|
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.
|
