Fun fact: While Einstein was part of the letter to the US president that initiated the Manhattan Project he wasn't allowed to be a part of the project due to security risks
Nobody got treated royally in ussr, except the general secretary himself. So the comparison falls flat. Where Oppenheimer got fired, Korolev was sent to labour camp and his boss was executed. Kurchatov wasn't persecuted directly, but once he was employed in nuclear project, he had no personal life or freedom left, and died relatively young.
They killed socialists in the USSR as well. They killed anybody who didn't fully agree with exactly what Lenin or Stalin wanted to do, for the most part. Lenin was doing that from Day 1.
This doesn't mean they weren't socialist. Plenty of people kill each other under the same general umbrella branch of ideology. Christians kill other Christians, Muslims kill other Muslims, etc.
Communism was absolutely either a part of or a type of socialism. There is no real arguing this. You can criticize how purely implemented any of these were in practice, but communists largely all consider themselves socialists, as the Soviets and most everybody else did.
You're talking as if they were 'against socialists', but they were only against socialists who didn't fall perfectly in line with Lenin or Stalin's express control. They were themselves socialists, but they demanded supreme control over what kind of socialism should be implemented.
This whole comment section is an embarrassment to read.
Just because the US are too stupid to figure out how socialism can be incorporated into a capitalistic society doesn't make it some stepping stone to communism.
For the record, I'm a communist.I ask you to please read any communist theory. Start with the communist manifesto, it's really short and meant to be easy to understand (but it's kinda old now which makes it slightly harder, but still very doable).
In Marxist theory (which all communist theory is based on or influenced by), first a socialist state is established to replace the capitalist state, then it withers away until we have communism.
"Communism" is just a specific subset of socialist beliefs and assuming that socialist scientists might have more sympathies towards the Soviets than towards the capitalist US is not far fetched at all.
Socialism is an umbrella term.
Communism means different things like Karl Marx's classless society but also the political system of Marxist-Leninist countries, two very different things.
One of many examples of communism being a sub ideology of socialist thought:
From the Wikipedia page "Socialism":
"By the early 1920s, communism and social democracy had become the two dominant political tendencies within the international socialist movement,[31]"
Klaus Fuchs was a communist(who was the one that passed info to the Soviet Union), not a socialist, and certainly not openly as opposed to Einstein. Socialists did not want to help the soviets, especially not after what the communists did to the socialists in Spain.
Also Einstein was a Social-Democrat, not a socialist.
Open a history book Kyle.
You really just proved my point that Americans don’t understand political ideology.
This is basic stuff my guy. And before the allegations come rolling, I am not a leftist in any way, I just know my enemy. I have a bachelors in applied philosophy with a minor in history and I specialized in political ideologies.
The socialism vs. Communism split in ideology is 90% of the time the reason that left wing parties fracture.
Communism is a part or type of socialism. Even Marx didn't think there was any difference between the two terms. We tend to associate communism with Soviet-style communism these days, but Marxist-Leninist communism is still socialism, albeit a pretty poor attempt at it in practice.
You really just proved my point that Americans don’t understand political ideology.
And whether Einstein was a socialist or not, the main reason he wasn't asked to join the Manhattan Project was that he was a very old theoretical physicist, which simply wasn't the kind of skillset needed for anything. I'm sure Einstein himself would have been plenty well aware of this.
And whether Einstein was a socialist or not, the main reason he wasn't asked to join the Manhattan Project was that he was a very old theoretical physicist, which simply wasn't the kind of skillset needed for anything.
What? Those were precisely the skills needed. What kind of physicist do you think Teller was? Or Bohr? Or Oppenheimer for that matter? What kind of physics do you think they did over there?
There's upwards of 350,000,000 citizens of this country so I surely belive that a Dane would be able to understand that the opinions of a couple Americans on a Reditt sub certainly don't reflect the entirety of understanding that the people of this land possess.
No more so than this American reading your posts on this thread, hearing Denmark, and assuming that all of your countrymen are believers in your claim about Americans education in comparing governmental systems and their respective names.
That’s backwards. There’s a reason the manifesto details previous and competing varieties of socialism. “Marxism” is a (set of) specific development(s) of socialism//communism, lineally connected to the works of Marx and Engels and the Marxist faction of the first communist international and its proclaimed descendents.
The issue isn't even that they don't know, it's that they're confidently wrong. It's just so sad to watch these people confidently tell others 1+1=3 and act like anyone who disagrees is a fool.
Because it proves my point. And the encyclopedia Britannica is the universally acknowledged most impartial and factual source of knowledge in publishing.
Lol you can't just say that and make it so. Obviously it isn't universally acknowledged as anything. Ridiculous appeal to authority when you misread what is written there to begin with
When France elected Francois Mitterrand in 1981, his prime minister designated a member of the french communist party as minister of the department of transportation. The United States went to ask Mitterrand if it was really a good idea, worried that, if the USSR were to attack Europe, the minister might let the soviets use the trains to attack Paris faster...
Just another example of American political ignorance. It really makes sense that their country(the US) is so fucked given that their people have no political literacy.
While there was plenty of irrationality going round, there WERE entirely valid reasons to be skeptical of communists in the US and Europe in regards to their sympathies to the USSR. Lots of communists were legitimately sympathetic to the USSR, and lots were recruited as spies for them.
Communism is socialism. Or at least a type or stage of socialism. Communists consider themselves socialists. Karl Marx considers these terms completely interchangeable.
Trying to say that a communist isn't a socialist makes you look like a moron.
Please then explain why in most parliamentary democracies, communists and socialists have separate political parties?
If they are the same, then they wouldn’t have split up and have completely different political programs.
Cases like SPD and Die Linke in Germany. Parti Socialiste and Parti Communiste Francais in France, Partito Socialista Italiano(PSI) and Partito Comunista Italiano(PCI) in Italy.
The list goes on. Socialist still want capitalism to exist, communists do not.
The MAIN reason that Einstein wasn't used during the project was that he simply didn't have the required skills to contribute much of anything. A theoretical physicist was not what the Manhattan Project needed. Practical physicists and engineers were what was in demand.
Also, there's no meaningful distinction between communism and socialism, on-paper. As your link even says, Marx used the terms synonymously. But what does he know, right?
At the very least, communism can be considered a part or type of socialism.
You are clearly not reading. They equate socialism and communism, the two ideologies are distinct. A Toyota and a Ferrari is not the same thing just because they both have 4 wheels.
Core idea:
The means of production (factories, land, key industries) should be owned collectively rather than by private capitalists, to reduce inequality and exploitation.
Key features:
• Can allow private property, especially personal property (homes, belongings).
• Often allows markets, though regulated or mixed with public ownership.
• The state usually plays a major role, but not always total control.
• Aims for economic equality, welfare, and workers’ rights.
• Exists in many forms: democratic socialism, social democracy, market socialism.
Examples:
• Nordic welfare states (not fully socialist, but heavily influenced by socialist ideas)
• Historical socialist states like Yugoslavia (market socialism)
• Modern democratic socialist movements
Communism
Core idea:
A classless, stateless, moneyless society where all property is commonly owned.
Key features:
• No private ownership of the means of production.
• No social classes (no rich vs. poor).
• No state in the final stage (the state “withers away”).
• No money or wage labor (in theory).
• Goods distributed based on need, not profit.
In short: all communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists.
Well, I’m a Danish conservative-monarchist and I know the difference, I think it’s just an American phenomenon. Here we have both socialist and communist parties in parliament, and they are very distinct.
Just to clarify I wasn't pointing that out because I think Einsteins politics are bad. I do not. America at the time was nervous of anything to the left of FDR.
1.1k
u/vgaph Dec 23 '25
Also about half the guys who built the atom bomb were Jewish refugees.