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 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lokil:
It's okay to be a lesbian, Brent.

---

Of course it is okay to be a lesbian. I have nothing against homosexuality.

shit im not reading all the stuff its like a novel. also ./......... shit i forgot

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
Of course it is okay to be a lesbian. I have nothing against homosexuality.

---

LOL. I see Lokil deleted his reply.

For fuck's sake, Brent! If you're gonna post stuff that long, make it a text and submit it to Totse properly. Most of us have attention spans shorter than oompa-loompa dicks...

I doubt Einstein rated Stalin very highly, though.

Yeah that should of been a file Brent.

Peace Renegade,

Its good but shouldn't this be in politics?

Sure lets give it a try. Not.

yes, communism under people like stalin sucks...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ComradeAsh:
yes, communism under people like stalin sucks...

---

In the same way that capitalism sounds great in theory, but in reality it's just meant the rich are richer and the poor are poorer

quote:

---

Originally posted by TigerJK:
In the same way that capitalism sounds great in theory, but in reality it's just meant the rich are richer and the poor are poorer

---

I guess that makes me happy with it

quote:

---

Originally posted by TigerJK:
In the same way that capitalism sounds great in theory, but in reality it's just meant the rich are richer and the poor are poorer

---

Really? If we step back in time to the 'Dark Ages', we would find the difference between rich and poor to be even more extreme than today. The middle class was quite small and the upper class was smaller yet with all the remainder being lower class. You can hardly call fuedalism capitalism.

Nox

Fuedalism IS NOT a form of Capitalism.
Under the United States version of capitalism there is the largest amount of people in the middle class range then ANY society in history. There is still a lot of poor, but nothing is perfect. I can't believe how many stories I have read/heard about people coming to the US with no skills, can't speak English, no cash, and within 10 years the are millionaires, speak English, and have large amounts of people working for them. But you have to WORK hard and fail. Most successful people will tell you they failed many times before they became successful. People that think socialism is a better idea are generally new college students finding this stuff out for the first time, and people with little or no drive. Just working and groovin' usually gets you a pretty decent life. And you can hang in a house that YOU choose and have lots of free time. Socialism works great, ON PAPER. It does'nt take into account how PEOPLE think, act, etc. It just doesn't work. Maybe there is a better way, but no one has come up with it yet...

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridemypony:
Fuedalism IS NOT a form of Capitalism.

---

Never said/implied it was. I only responded to the rich get richer... part. The disparity between rich and poor has been greater in the past than today.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
Really? If we step back in time to the 'Dark Ages', we would find the difference between rich and poor to be even more extreme than today. The middle class was quite small and the upper class was smaller yet with all the remainder being lower class. You can hardly call fuedalism capitalism.

Nox

---

Not to mention how stinky and ugly the people were in the Dark Ages were.

�Never said/implied it was. I only responded to the rich get richer... part. The disparity between rich and poor has been greater in the past than today.� � Nox

We owe the growth in the middle class to the Bubonic Plague. It killed off quite a few workers. Then supply and demand took over.

Socialism doesn�t work for a very simple reason. It goes against human nature and the real world.

Everyone gets an equal share? When? In the beginning, the middle or the end? Every other week everything is pooled and divvied up again? Like closing time at a diner?

If you give five people $10,000 a piece, the results will vary. Some will blow it on goods. Some will blow it on services. Some will just change it in for blow. And some will invest it in a no-load mutual. Some will invest it in a new business.

At the end of the year some will be poor, some will be the same and some will be rich. So, do we take the money away from those who gained and give it to those that lost?
Otherwise, you start to have poor, middle class and rich again. Very un- Socialist.
Where is the motivation to produce? You make money just to have it taken away.

This is not survival of the fittest. Which is a fundamental law of nature on this planet. I guess on the Socialist Planet it�s different.

Why Socialism? Because it sounds nice.


[This message has been edited by Who's Your Daddy? (edited 10-18-2002).]

Einstein is a jewish plagiarist who pushed for the use of nuclear weapons on undefended Germany civilian cities because his years in Germany surrounded by White people forced him realize how ugly and inferior he was to the Homosapien standard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ridemypony:
Fuedalism IS NOT a form of Capitalism.

---

I think that's what Nox was implying.

BTW guys, it's FEUDALISM.

They are two completely different things. Feudalism was around from 9th - 15th centuries.
Capitalism is Post 1500 ad. And the closest any country has come to pure capitalism is 19th century USA.

"Socialism doesn�t work for a very simple reason. It goes against human nature and the real world."

There is no such thing as Human nature.

In Austrailia, before the British started killing everybody, there was a tribe called the Bushmen (not the aboriginals, BTW). The explorers that first came into contact with them described them as the most peaceful, genourous people on the planet. There was no fighting within the community, they did not fight wars, arguments were solved in peaceful manner etc.

On the other hand. There was an African tribe, I can't remember their name, who were regared as the most barbaric people on earth. They let there children go into the wild, to fend for themselves, at the age of three, and laughed when they got ripped apart by animals. They fought endless wars and brutally tourtured the enemy when they captured them.

If human nature exists, then explain those examples.

Thats just like explaining hate

quote:

---

In Austrailia, before the British started killing everybody, there was a tribe called the Bushmen (not the aboriginals, BTW). The explorers that first came into contact with them described them as the most peaceful, genourous people on the planet. There was no fighting within the community, they did not fight wars, arguments were solved in peaceful manner etc.

On the other hand. There was an African tribe, I can't remember their name, who were regared as the most barbaric people on earth. They let there children go into the wild, to fend for themselves, at the age of three, and laughed when they got ripped apart by animals. They fought endless wars and brutally tourtured the enemy when they captured them.

If human nature exists, then explain those examples

---

Those two examples are largely based on the subjective opinions of the people who discovered them.

�There is no such thing as Human nature.� - Lazy Bastard
Oh, so items such as �fight or flight responses�, adrenaline and the human endocrine system are what? Urban Legend?

�In Austrailia, before the British started killing everybody, there was a tribe called the Bushmen (not the aboriginals, BTW). The explorers that first came into contact with them described them as the most peaceful, genourous people on the planet. There was no fighting within the community, they did not fight wars, arguments were solved in peaceful manner etc.�

American Indians said the same thing. It supposed to make them sound noble. Until the archeologists started to uncover proof of continuing warfare and cannibalism. I�m not familiar with your �Bushmen�, but it sounds quite familiar. The may not have had continual, mass warfare, but I doubt they were the social equivalent of the care bears.

�On the other hand. There was an African tribe, I can't remember their name, who were regared as the most barbaric people on earth. They let there children go into the wild, to fend for themselves, at the age of three, and laughed when they got ripped apart by animals. They fought endless wars and brutally tourtured the enemy when they captured them.�

These are different ends of the same spectrum. The spectrum of human nature. As evolved as humans are, we still have a great many things hard wired in. It all exists to help an individual (and species) stay alive, such as �fight or flight�.

�If human nature exists, then explain those examples.�
Done


�Thats just like explaining hate� - ComradeAsh
Hate is product of human nature. Civilization just gives people more opportunities to hate.

�Those two examples are largely based on the subjective opinions of the people who discovered them.� � FuckOffandDie
Correct.



[This message has been edited by Who's Your Daddy? (edited 10-18-2002).]

IMHO no form of government can be truely equal, whatever happens the decisions have to be made, so aslong as their are people with greed, which there always will be, there will be the inevetabillity of tyranny. We have a duty to humanity to strive for perfection, although we shall never get there. Its sad but its the way it is, the question is how close can we get before tyranny takes over and we have to start again, or we wipe ourselves out and the next creature steps up to the head of the food chain. Socialism to me has too many downfalls, i would rather be poor in England or the US than be in a socialist country, Yet the ideals of socialism are honourable and ideal, though not possible as long as its us humans who control it.