|
Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein 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 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. |
