|
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—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 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.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm
© copyright 2008 by Monthly Review
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
