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.
“Why
Socialism” by Albert Einstein, Monthly Review num 1, may
1949,