The
original essay “Why Socialism” by Albert Einstein, was published in the first issue of Monthly
Review (May 1949).
I re-discovered this Einstein article when working out the 'line' on GM, and thinking we need to reminded ourselves where we want to go. I wondered what Albert would have to say, if concentrating just food production. And I was amazed how it fits and how it may give a better direction and wider vision for the present approach to sustainable food security. Here you can see my tracked changes and see what that throws up.
Why Socialismt Food
Production? by Albert Einstein adapted by Charlie Clutterbuck
Is it advisable for
one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the
subject of socialism food production?
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 agriculture
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 - when agriculture originated - 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, agriculturally 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 food
production 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 societyfood
production of the future.
Second, socialism food
production should be is directed
towards a social-ethical end (now called “sustainable development”).
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 warmore
starvation, 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. There can be no greater
example of social activity than our food chains.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, eg nutrition requirements, 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, or starve, 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. Most food and farmworkers throughout the world are
generally paid less than the average of fellow workers
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. Food Retailers are now the
biggest companies in the world, creating a new means of production to replace
that of Ford. 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. Witness
what Monbiot has to say about Tesco. 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. UK farmworkers are the only group of UK workers
who have to have their wages set and protected by law (Wages Board).
But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure”
capitalism.
Food 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. UK
Breadworkers are forced to work overtime as part of
their conditions.. UK Farmworkers have lost (how many)
thousands of jobs consistently over last 100 years. The profit
motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for
an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to both super
investment on some land and under investment
in poorer lands and
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. The UK
Farm is the most dangerous workplace for killing
people at work - 2X as dangerous as
construction. 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 economyfood production,
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 food 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 food production 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.
Back to Sustainable Food Guide