position at Princeton where he lived for the remainder of his life. From this time, Einstein urged Europe to arm and prepare for the inevitable war with Hitler. Most Western nations at this time regarded Hitler as a good anti-communist and Einstein's advocacy of war was given as little heed as had his pacificism.

In 1939, Niels Bohr, told Einstein of Lise Meitner's success in splitting the uranium atom, and speculated on the prospect for the creation of an atom bomb. Though Einstein was sceptical, he was persuaded to write to President Roosevelt to begin atomic-bomb research. He was not included in the team that worked at Los Alamos and did not learn that a nuclear bomb had been made until Hiroshima was razed in 1945. He then joined those scientists seeking ways to prevent any future use of the bomb, his particular and urgent plea being the establishment of a world government under a constitution drafted by the US, Britain, and Russia.

By 1937, after years of failure advocating peaceful attempts to change the world, Einstein became involved with Communism. For the remainder of his life he would be a member, sponsor, or affiliate of at least 34 Communist organisations; and chaired three Communist organisations. Einstein spoke out against capitalism, and it's concentration of power into the hands of the few, and stressed the need for a revolutionary overthrow of capitalist governments. Such ideas did not go unnoticed: the FBI began documenting his activities and speeches, and filed claims against his "communist-anarchist" politics, ammassing into a 1,427 page report by the time of his death. In 1949, Einstein's agitation gained wider attention when he wrote Why Socialism?, explaining that the only way for humanity to rid itself of the evils of capitalism is through the adoptation of Socialism. Einstein did not fully approve of Stalinist Socialism; arguing on several points in letters to Soviet scientists that freedom is necessary for Socialism to work.

{Einstein is closer to the "Trotskyist" camp of Communists}

The rejection of his ideals by bureaucrats on both sides did not break him, however, because his prime obsession still remained with physics. He published his new version of the unified field in 1950, a most meticulous mathematical essay that was immediately criticised by most physicists as untenable.

Compared with his renown of a generation earlier, Einstein was virtually neglected and ostracised in his later years; he said that he felt almost like a stranger in the world. His health deteriorated to the extent that he could no longer play the violin or sail his boat. On April 18, 1955, Einstein died in his sleep at Princeton Hospital.

Plenty of brilliant people have had weak philosophies.

Einstein's virtues far outweighed his vices.

[Xenophage]

Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

The essential errors that Einstein makes are ethical in nature: he assumes that the purpose of life is to serve others, and that this is the only measure of moral good.

He ignores or hides the fact that any scientific theory he invented he did so out of the sheer, selfish pleasure of exercising his rational mind and conquering the unknown. He'd probably feel guilty admitting it.

[InterestedParticipant]

I haven't seen anything that says this book is about world government.
The entire book is a sales pitch for World Government while threatening use of the bomb for noncompliance, whether spoken overtly or not. But for an example specific reference, see page 64:


The breathing spell that we might secure by
averting an arms race would give us the opportunity
to establish a world community. Unless
we made use of it for this purpose, we would have
done nothing but postpone the next world war,
which will be all the more terrible the later it
comes. The issue that we have to face is not
whether we can create a world government before
this century is over. That appears to be very
likely. The issue that we have to face is whether
we can have such a world government without
going through a third world war. What matters
is to create at once conditions in which the ultimate
establishment of a world government will appear
as inevitable to most men as war appears inevitable
at present to many.

Clearly the crucial point in this transition will
be reached when a world government will in fact
operate in the area of security or police functions.
When that point is reached, the right to abrogate
will cease and secession will become both illegal
and in fact impossible.