[THS] Albert Einstein: Why Socialism?

[The Harder Stuff in news and commentary]

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25996.htm

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.