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.
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.
