A friend sent me this article; he felt that Time didn't provide a thorough
overview of their 'man of the century'.
Happy New Year.
Brian McAndrews
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>Why Socialism?
>By Albert Einstein
>
>>From Monthly Review, New York, May, 1949.
>[Re-printed in Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein]
>Transcribed by Joseph Woodard
>
>
> 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 toward 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 supranational 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, 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 many millions past and present who are all hidden behind
>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 susceptible
>to change. Memory, the capacity to make combinations, the gift of oral
>communication have made possible developments among human beings which are
>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 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 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
>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.
>In so far 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 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?
>
**************************************************
* Brian McAndrews, Practicum Coordinator *
* Faculty of Education, Queen's University *
* Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6 *
* FAX:(613) 533-6307 Phone (613) 533-6000x74937*
* e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *
* "Education is not the filling of a pail, *
* but the lighting of a fire. *
* W.B.Yeats *
* *
**************************************************
