Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Why Socialism?
by Albert Einstein

This essay was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949).

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.

....

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm

[scarletwoman]

1. Wow! What a cool thing to post! Thank you very much! Rec'd. (nt)

[Orwellian_Ghost]

3. Einstein

was quite political. And humorous.

This brilliant man understood more than just energy.

:hi:

[scarletwoman]

30. You might even say he was a genius!

:D

:hi:
sw

[TahitiNut]

2. An Oldie but a Goodie.

Rampant capitalism is NOT a proper social OR political system since its ends are antithetical to both the common weal and equitable justice.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

4. I know of no other type

"rampant capitalism"

I've often heard about "regulated capitalism" but in all my years not a single person has given me a single example.

[originalpckelly]

5. Socialism is the intelligent design of economics, capitalism is evolution.

No one needs to write up a doctrine of capitalism to have individuals obey, capitalism is an evolved behavior.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

6. Heh?

Did you want to expand on that or is obedience what you're looking for?

[originalpckelly]

7. What do you want me to explain?

[Orwellian_Ghost]

8. How is capitalism

an "evolved behavior?"

In that query please define what you deem "evolved."

How did capitalism evolve?

Please illustrate some of the "natural" characteristics of capitalism that are involved in this evolution.

Edit: Spelling

[rug]

9. I think he means hedge funds.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

13. Oh

Is that like The George Soros NED form of Branded Socialism?

[originalpckelly]

14. WTF are you smoking? Huh?

Really, where did you get that from?

[originalpckelly]

16. It is a behavior of a species on Earth, it evolved no less than any other behavior.

If the behavior of capitalism were so awful and inefficient, it would have died out long ago. All behaviors are evolved behaviors, but capitalism has persisted longer than any other, and it must be in the best interests of this species because it has not been selected out.

Just like we evolved the behavior of taking care of our young instead of dropping them off in eggs to hatch on their own and fend for themselves.

It's called evolution, things that don't work don't compete, capitalism in some ways is evolution itself. Bad business plans fail causing businesses to die out, just like maladaptive behaviors cause an animal to die off. The most inefficient companies are eliminated from an industry as stress is placed on that industry, or they must change to survive and become more competitive.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. Interesting theory, but badly flawed.

Capitalism is a very young economic practice. It may be, in fact, still in its adolescence. Or, conversely, it could be dying of old age even now. Its durability has been sorely tested in the past couple hundred years and has often failed the test - witness the collapse of capitalism with the rise of the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, and Red China. All across Europe, capitalism is heavily modified by socialistic practices. It could be argued very effectively that there is no place were true capitalism even exists. Thank god.

If it 'evolved', so did socialism, and socialistic societies have existed around the world in many cultures and times. To say that socialism is a construct, but capitalism is natural indicates very little understanding of either.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

20. What you have stated here

is counter to the vast amount of anthropolgical data available.

Your very loose correlation between companies and human evolution is one of the most amazing non-sequitirs I've ever seen.

[originalpckelly]

22. You presume we must look so far back in the record, we do not.

You have the mindset of a person who doesn't think that evolution is still occurring. Humanity is still adapting and evolving daily, although most of it is behavioral and not physical.

In only a short period of time, most socialist policies failed in countries where they had free reign and were not propped up by capitalism's efficiency.

[KaptBunnyPants]

21. So is pedophilia, that doesn't make it good behavior.

Nor does it make it an example of evolution. Capitalism is a system of economics, and as such it is an example of culture, not evolution. Evolution applies to genetic traits, and culture is not a genetic trait. And unlike your contention, capitalism has not "persisted longer than any other behavior". Capitalism is a relatively recent example of culture, even if I accept capitalism as being what I think you are referring to, the market exchange of goods, which it is not. Most of human history was spent in egalitarian cooperation, in fact, it's something like 99% of human history. It is not the only method of the exchange of goods; in fact, I wouldn't even call it the dominant method of the exchange of goods today. That would be coercion.

Even as an analogy, your argument is weak, at best. In the real world, business thrive or fail mainly due to a complex interaction with the power structure they interact with. This is usually through nepotism and criminality - ie bribery, murder, extortion, ect... The ideal can only be (partially) realized by rigorous regulation of market economies, thus refuting your point about how capitalism is "natural" and doesn't rely upon people "forcing rules on others". Without the strong hand of government to prevent the accumulation of power into the hands of an oligarchy, businesses rig markets in their favor, eliminating any benefits which capitalism could provide and reverting back to a feudal state. What's worse is that due to the natural accumulation of power, government regulation eventually fails, resulting in a run away process of degradation, like what's going on now. Capitalism is thus doomed to failure, like every other human activity, but unlike the evolutionary process itself. Capitalism has a place in the repertoire of methods of human interaction, but it should never be the method of human interaction. It certainly shouldn't be falsely idolized as the pinnacle of evolved human behavior, or justified on those grounds.

[stlsaxman]

26. capitalist companies have "evolved" into corporate person-hood.

insisting that they have "human rights", corporations have "evolved" into a cancer in our fledgling republic and the body politic.

our precious Bill Of Rights should have NO bearing on corporations.

regulations are the "chemo therapy" of democracy. socialism is the delivery system of the treatment.

[originalpckelly]

34. You shouldn't presume that a large corporation is any different from a planned economy.

Wal-Mart is the enemy of free market capitalism, not its friend.

[bean fidhleir]

27. You might want to check your facts

Capitalism as we know it is only about 120 years old, and even its roots go back only about 250 years. When Adam Smith was writing Wealth of Nations in the late 1700s, the only form of capitalism that existed worked more like a partnership. Even merchantism itself, in the sense of there being a separate class of people who make nothing themselves but get their living by selling what other people make, goes back not much further than the Middle Ages in Europe.

Socialism goes back to prehistoric times. Gatherer-hunter societies are considered by anthropologists to be the original form of multi-family grouping, and all such societies around the world are socialist in the sense that they consider it a community responsibility to see that everyone shares in the necessities of life. They often have ritualistic ways to disclaim any personal ownership of those necessities, as by gatherers mingling their gleanings in central baskets before returning to camp, or successful hunters leaving their kills just outside the camp for others to "find" and bring in.

[Morereason]

31. All mankind dies with ultimate darwinism as a social rule

"Survival of the fittest" is primitive. Evolutionary patterns ultimately must themselves evolve or all society destroys itself through competition. Cooperation is superior evolution.

I consider "Darwinistic" views on life primitive.

[originalpckelly]

33. Intelligent evolution?

Doesn't seem to make sense that natural laws shouldn't apply to us like they do all other living organisms.

[mcg]

35. "Cooperation not competition underpins evolution"

http://www.bioteams.com/2006/06/14/cooperation_not_competition.html

'A significant body of research into evolution now indicates that survival of the fittest is only a part of the story. Life did not take over the globe by combat but by networking!

That is according to Prof. Lynn Margulis, distinguished biologist and Presidential Medal of Science Winner 1999
...
Included at Number Ten is Symbiosis (defined as two species engaging in physically intimate, mutually beneficial dependency) which the New Scientist declares, "has popped up so frequently during evolution that it is safe to say it's the rule, not the exception".
...
Also making the top ten is the "Superorganism" covering those social species like ants and bees which operate collectively. ...'

One could even think of a corporation as a superorganism.

[mcg]

29. Cooperation is vital.

Adam Smith was wrong about economics and Charles Darwin was wrong about evolution. Cooperation is a vital part of evolution and economics. Darwinism is not evolution, but a set of theories about evolution, some of them discredited. Social Darwinism is a recipe for fascism.

As for intelligent design, it has not been disproven. I for one (amongst many) think that there is some intelligent design involved in evolution.
Besides, it is not the same as cooperation in nature.

[Morereason]

32. Cooperation *is* superior behavior. Survival of the fittest is primitive

[eridani]

10. We already have a socialist interstate highway system, fire departments--

--police departments, etc.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

11. And

Military...

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. Wow thanks

Einstein is one of my heroes.

[pinto]

15. Thanks for the post. I'm reading a broad biography of Einstein -

touches on his personal life, his politics, the Europe of his day, as well as his 'thought experiments' and collaborations that lead to his groundbreaking theories in physics.

He was apparently a man without a country for a while, chaffed at the overarching Prussian society in Germany, held great respect for the Swiss state - who's passport he eventually carried - yet knew he had to make his mark in Germany as a scientist.

Interesting guy.

[Skittles]

24. hey what book is that please?

thanks

[bleever]

17. You had be at Veblen.

K, and R.

[me b zola]

19. k&r

:thumbsup:

[flashl]

23. K&R n/t

[Perry Logan]

25. "Nothing will benefit...survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

A man ahead of his times:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." Albert Einstein, physicist, Nobel Prize 1921

[Orwellian_Ghost]

28. Thanks

Uncle Albert