WhySocialism
AlbertEinstein
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express
viewsonthesubjectofsocialism?Ibelieveforanumberofreasonsthatitis.
Let us first consider the questionfromthepointofviewofscientificknowledge.Itmight
appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and
economics:scientistsinbothfieldsattempttodiscoverlawsofgeneralacceptabilityfora
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
historyhas—asiswellknown—beenlargelyinfluencedandlimitedbycauseswhichare
by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of themajorstatesof
history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established
themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of theconqueredcountry.
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 createdasystemofvaluesby
whichthepeoplewerethenceforth,toalargeextentunconsciously,guidedintheirsocial
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 aswecanderive
from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is
preciselytoovercomeandadvancebeyondthepredatoryphaseofhumandevelopment,
economic science in its present state can throwlittlelightonthesocialistsocietyofthe
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,cansupply
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,determinetheslowevolutionofsociety.
Forthesereasons,weshouldbeonourguardnottooverestimatescienceandscientific
methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that
expertsaretheonlyoneswhohavearighttoexpressthemselvesonquestionsaffecting
theorganizationofsociety.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is
passingthroughacrisis,thatitsstabilityhasbeengravelyshattered.Itischaracteristicof
suchasituationthatindividualsfeelindifferentorevenhostiletowardthegroup,smallor
large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a
personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligentandwell-disposedmanthe
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
fromthatdanger.Thereuponmyvisitor,verycalmlyandcoolly,saidtome:“Whyareyou
sodeeplyopposedtothedisappearanceofthehumanrace?”
Iamsurethataslittleasacenturyagonoonewouldhavesolightlymadeastatementof
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.
Whatisthecause?Isthereawayout?
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 amveryconsciousofthefact
that our feelings and strivings are often contradictoryandobscureandthattheycannot
beexpressedineasyandsimpleformulas.
Manis,atoneandthesametime,asolitarybeingandasocialbeing.Asasolitarybeing,
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 ofhisfellowhumanbeings,toshareintheir
pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows,andtoimprovetheirconditionsoflife.Only
2
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 twodrivesis,inthemain,
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,bythetraditionofthatsociety,andbyits
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
contemporariesandtoallthepeopleofearliergenerations.Theindividualisabletothink,
feel,strive,andworkbyhimself;buthedependssomuchuponsociety—inhisphysical,
intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to
understandhim,outsidetheframeworkofsociety.Itis“society”whichprovidesmanwith
food,clothing,ahome,thetoolsofwork,language,theformsofthought,andmostofthe
content of thought; hislifeismadepossiblethroughthelaborandtheaccomplishments
ofthemanymillionspastandpresentwhoareallhiddenbehindthesmallword“society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of
naturewhichcannotbeabolished—justasinthecaseofantsandbees.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
variableandsusceptibletochange.Memory,thecapacitytomakenewcombinations,the
giftoforalcommunicationhavemadepossibledevelopmentsamonghumanbeingwhich
are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in
traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering
accomplishments; in works ofart.Thisexplainshowithappensthat,inacertainsense,
man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this processconscious
thinkingandwantingcanplayapart.
Manacquiresatbirth,throughheredity,abiologicalconstitutionwhichwemustconsider
fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges whicharecharacteristicofthehuman
species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he
adoptsfromsocietythroughcommunicationandthroughmanyothertypesofinfluences.
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
3
society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of
so-called primitive cultures, that the social behaviorofhumanbeingsmaydiffergreatly,
depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which
predominateinsociety.Itisonthisthatthosewhoarestrivingtoimprovethelotofman
may ground their hopes: human beings are notcondemned,becauseoftheirbiological
constitution,toannihilateeachotherortobeatthemercyofacruel,self-inflictedfate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure ofsocietyandtheculturalattitudeofmanshould
be changed in ordertomakehumanlifeassatisfyingaspossible,weshouldconstantly
beconsciousofthefactthattherearecertainconditionswhichweareunabletomodify.
As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not
subjecttochange.Furthermore,technologicalanddemographicdevelopmentsofthelast
fewcenturieshavecreatedconditionswhichareheretostay.Inrelativelydenselysettled
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
individualsorrelativelysmallgroupscouldbecompletelyself-sufficient.Itisonlyaslight
exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of
productionandconsumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the
essence of thecrisisofourtime.Itconcernstherelationshipoftheindividualtosociety.
The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence uponsociety.
Buthedoesnotexperiencethisdependenceasapositiveasset,asanorganictie,asa
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, whicharebynature
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
unsophisticatedenjoymentoflife.Mancanfindmeaninginlife,shortandperilousasitis,
onlythroughdevotinghimselftosociety.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, thereal
source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of
4
which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective
labor—notbyforce,butonthewholeinfaithfulcompliancewithlegallyestablishedrules.
In thisrespect,itisimportanttorealizethatthemeansofproduction—thatistosay,the
entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as
additional capital goods—may legally be,andforthemostpartare,theprivateproperty
ofindividuals.
Forthesakeofsimplicity,inthediscussionthatfollowsIshallcall“workers”allthosewho
do not share in theownershipofthemeansofproduction—althoughthisdoesnotquite
correspondtothecustomaryuseoftheterm.Theownerofthemeansofproductionisin
apositiontopurchasethelaborpoweroftheworker.Byusingthemeansofproduction,
the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The
essentialpointaboutthisprocessistherelationbetweenwhattheworkerproducesand
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,butbyhisminimumneedsandbythecapitalists’requirementsforlaborpower
inrelationtothenumberofworkerscompetingforjobs.Itisimportanttounderstandthat
evenintheorythepaymentoftheworkerisnotdeterminedbythevalueofhisproduct.
Privatecapitaltendstobecomeconcentratedinfewhands,partlybecauseofcompetition
amongthecapitalists,andpartlybecausetechnologicaldevelopmentandtheincreasing
division of labor encourage the formationoflargerunitsofproductionattheexpenseof
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
selectedbypoliticalparties,largelyfinancedorotherwiseinfluencedbyprivatecapitalists
who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The
consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficientlyprotect
the interests of the underprivileged sections of thepopulation.Moreover,underexisting
conditions, private capitalistsinevitablycontrol,directlyorindirectly,themainsourcesof
information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most
casesquiteimpossible,fortheindividualcitizentocometoobjectiveconclusionsandto
makeintelligentuseofhispoliticalrights.
5
Thesituationprevailinginaneconomybasedontheprivateownershipofcapitalisthus
characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately
ownedandtheownersdisposeofthemastheyseefit;second,thelaborcontractisfree.
Ofcourse,thereisnosuchthingasapurecapitalistsocietyinthissense.Inparticular,it
should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have
succeededinsecuringasomewhatimprovedformofthe“freelaborcontract”forcertain
categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ
muchfrom“pure”capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all thoseable
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.
Technologicalprogressfrequentlyresultsinmoreunemploymentratherthaninaneasing
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
mentionedbefore.
ThiscripplingofindividualsIconsidertheworstevilofcapitalism.Ourwholeeducational
system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated intothe
student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future
career.
Iamconvincedthereisonlyonewaytoeliminatethesegraveevils,namelythroughthe
establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which
wouldbeorientedtowardsocialgoals.Insuchaneconomy,themeansofproductionare
ownedbysocietyitselfandareutilizedinaplannedfashion.Aplannedeconomy,which
adjusts production to the needs of the community,woulddistributetheworktobedone
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 responsibilityforhisfellowmenin
placeoftheglorificationofpowerandsuccessinourpresentsociety.
6
Nevertheless,itisnecessarytorememberthataplannedeconomyisnotyetsocialism.A
planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the
individual.Theachievementofsocialismrequiresthesolutionofsomeextremelydifficult
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
democraticcounterweighttothepowerofbureaucracybeassured?
Clarityabouttheaimsandproblemsofsocialismisofgreatestsignificanceinourageof
transition. Since, underpresentcircumstances,freeandunhindereddiscussionofthese
problemshascomeunderapowerfultaboo,Iconsiderthefoundationofthismagazineto
beanimportantpublicservice.
7
