• 英文原文

Why Socialism

Albert Einstein 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.

• 中文翻译

为什么是（需要）社会主义

爱因斯坦 1949年

一个不是经济和社会问题专家的人就社会主义问题发表意见，这样做明智吗?我相信有很多原因说这是可以的。

首先，让我们从科学知识的角度来考虑这个问题。天文学和经济学之间似乎没有本质的方法论上的区别:这两个领域的科学家都试图发现一组受限制现象的普遍可接受性的规律，以便使这些现象之间的相互联系尽可能清楚地得到理解。但实际上，这种方法论上的差异确实存在。由于所观察到的经济现象往往受到许多因素的影响，很难单独评价，因此很难发现经济学领域的一般规律。此外，众所周知，人类历史上所谓的文明时期开始以来所积累的经验在很大程度上受到各种原因的影响和限制，而这些原因在本质上并不完全是经济的。例如，历史上大多数主要国家的存在都归功于征服。征服的民族在法律和经济上确立了自己作为被征服国家的特权阶级的地位。他们为自己夺取了土地所有权的垄断权，并从自己的阶级中任命了一名祭司。牧师控制着教育，使社会的阶级划分成为一种永久的制度，并创造了一种价值体系。从那时起，人们在很大程度上无意识地受到社会行为的指导。

但是，可以说，历史传统是昨天形成的;我们还没有真正克服Thorstein Veblen所说的人类发展的“掠夺阶段”。可见的经济事实属于那个阶段，甚至我们从中得出的规律也不适用于其他阶段。由于社会主义的真正目的正是要克服和超越人类发展的掠夺性阶段，因此，经济科学目前的状况对未来的社会主义社会没有多少启示。

第二，社会主义是指向社会伦理目的的。然而，科学不能创造目的，更不能把目的灌输给人类;科学至多能提供达到某些目的的手段。但是，目标本身是由具有崇高伦理理想的人格所构想出来的——如果这些目标不是死胎，而是生机勃勃和充满活力的——这些目标被许多人所采纳和发扬光大，而这些人在不知不觉中决定了社会的缓慢演变。

基于这些原因，当涉及到人类问题时，我们应该警惕不要高估科学和科学方法;我们不应该假定，只有专家才有权就影响社会组织的问题发表意见。//

一段时间以来，无数的声音一直声称，人类社会正在经历一场危机，其稳定已被严重破坏。这种情况的特点是，个人对他们所属的团体，不论大小，都感到漠不关心，甚至怀有敌意。为了说明我的意思，让我在这里记录一段个人经历。最近，我与一位头脑聪明、心地善良的人讨论了另一场战争的威胁，在我看来，这将严重危及人类的生存。我说，只有一个超国家组织才能提供保护，使其免受这种危险。于是，我的客人非常平静、冷静地对我说:“你为什么如此坚决地反对人类的消失呢?”

我相信，就在一个世纪以前，没有人会如此轻率地发表这样的声明。这是一个人的陈述，他努力在自己内心获得平衡，但却是徒劳，且或多或少失去了成功的希望。这是一种痛苦的孤独和孤立的表现，在这些日子里，许多人正遭受着这种孤独和孤立。原因是什么?有出路吗?

提出这样的问题很容易，但要有把握地回答却很困难。然而，我必须尽我所能去试一试，尽管我很清楚我们的感情和努力往往是矛盾和模糊的，它们不能用简单和简单的公式来表达。//

人既是孤独的存在，又是社会的存在。作为一个孤独的存在，他试图保护自己和那些最接近他的人的存在，以满足他的个人欲望，并发展他的先天能力。作为一个社会性的存在，他寻求获得他人的认可和喜爱，分享他们的快乐，在他们的悲伤中安慰他们，改善他们的生活条件。只有这些不同的、经常相互冲突的奋斗的存在，才能解释一个人的特殊性格。而这些奋斗的具体结合，决定了一个人能够在多大程度上实现内心的平衡，为社会的福祉做出贡献。这两个驱动器的相对强度很可能主要是由继承决定的。但是，一个人在成长过程中所处的环境，所处的社会结构，所处社会的传统，以及对特定行为类型的评价，在很大程度上形成了他最终形成的人格。抽象的“社会”概念是指个体人与其同时代的人以及与其前几代人的直接和间接关系的总和。个人能够独立思考、感受、奋斗和工作;但是他如此依赖社会——在他的身体上、智力上和情感上的存在——以至于在社会的框架之外是不可能想到他或理解他的。正是“社会”为人类提供了衣食住行、工作工具、语言、思想形式和思想的大部分内容;他的生命是通过数百万过去和现在的人的劳动和成就而实现的，他们都隐藏在“社会”这个小词的背后。

因此，很明显，个人对社会的依赖是自然的事实，是不能废除的，就像蚂蚁和蜜蜂的情况一样。然而，不像蚂蚁和蜜蜂的整个生命过程都被严格的遗传本能固定在最微小的细节上，人类的社会模式和人际关系非常多变，容易发生变化。记忆力、创造新组合的能力、口头交流的天赋使人类之间的发展成为可能，而这些发展并不是由生物必需品所决定的。这种发展表现在传统、机构和组织方面，在文学、在科学和工程成就方面;在艺术作品中。这就解释了为什么在某种意义上，人可以通过自己的行为来影响自己的生活，而在这个过程中，有意识的思考和欲望可以发挥作用。

人类在出生时就通过遗传获得了一种我们必须认为是固定不变的生物结构，包括人类特有的自然冲动。此外，在他的一生中，他通过沟通和许多其他类型的影响从社会中获得了一种文化构成。正是这种文化构成随着时间的推移而变化，并在很大程度上决定了个人与社会之间的关系。现代人类学通过对所谓原始文化的比较研究告诉我们，人类的社会行为可能有很大的不同，这取决于流行的文化模式和在社会中占主导地位的组织类型。正是在这一点上，那些努力改善人类命运的人可能会实现他们的希望:人类不会因为他们的生物构造而被定罪，不会因为他们的生物构造而互相残杀，也不会因为他们自己造成的残酷命运而受到摆布。

如果我们问自己，为了使人类的生活尽可能地令人满意，社会结构和人的文化态度应该如何改变，我们应该不断地意识到，有些条件是我们无法改变的。如前所述，人的生物学本质，就所有的实际目的而言，是不会改变的。此外，过去几个世纪的技术和人口发展创造了长期存在的条件。在相对密集的定居人口中，商品是他们继续生存所不可缺少的，因此，极端的劳动分工和高度集中的生产设备是绝对必要的。当个人或相对较小的群体能够完全自给自足时，那个时代——回顾过去，似乎是如此田园风光——就永远地消失了。说人类即使在今天仍然是一个生产和消费的星球共同体，这只是稍微有些夸张。

我现在可以简要地指出，对我来说构成我们这个时代危机的实质是什么。它涉及个人与社会的关系。个人比以往任何时候都更加意识到他对社会的依赖。但他并没有把这种依赖看作是一种积极的资产，一种有机的纽带，一种保护力量，而是一种对他的自然权利，甚至对他的经济生存的威胁。此外，他在社会上的地位是这样的，他的自我驱动不断地被强调，而他的社会驱动，本质上是较弱的，逐步恶化。所有人，不论其社会地位如何，都在遭受这一恶化过程。不知不觉中，他们成了自我中心主义的囚徒，感到不安、孤独，失去了对生活的天真、单纯和天真的享受。人只有献身于社会，才能找到生命的意义，尽管生命短暂而危险。//

在我看来，今天存在的资本主义社会的经济无政府状态才是罪恶的真正根源。我们看到，在我们面前有一个巨大的生产者社区，其成员不断地努力剥夺彼此的集体劳动成果- -不是用武力，而是在整体上忠实地遵守法律规定。在这方面，重要的是要认识到生产手段- -即生产消费品和额外资本品所需的全部生产能力- -在法律上可能是，而且在很大程度上是个人的私有财产。

为了简单起见，在后面的讨论中，我将把所有不分享生产资料所有权的人称为“工人”，尽管这与这个词的习惯用法不太相符。生产资料的所有人能够购买工人的劳动力。工人利用生产资料生产新的商品，这些商品成为资本家的财产。这个过程的关键是工人生产的产品和他的工资之间的关系，两者都是用实际价值来衡量的。只要劳动合同是“自由的”，工人得到什么不是由他生产的商品的实际价值决定的，而是由他的最低需求和资本家对劳动力的要求决定的。重要的是要理解，即使在理论上，工人的工资也不是由他的产品价值决定的。

私人资本倾向于集中在少数人手中，部分原因是资本家之间的竞争，部分原因是技术的发展和劳动分工的增加鼓励以牺牲较小的生产单位为代价形成较大的生产单位。这些事态发展的结果是私人资本的寡头政治，即使是民主组织的政治社会也无法有效地制止这种寡头政治的巨大权力。这是事实，因为立法机构的成员是由政党选出的，这些政党大都是由私人资本家提供资金或以其他方式施加影响的，而私人资本家为了一切实际目的把选民与立法机构分开。其结果是，人民的代表实际上没有充分保护人口中贫困阶层的利益。此外，在现有条件下，私人资本家不可避免地直接或间接地控制着主要的信息来源(新闻、广播、教育)。因此，个别公民要作出客观的结论并明智地利用其政治权利是极其困难的，在大多数情况下甚至是完全不可能的。

因此，在以资本私有制为基础的经济中普遍存在的情况有两项主要原则:第一，生产资料(资本)为私人所有，所有人视情况处理;第二，劳动合同是免费的。当然，在这个意义上并不存在纯粹的资本主义社会。特别应该指出的是，工人们经过长期艰苦的政治斗争，已成功地为某些类别的工人争取到某种程度上有所改进的“自由劳动合同”形式。但从整体上看，当前的经济与“纯粹的”资本主义没有太大区别。

生产是为了利润，而不是为了使用。没有规定所有有能力和愿意工作的人都能找到工作;“失业大军”几乎总是存在的。这个工人总是担心失去工作。由于失业和低收入工人不能提供有利可图的市场，消费者产品的生产受到限制，其后果是巨大的困难。技术进步往往导致更多的失业，而不是减轻所有人的工作负担。利润动机和资本家之间的竞争是造成资本积累和利用不稳定的原因，这种不稳定导致了日益严重的萧条。无限的竞争导致巨大的劳动力浪费，以及我之前提到的个人社会意识的削弱。

我认为这是资本主义最大的罪恶。我们整个教育系统都深受这种罪恶的折磨。一种夸张的竞争态度被灌输给学生，他们被训练成崇拜取得的成功，为将来的事业做准备。
//
我相信只有一种办法可以消除这些严重的罪恶，那就是建立社会主义经济，同时建立一个面向社会目标的教育制度。在这种经济中，生产资料由社会本身拥有，并以有计划的方式加以利用。计划经济使生产适应社区的需要，将把要做的工作分配给所有有能力工作的人，并保证每个男人、妇女和儿童的生计。个人的教育，除了提高他自己的天赋能力外，还将试图培养他对同胞的责任感，而不是对我们当今社会中权力和成功的颂扬。

然而，有必要记住，计划经济还不是社会主义。这样的计划经济可能伴随着对个人的完全奴役。社会主义的实现需要解决一些极其困难的社会政治问题:鉴于政治和经济权力的高度集中，如何才能防止官僚主义变得过于强大和自负?如何保护个人的权利，从而确保民主制衡官僚主义的权力?

明确社会主义的目标和问题，对我们这个过渡时期具有重要意义。由于在目前的情况下，自由和不受阻碍地讨论这些问题已成为一种强烈的禁忌，我认为这本杂志的创办是一项重要的公共服务。