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 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?