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.