Was Einstein a “mathematical thinker”? Some academics might argue his childhood inability to do mathematics would suggest otherwise. Nevertheless, he later developed the acumen for not only doing mathematics, but interpreting and understanding, and then applying it in the most impactful and imaginative ways, to conceive the photo-electric effect, special relativity, predict black holes, and the rest. One might wonder on the puzzling outcome, however: how does a brilliant mathematician step away from the numbers to speak passionately for a world in which society itself owns the means of production and planned economy is considered most just? A world for socialism? Is the whole of mathematics complicit in rejecting the obvious? Of course there are many other brilliant mathematicians who are socialists, but is Einstein truly a saint? How did we get here? Do the numbers not speak for themselves? How is it that mathematics is unable to alleviate the spook once and for all, to compel the world to give up the ghost? Maybe it’s not the business of mathematics at all, one way or the other, to eliminate spooks. The world as we know it would lead you to believe that neoliberal capitalism (of the decentralized Hayekian sort) is not only justified, but vindicated, by (evolutionary game theoretic) mathematics (add more modifiers to your alternative game theory until it’s “sound”, if you will, and confuse that with a refinement), that “capitalism” is not only the most mathematically sound but also the most ethical principle of organizing capital and all economic activity (saving child slaves from sex work, after all). Let’s be frank: can we truly, or let’s say honestly, separate the “private” from the “privilege” in capitalism? Does private ultimately not mean privileged?
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.
— “Why Socialism?”. Albert Einstein.
Historically we know that capitalism’s privacy principle is in fact synonymous with privilege. We know it depends on it, at any rate, as the history of enclosure, slavery (an economic motor unlike any the world had ever seen) and bailouts has shown . Add to this, the result doesn’t die with the worker: “technological development” is captured under contracts and non-disclosure agreements. It would seem the mental model that underpins capitalism is completely hostile or counterintuitive to what we know about the public nature of life. Surely, non-human animals live quite publicly, and often with abandon it would seem. Are we in fact doomed to the public? Is nothing private, and is it a mistake to found our engineering and economic projects as if there is anything truly private? Certainly we treat the deepest reaches of space as if it is our duty to uncover them.
We, the semiotic cyborgs, are quite different from non-human animals. We’ve breached a threshold on the rules of evolution: we have, beyond thinking and consciousness, a special status of bearing minds, by and of which we may be mind-ful; that which demands consent, consensus, secret-sharing, … that which may not be investigated under certain circumstances. There are in fact many cultures which consider it a social rule to ban the expression of the private contents of one’s own mind, leaving them merely to exist, merely to be respected, to route around them as if damage… let’s not fool ourselves that such a rule isn’t clearly present in parts of our own Western culture, despite illusions to the contrary (i.e. reality television).
We might wonder: are the mental models of technology identity systems getting our intuitions right about privacy, the basis of accumulation and exclusion? We might map out the models of identity systems as we know them to our own psychological traits:
Could we treat identity systems (bouncers at bars, banks’ validation rituals, state ID systems, cryptocurrency exchanges, AML/KYC, etc) as if they were psychologically shaped entities with identities themselves? Can we give them “semiotic personalities” in which our psychological and identity developments take form?
 Bailouts are an outcome of said privilege; symptoms of the crisis that is capitalism and attempts to treat itself, like a soldier trying to put blood back into their body after a limb has been blown off. See What laissez-faire? by Sheldon Richman in the link behind “history of enclosure”. Also. We are bailing out a crisis formation/generator: