Why Socialism?
By Albert Einstein
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 beings 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 the 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.
