Why Socialism?
Albert Einstein
[Reprinted from the 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 thence forth, 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 assure 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 tome
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 the 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.
|