Subversive Pessimist
12th October 2004, 11:58
Why Socialism?
By Dr. ALBERT EINSTEIN
This article was written by the famous world scientist Dr. Albert Einstein in 1949 for the magazine Monthly Review in US.
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 and as understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the fields of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that the 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 – as is well known - have been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic by nature. For example, most of the major world states of history owned their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and also 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 were in control of education, made the class divisions of society into a permanent institution and also created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a very large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorsten 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 ( Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin-Editor) with lofty ethical ideals and – if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous – are adopted and carried forwards by those many human beings who, have even unconsciously, determined the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have the right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Man is, at one and 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 condition of life. 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 society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by his appraisal of particular types of behavior. 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 the "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."
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 yet 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 naïve, simple, unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only by devoting himself to the society.
The economic anarchy of a capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. We see before us a large 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 the 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 the consumer goods as well as additional capital goods – may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For simplicity, I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production. The owners of the means of production are in a position to purchase the labor power of a worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods that become the property of the capitalist. 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 the job. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment to the workers is not determined by the value if his product.
Private capital tends more and more to be concentrated in a few hands, partly because of competition among capitalists and the growth of monopoly capitalism. They have enormous power that cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of the legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed and influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence of this is that the representatives of the people do not and cannot protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. The private capitalists and the multinational corporations directly or indirectly, control all of the main sources of information (press, radio, TV, education). It is thus extremely difficult, in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to an objective conclusion and to make an intelligent use of his or her political rights.
Production of goods is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision in capitalism that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" always exists under capitalism. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his or her job. Technological progress in most cases frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motif, in conjunction with competition amongst the capitalists, is wholly responsible for the instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital that leads to severe economic 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 our student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced that there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, it is namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which is oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, which adjusts the 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 or her a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present capitalist society.
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under the present capitalist circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo.
By Dr. ALBERT EINSTEIN
This article was written by the famous world scientist Dr. Albert Einstein in 1949 for the magazine Monthly Review in US.
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 and as understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the fields of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that the 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 – as is well known - have been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic by nature. For example, most of the major world states of history owned their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and also 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 were in control of education, made the class divisions of society into a permanent institution and also created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a very large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorsten 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 ( Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin-Editor) with lofty ethical ideals and – if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous – are adopted and carried forwards by those many human beings who, have even unconsciously, determined the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have the right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Man is, at one and 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 condition of life. 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 society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by his appraisal of particular types of behavior. 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 the "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."
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 yet 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 naïve, simple, unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only by devoting himself to the society.
The economic anarchy of a capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evil. We see before us a large 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 the 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 the consumer goods as well as additional capital goods – may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For simplicity, I shall call "workers" all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production. The owners of the means of production are in a position to purchase the labor power of a worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods that become the property of the capitalist. 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 the job. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment to the workers is not determined by the value if his product.
Private capital tends more and more to be concentrated in a few hands, partly because of competition among capitalists and the growth of monopoly capitalism. They have enormous power that cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of the legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed and influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence of this is that the representatives of the people do not and cannot protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. The private capitalists and the multinational corporations directly or indirectly, control all of the main sources of information (press, radio, TV, education). It is thus extremely difficult, in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to an objective conclusion and to make an intelligent use of his or her political rights.
Production of goods is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision in capitalism that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an "army of unemployed" always exists under capitalism. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his or her job. Technological progress in most cases frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motif, in conjunction with competition amongst the capitalists, is wholly responsible for the instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital that leads to severe economic 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 our student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced that there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, it is namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which is oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, which adjusts the 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 or her a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present capitalist society.
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under the present capitalist circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo.