mo nt hlyreview.o rg http://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism

Albert Einstein more on Marxism & Socialism

Why Socialism? :: Monthly Review

Albert Einstein is the world-f amous physicist. This article was originally published in the f irst issue ofMonthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the f irst issue ofMRs f if t ieth year.

The Editors

Is it advisable f or one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subjectof socialism? I believe f or a number of reasons that it is.

Let us f irst consider the question f rom the point of view of scientif ic knowledge. It might appear that thereare no essential methodological dif f erences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both f ieldsattempt to discover laws of general acceptability f or a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to makethe interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality suchmethodological dif f erences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the f ield of economics is madedif f icult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are of ten af f ected by many f actors whichare very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginningof the so-called civilized period of human history hasas is well knownbeen largely inf luenced andlimited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the majorstates 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 f or themselves amonopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood f rom among their own ranks. The priests, incontrol of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a systemof values by which the people were thencef orth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their socialbehavior.

But historic tradit ion is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what ThorsteinVeblen called the predatory phase of human development. The observable economic f acts belong to thatphase and even such laws as we can derive f rom them are not applicable to other phases. Since the realpurpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of humandevelopment, economic science in its present state can throw litt le light on the socialist society of thef uture.

Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, evenless, 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 personalit ies with lof ty ethical ideals andif these ends are notstillborn, but vital and vigorousare adopted and carried f orward by those many human beings who, halfunconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.

For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientif ic methods when itis a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have aright to express themselves on questions af f ecting the organization of society.

Innumerable voices have been asserting f or 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 f eelindif f erent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate mymeaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposedman the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, andI remarked that only a supra-national organization would of f er protection f rom that danger. Thereupon myvisitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of thehuman race?

I am sure that as litt le as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is thestatement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less losthope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painf ul solitude and isolation f rom which so many people aresuf f ering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?

It is easy to raise such questions, but dif f icult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try,however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the f act that our f eelings and strivings are of tencontradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple f ormulas.

Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts toprotect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisf y his personal desires, and todevelop his innate abilit ies. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and af f ection of his f ellowhuman beings, to share in their pleasures, to comf ort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditionsof lif e. Only the existence of these varied, f requently conf licting, strivings accounts f or the specialcharacter of a man, and their specif ic combination determines the extent to which an individual can achievean inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relativestrength of these two drives is, in the main, f ixed by inheritance. But the personality that f inally emerges islargely f ormed by the environment in which a man happens to f ind himself during his development, by thestructure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradit ion of that society, and by its appraisal ofparticular types of behavior. The abstract concept society means to the individual human being the sumtotal of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations.The individual is able to think, f eel, strive, and work by himself ; but he depends so much upon societyinhis physical, intellectual, and emotional existencethat it is impossible to think of him, or to understandhim, outside the f ramework of society. It is society which provides man with f ood, clothing, a home, thetools of work, language, the f orms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his lif e is madepossible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are allhidden behind the small word society.

It is evident, theref ore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a f act of nature which cannotbe abolishedjust as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole lif e process of ants and beesis f ixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships ofhuman beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations,the gif t of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are notdictated by biological necessit ies. Such developments manif est themselves in tradit ions, institutions, andorganizations; in literature; in scientif ic and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explainshow it happens that, in a certain sense, man can inf luence his lif e through his own conduct, and that in thisprocess conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.

Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider f ixed andunalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during hislif etime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts f rom society through communication andthrough many other types of inf luences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of t ime, issubject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual andsociety. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitivecultures, that the social behavior of human beings may dif f er greatly, depending upon prevailing culturalpatterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who arestriving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because oftheir biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self - inf licted f ate.

If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural att itude of man should be changed inorder to make human lif e as satisf ying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the f act thatthere are certain conditions which we are unable to modif y. As mentioned bef ore, the biological nature ofman is, f or all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographicdevelopments of the last f ew centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively denselysettled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extremedivision of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The timewhich,looking back, seems so idyllicis gone f orever when individuals or relatively small groups could becompletely self -suf f icient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now aplanetary community of production and consumption.

I have now reached the point where I may indicate brief ly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisisof our t ime. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become moreconscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as apositive asset, as an organic t ie, as a protective f orce, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or evento his economic existence. Moreover, his posit ion 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, progressivelydeteriorate. All human beings, whatever their posit ion in society, are suf f ering f rom this process ofdeterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they f eel insecure, lonely, and deprived of thenaive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of lif e. Man can f ind meaning in lif e, short and perilous as itis, 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 bef ore us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to depriveeach other of the f ruits of their collective labornot by f orce, but on the whole in f aithf ul compliance withlegally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of productionthat is tosay, the entire productive capacity that is needed f or producing consumer goods as well as additionalcapital goodsmay legally be, and f or the most part are, the private property of individuals.

For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that f ollows I shall call workers all those who do not share inthe ownership of the means of productionalthough this does not quite correspond to the customary useof the term. The owner of the means of production is in a posit ion to purchase the labor power of theworker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property ofthe capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces andwhat he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insof ar as the labor contract is f ree, what theworker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needsand by the capitalists requirements f or labor power in relation to the number of workers competing f orjobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by thevalue of his product.

Private capital tends to become concentrated in f ew hands, partly because of competit ion among thecapitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encouragethe f ormation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of thesedevelopments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be ef f ectively checkedeven by a democratically organized polit ical society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies areselected by polit ical parties, largely f inanced or otherwise inf luenced by private capitalists who, f or allpractical purposes, separate the electorate f rom the legislature. The consequence is that therepresentatives of the people do not in f act suf f iciently protect the interests of the underprivilegedsections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control,directly or indirectly, the main sources of inf ormation (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely dif f icult,and indeed in most cases quite impossible, f or the individual cit izen to come to objective conclusions andto make intelligent use of his polit ical rights.

The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized bytwo main principles: f irst, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose ofthem as they see f it; second, the labor contract is f ree. Of course, there is no such thing as a purecapitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitterpolit ical struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved f orm of the f ree labor contract f orcertain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not dif f er much f rompure capitalism.

Production is carried on f or prof it, not f or use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to workwill always be in a posit ion to f ind employment; an army of unemployed almost always exists. The workeris constantly in f ear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a prof itablemarket, the production of consumers goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence.Technological progress f requently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden ofwork f or all. The prof it motive, in conjunction with competit ion among capitalists, is responsible f or aninstability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions.Unlimited competit ion leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness ofindividuals which I mentioned bef ore.

This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suf f ersf rom this evil. An exaggerated competit ive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worshipacquisit ive success as a preparation f or his f uture career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of asocialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. Insuch an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a plannedf ashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute thework to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, andchild. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilit ies, would attempt todevelop in him a sense of responsibility f or his f ellow men in place of the glorif ication of power andsuccess in our present society.

Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economyas such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialismrequires the solution of some extremely dif f icult socio-polit ical problems: how is it possible, in view of thef ar-reaching centralization of polit ical and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy f rom becoming all-powerf ul and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democraticcounterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?

Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest signif icance in our age of transit ion. Since,under present circumstances, f ree and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under apowerf ul taboo, I consider the f oundation of this magazine to be an important public service.

Why Socialism? :: Monthly Review