What I'm posting here is actually a segment of a larger editorial written in 1949. It's prescient in describing the inevitability of capitalism, the individuals reliance on society as well as capitalism's effect on education and the exercise of individual political rights. As a society and in the world at large we are seeing these effects. I'll post a link but I hope people at least read the passage before looking to see who wrote it. https://monthlyreview.org/2009/05/01/why-socialism/ 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.
We need unionization. While I agree more of our economy should be public, I'd disagree with the goal of a completely socialized economy, just because as of right now, I simply haven't seen it work. I'd focus on attempting to replicate the most successful economic systems we can see. Meanwhile, the private sector can have unions. Social democracy, the nordic model is the most successful model IMO. All of the nordic countries have over 50% unionization. They have the largest public sectors (about twice the size of the US), and public spending is on average about 50% of their GDPs, in comparison to the US at 38%. Their system is not perfect, it doesn't solve all of the problems that arise from the worst aspects of capitalism, but as of today it clearly does the best at promoting egalitarianism, at attempting to provide a high standard of living to all of its citizens. Then, the issue of democracy... democracy is absolutely essential. Our "Democracy" is on its last leg here and I'm not hopeful significant improvement is coming any time soon, in fact, I'd bank on it continuing to destruct then improve. In an ideal America, Biden/centrist Dems would represent the right, and Bernie/SocDems would represent the left, and in that scenario, I could see the light for improvement within our governmental system, electoral system... but jesus christ that's not where we are, and it isn't looking good.
You cannot ignore the societal and cultural context. What works in one society often fails wopefully in a different society The scandinavian model will almost surely fail in the US. Even the few unions we have are nothing more than political tools imo and are also part of the problems with the current system.
Well, math doesn't fail to transfer, so no I disagree, the model wouldn't fail. Would an attempt to replicate such a model be bastardized by the corruption of our political system to the point that it's completely unrecognizable from its origin... and then fail woefully? Sure, yeah I'd expect that. It's why I pointed out that democracy is key. The Nordic countries are the highest forms of democracy in the world. Saving, and then substantially improving our crumbling democracy must be first before we can do anything.
We are talking about economics not mathematics. Economics is a social science, while maths is the purest science. As a primer, I suggest you read the article in full, paying attention to the first few paragraphs.
I was discussing the numbers on some of the macro economics. I read the article, if you read the article, you will see it ultimately concluded to the recommendation of a completely public economy. What my post was about, ultimately, is that the best systems aren’t 100% public/socialist economies, they are mixed economies like ours, but with about double the public sector size, more public spending, and then significantly more unionization. So if we were to set a goal as a nation, my recommendation would be to look at what is working, instead of some ideal of an entirely public economy, because we simply haven’t seen that implemented successfully yet.
And the solution to this is? The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reachingcentralization 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?
and my counter to you remains that simply cos something is working in society A does not automatically make it a viable solution for society B. Economics is a social science, and the early paragraphs of the article correctly argues the importance of the social/societal part of the equation
The only connection this article is making between society and economy, is by saying ours is evil due to exploitation of labor. Did we read the same article? I’m not sure what your vague argument is targeting here, but I can also vaguely say - countries are constantly successfully adopting economic and social policies that are influenced in some way, if not closely modeled from others all the time. I don’t see any reason we shouldn’t be attempting to adopt policies from countries that have shown much greater economic and social outcomes. Every country is different and will have to tailor their system according to their needs, that being said there are many areas where America is struggling, if not failing, and it would be senseless to right off learning from others success.
This is where I think he falls short in recognizing that the solution isn't one or the other but a hybrid, blended economy where you use the strengths of one system to buttress the weaknesses of the other. The American economy is way too far on the capitalist side and the negative effects are getting markedly worse as corporatism ramps up its power.
The article says much more than that. A few excerpts from the article 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........... 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. There is a big difference between 'learning from' and 'adopting' the solutions of others. One cannot simply assume that adopting a system that works in Society A will work in society B, when the underlying societal and cultural factors that made the solution viable in society A are absent in society B. Instead one needs to look at not only the system and outcome, but also the premise/factors and processess that were in effect. One should always learn from the successes and failures of self and others, so that one has as much information as can be gotten to help craft a solution for the target situation. Scandinavian countries have a system that works for them but the American society differs significantly from the Scandinavian, and thus one cannot presume that what works for them would be a viable solution for us.
There is no connection here between any specific economics and society, these are just general thoughts about society and humans. I agree that the factors and proccesses in effect are different, I realize that America is a different place then Scandinavia, I disagree that we couldn't assume the system wouldn't be an improvement to ours... if replicated properly. I'd agree that it's highly, highly unlikely to be adopted here, and if it were it would likely be bastardized by corruption in the process. Differences in philosophy aside, I think most can agree in this country, we need a much stronger democracy.
If that is all you see fromthe firstfew paragraphs, then Ithink you failed to comprehend the essence of Einstein's argument. He spent so many paragraphs to establish the importance of societal context cos it is the core premise of his argument against capitalism. You cant assume such cos the people are simply different. For example, I doubt you could have a trump presidency enjoy the level of blind support it has in a scandinavian country. Different people, different cultures, different societies. Sandinavians are receptive of their govt controlled healthcare, whereas almost half of US will resist such, seeing it as an infringement on their freedom (even if it is better for them). On the other hand, one can only imagine a scandinavian country adopting a 'right to bear arms' statute. While I agree with you, I wont put my money on most americans sharing the same view-just dont trust them on such
I think we probably agree, this is just a subject we'd probably have to sit down and talk about for a bit to understand what we think and where we are coming from. I think much of the US's unwillingness to demand more social programs, has been propagandized into our society by the wealthy's influence on politics. I don't think our people, or working-class people of any country, have a natural unwanting of a higher quality of life. There is, and has been for a long time, mass political manipulation within this country to have the voting population divided, to get many people to vote against their own interest. Like I said multiple times, I don't doubt that such programs / policies / systems wouldn't work here, but I do 100% doubt them being enacted any time soon, and I would fully expect any attempts to be bastardized by corruption within our political system.
This is more a chicken or egg situation in my view. The US was basically a free for all when Roosevelt enacted his Square Deal, instituted Social Security, and the National Labor Relations Act which allowed for unions to organize. Medicare came along in 1965. We can see progress made in a more equitable society/economy for all but since then the power of corporations have turned the tide. Right to work laws hamstrung unions in many states which depress wages and benefits by design. This to me speaks to the notion in the article that the exercise of corporate power inhibits the freedom of the individual to make good political decisions. People constantly supporting corporate interests that diverge from their own personal economic interests. Democratic style governments don't work correctly when people don't vote their own economic interests which is what we see today.
