爱因斯坦：我信仰社会主义

反毛者乃畜生

作者：叶劲松

1999年9月，英国广播公司和路透社分别通过互联网在西方国家政界、商界、学术界、艺术界知名人士中进行了一次民意调查，评选“千年思想家”和“千年风云人物”。马克思在“千年思想家”的评选中高居榜首；在“千年风云人物”评选中爱因斯坦居第一，马克思一票之差居第二。

爱因斯坦当选为“千年风云人物”是因为他是最著名的科学家，然而，不太为人所知的是，作为伟大科学家的爱因斯坦还是一位社会主义者。

“爱因斯坦从大学开始，就自认为是一个社会主义者。尽管他对无产阶级专政有不正确的看法，说过不认为列宁的方法‘是切合实际的’。还说过：‘不要让复仇的情绪把我们引诱到这样一种致命的观点：以为暴行必须用暴行来对付；以为要把自由的概念灌输给我们的同胞，就必须暂时实现无产阶级专政。暴力只能产生痛苦、仇恨和反抗。’但他对社会主义还是持肯定和赞扬态度的。1917年俄国十月革命胜利不久，他即表示：‘我尊敬列宁，因为他是一位有完全自我牺牲精神、全心全意为实现社会正义而献身的人’，‘象他这种类型的人，是人类良心的维护者和再造者’。在十月革命胜利的影响下，德国工人和士兵于1918年11月发动起义，推翻德皇威廉二世的统治，爱因斯坦立即欢呼这是‘伟大的事变’，对能亲身经历这个事变而感到荣幸。俄国苏维埃政权建立初期，他抗议帝国主义列强对苏俄的侵略和封锁。第二次世界大战期间他支持和赞扬苏联的反法西斯斗争。1950年3月16日，他在写给纽约大学的信中说：‘我曾努力去了解俄国革命所以会成为必然的原因。’信中肯定了‘苏维埃制度在教育、公共卫生、社会福利和经济领域内的成就无疑是伟大的 ，而人民已从这些成就中得到很大的益处。’他经常抨击资本主义社会的腐败和不合理现象，1949年5月，他发表了《为什么要社会主义》一文”。（《外国历史名人传》现代部分上册第450页，中国社会科学出版社）

在资本主义社会，常有一些社会改良主义者揭露资本主义的黑暗，但他们还是相信资本主义民主，认为只要搞好法制建设、政治民主就能消除这些黑暗，这反映了这些改良主义者无意摧毁资本主义经济基础，只愿在政治上层建筑进行局部修补的改革愿望。

在资本主义社会，也有许多小资产阶级改革者痛恨垄断资产阶级在经济上和政治上的为所欲为，并对此加以揭露，但他们并不反对产生垄断资产阶级罪恶的资本主义社会制度。

而爱因斯坦对资本主义的抨击和批判却不同，他明确指出，要消灭资本主义罪恶，必须要消灭资本主义经济，建立社会主义经济和社会主义教育制度。

曾在加利福利亚大学等多所美国大学任教的劳伦斯.肖普在谈到“由公众对经济运行民主管理的必然性”时写道，“有关这个问题，20世纪最杰出的人物之一艾伯特.爱因斯坦（很少有人知道他还是一位社会主义者），曾在简短的声明中作过最明确、最精辟的论述。爱因斯坦在1949年写道：

我认为，当前资本主义社会经济上的无政府状况，是真正的罪孽之源……。

私人资本倾向于集中在少数人手中，这既是由于资本家之间竞争所致，也是由于技术发展和分工愈来愈细，因而鼓励了牺牲较小的生产单位而组成大型生产单位所致。这些发展的结果是，对于私人资本垄断组织及其巨大势力，即使靠民主地组织起来的政治社会，也无法予以有效的控制。的确如此，因为立法机构的成员是由主要受私人资本家资助或者影响的那些政党所挑选的，而这些私人资本家实际上把选民和立法机关隔离开来了。

此外，在现有条件下，私人资本家不可避免会直接或者间接地控制着消息的主要来源（报刊、电台、教育）。因此，个别平民要得出客观的结论和明智地利用自己的政治权利，是极其困难的，在大多数情况下，确实也是极不可能的。

进行生产的目的是为了利润而不是为了使用。又无明文规定，凡能够而且愿意工作者就能找到工作，因而几乎总是存在一支‘失业大军’。由于失业者和收入低微的工人不能提供有利可图的市场，消费品的生产因而受到限制，结果是生活资料严重不足。技术进步的结果，往往不是减轻了人们的工作强度，而是失业增多。无限度的竞争，造成劳动力大量闲置，也使得人们的社会意识受到戕害。这一点我在前面已经提到过了。

我认为，人们受到这种戕害，是资本主义最大的罪孽。我们的整个教育制度也深受其害。向学生反复灌输一种超乎常人的竞争精神，培养他崇拜功名利禄，以为未来生涯作准备。我相信，要消除这些罪孽，只有一条办法，那就是建立一个社会主义的经济，以及一套以社会主义目标为方向的教育制度。在这种经济下，生产资料归社会本身所有，并以有计划的方式加以利用。计划经济使生产适合社会的 需要，使能工作的人都有工作，并将保证每个男女和儿童的生活。对个人的教育，除发扬其天赋才能外，还将试图培养他对同胞的责任感，以代替我们社会中对权力和成功的崇拜。”（肖普《卡特总统与美国政坛内幕》第286、287页时事出版社1980年版）

正如爱因斯坦指出，资本家控制着“报刊、电台、教育”等“消息的主要来源”。这些机构的活动必然是作为实现资产阶级利益的工具来发言的，它们必然从资产阶级利益出发来对事物进行报道或评价。爱因斯坦在1948年10月回答宾夕法尼亚大学的《切尼记录报》的提问时，就对美国的新闻机构表示出悲观的看法。“拥有经济和政治权力的那些人”他写道，“拥有制造为他们自己的阶级利益服务的舆论的手段”。因此爱因斯坦认为人们极不易“得出客观的结论”。有一位郑卫平教授,最近讲,我国应走西方的多党制,新闻自由的道路。也就是说,郑教授希望被爱因斯坦批评,让资本家控制着“报刊、电台、教育”等“消息的主要来源”，使资本家“拥有制造为他们自己的阶级利益服务的舆论的手段”,从而使人们极不易“得出客观的结论”的“新闻自由”在我国出现。而我国的一些“精英”，乐于充当资本家控制下的西方的“报刊、电台、教育”这些维护资产阶级利益机构的传声筒，将不客观真实的有关西方“民主”、“自由”、以及自由市场经济的“学说”、“理论”在我国大肆兜售，企图使我国人民不能对事物作出正确的判断，不能“明智地利用自己的政治权利。”

反毛者乃畜生

爱因斯坦根据自己身处实地的对资本主义的观察分析，得出资本主义私有制和经济的无政府状态，使人民利益受到损害，是造成罪孽的根本原因。因此，他提出，“要消除这些罪孽，只有一条办法，那就是建立一个社会主义的经济，以及一套以社会主义目标为方向的教育制度。在这种经济下，生产资料归社会本身所有，并以有计划的方式加以利用。”但是，一些“精英”却与爱因斯坦的上述要求相反，以“向国际接轨”为名义，要我国抛弃社会主义的经济制度和教育制度，以向资本主义经济制度和教育制度靠拢，变社会主义制度为资本主义制度。而一些“精英”以“明晰产权”之类的理由，要求将社会所有的生产资料变为生产资料私人所有。前苏联、东欧地区私有化后果从反面证明了爱因斯坦的判断的正确。而照那些“精英”要求去做，只会使曾在我国消灭的罪孽重新产生。

爱因斯坦指出，“私人资本垄断组织及其巨大势力，即使是靠民主地组织起来的政治社会，也无法予以有效的控制。的确如此，因为，立法机构的成员是主要受私人资本家资助或影响的那些政党所挑选的，而这些私人资本家实际上把选民和立法机关隔离开来了”。爱因斯坦从经济基础决定政治上层建筑，以及资产阶级统治的实质对资本主义政治制度作出准确判断。指出了资本主义民主政治实际上是资产阶级进行阶级统治的方式，因而实际上是把人民排斥在外的。而我国的一些“精英”、“专家”在喋喋不休地谈及多党制、民主政治时，从来不敢涉及问题的阶级实质。他们也否认资产阶级经济上的霸权，决定了资产阶级政治上的统治地位。他们不敢象爱因斯坦那样指出,西方的多党,就是“受私人资本家资助或影响的那些政党”（除共产党以外）；也不敢象西方有的学者那样指出这些不同政党不过是资产阶级的不同面具,不同的政党执政,都是资产阶级执政。因此，他们关于民主政治的“社会科学”必然只能是欺骗人民的伪科学。

爱因斯坦身处市场经济典范的美国（按我国的一些经济“精英”的说法,美国的是好市场经济,我国市场经济中出现群众不满情况,是我国是坏市场经济。改革方向应是搞成好市场经济）,他认为, 自由放任的市场经济造成“社会经济上的无政府状况，是真正的罪孽之源”。他认为“生产的目的是为了利润”的市场经济给广大民众带来严重损害：总是存在失业大军；许多劳动大众工资低,消费能力低（即存在贫富悬殊）,限制消费品生产；科技进步不是为人民利益而实施,因此,很多情况下科技进步是作为人民对立面出现（加大劳动强度,增加失业等）；市场经济败坏了社会意识,“使得人们的社会意识受到戕害”,形成“培养他崇拜功名利禄”和“ 对权力和成功的崇拜”（也就会形成对普通劳动大众的轻视）。犹如他不相信美国民主制度能限制经济上的统治阶级──资产阶级对社会的控制一样,市场经济给人民带来的损害,他不相信通过法制建设之类的上层建筑改良能消除的。也就是说,他不相信有好的市场经济。爱因斯坦掌握了正确的方法论,他知道经济基础决定上层建筑,决定属于上层建筑的法制和道德。所以他不会在存在人剥削人的经济关系时,去讲属于上层建筑的法制建设和道德建设。他认为,经济关系的问题,需用建立新的经济关系来解决。即要消除市场经济给劳动大众和社会带来的危害,应该是消除市场经济,实行以满足社会需要为目的的计划经济。而吴敬琏则提出建立不是“官僚市场经济”的、好的市场经济。

总之,如果仔细地阅读，就会发现，几十年前的爱因斯坦的短文,是对当今“精英”的正确地批判。在立场上,爱因斯坦是站在劳动大众一方,所以他痛斥资产阶级私有制、市场经济给劳动大众的苦难；“精英”们是站在企业家（即资本）一方，则大讲私有制、市场经济这种自由经济（自由剥削劳动者）的好处。“精英”为极少数人剥削大多数人的经济制度辩护,是见不得人的,只能用欺骗。所以,在讲述社会主义和资本主义方面，比起现今我国的“精英”的众多长篇大作，爱因斯坦在50多年前写的这篇短文，告诉了我们更多的真理。

laobing

一直崇拜爱因斯坦，早年学英语、人也更理想主义时，读过他的“为什么要社会主义（Why Socialism）”。这个帖子让我又读了几遍，并转一篇完整的译文 （http://www.csstoday.net/Item/18825.aspx）

为什么要社会主义

一个不是经济和社会问题的专家，要对社会主义问题发表意见，这是否可以呢?我的回答是肯定的，有以下一些理由。

　　首先，让我们从科学知识的角度来考虑问题。天文学和经济学之间似乎不存在方法上的根本不同，两个领域的科学家为了尽可能弄清楚一定范围内现象之间的内在联系，都设法发现相应的一般规律。但实际上，方法上的不同的确存在。经济领域中一般规律的发现是困难的，观察到的经济现象常常受难以单独估计的许多因素的影响。此外，众所周知，自人类历史的所谓文明时期开始以来，经济的积累也一直极大地受到非经济原因的影响和制约。例如，历史上的多数大国，靠征服别国而存在，征服民族在法律上和经济上是被征服国家的特权阶级，他们自己掠夺了土地所有权的垄断权。从自己的阶层中委派教士，教士们控制教育，使社会的阶级分化变成一种永久的制度。他们还创造了一套价值体系。从此，人们在很大程度上就不知不觉地遵循着这种社会行为规范。

　　但是，就像人们所说的那样，历史传统只是具有“昨天”。无论何地，我们还没有真正克服了索尔斯坦·凡勃伦(1857-1929，美国经济学家，主要著作有《有闲阶级论》、《企业论》、《工程师与价格体系》--译者注)所称作的人类发展的“掠夺阶段”。观察到的经济事实全部属于这个阶段，以至我们从中推导出来的规律也不能用于其他阶段。因为社会主义的真正目的是要在克服和超越人类发展的掠夺阶段，所以经济学的目前状况就不能说明未来的社会主义社会。

　　其次，社会主义还有一个社会伦理的目的。然而，科学不能创造目的，更不能把它们灌输给人。科学最多能够提供达到一定目的的手段。而目的本身是由具有崇高伦理观念的人构想出来的。只要这些目的不是胎死腹中而是有生机和活力的，那么它们将被许多人所接受并推向前进，这些人就会有意无意地决定着社会的逐步进化。

　　基于以上理由，我们应该注意：在涉及有关人类的难题时，不要过高估计科学和科学方法。我们也不应该设想，专家是唯一有权对影响社会组织的问题发表意见的人。一段时间以来，无数意见认为，人类社会正经历着一种危机，它的稳定性正遭到严重的损害。其特征是：个人对他们所属的大大小小的集体漠不关心甚至怀有敌意。为了说清我的意思，让我在这里讲一段我个人的经历。前不久，我同一位聪明且友善的人讨论未来战争的威胁。我的意见是，它将严重地危及人类的生存。我强调说，只有一个超国家的组织才能提供远离危险的保护。我的客人若无其事，冷淡地对我说：“你为什麽如此根深蒂固地反对人类毁灭呢?”

　　我敢说，在短暂的一个世纪以前，没有人如此轻率地说出此类话。正是这类话说明了，他求得内心平衡的努力是徒劳的，他已或多或少失去了取得成功的希望。这表达了如今许多人正在痛苦地忍受着孤独和隔绝。那麽，它的原因是什么呢?人类还有没有出路?

　　提出这样的问题是容易的，但是有把握地回答这样的问题是困难的。不过，我一定要尽我最大的努力。虽然我非常明白，我们的想法和努力常常是抵触和模糊的，不能用简易的公式表达出来。

　　人是一个单个的存在，同时又是一个社会的存在。作为单个的存在，人设法维护他自己和他的亲人的生存，满足他个人的愿望，发展他个人的天赋才能。作为社会的存在，人想要得到他的同类--人们的承认和爱戴，分享他们的快乐，慰籍他们的痛苦，改善他们的生活条件。这些经常冲突的各种努力说明了一个人所能达到的内在平衡程度和所能贡献于社会利益的程度。这两种努力的相对强度主要是由遗传决定的。但人最终呈现出来的人格个性在很大程度上是由环境造成的，处于一定的环境，人在发展过程中发现了自身;人格个性也是由人所生长的社会结构造成的，由社会的传统和对社会行为的特殊方式的社会评价造成的。“社会”这样的抽象概念，对人的个体来说，是指他与其同辈和所有前辈的直接或间接关系的全部总和。一个人能够自己思想、感觉、奋斗和工作，而他的身体、智力和感情是如此依赖于社会，以至不可能在社会框架之外想到他和理解他。正是“社会”供给人以食、宿、工具、语言、思考方式和大量的思想内容，他的生活才由于过去和现在亿万人的劳动及其成就而成为可能，这亿万人就隐藏在小小的“社会”这个字眼的后面。

　　所以，个人对社会的依赖很明显是一个不能抹煞的事实--就像蚂蚁和蜜蜂。然而，蚂蚁和蜜蜂的整个生活进程、连同细微末节都由不变的遗传本能所确定。而社会类型和人类的内在联系却是很不固定地变化着。在受命于生物必然律的人类中，记忆力、联系组合的能力和口头交流的能力已经取得了令人满意的发展。这样的发展体现在传统、风俗习惯和社会组织系统中，体现在文学、科学和工程的成就中，体现在艺术品中。这还在一定程度上解释了，人如何能够影响人自己的生活，在这个过程中有意识的思想和欲望如何能够起作用。

　　人在出生时，通过遗传获得生物学素质包括人类种群特征的自然冲动，我们肯定它是不变的。此外，人在一生中，还通过交往和许多其他方式的影响获得了一种文化素质。文化素质随着时间而变化，并在很大程度上决定着个人和社会之间的关系。现代人类学告诉我们，通过所谓原始文化的比较调查，根据流行的文化方式和主要的社会组织类型的不同，人类的社会行为方式可能有很大的差异。正是在这一点上，那些努力改善人的命运的人们就能升起他的希望：人类不是由于生物学素质而注定要相互残杀的，不是注定无法摆脱残暴和自我伤害的命运的。

　　如果我们自问，为了尽可能满足人类的生活，社会结构和人的文化态度应该如何变化?那么，我们要经常意识到，我们无力改变某些条件，正像上面提到的，人的生物性实际上是不易改变的。另外，近几个世纪以来，技术和人口统计学的发展所能创造的条件也已到此为止了。对拥挤的人口及其维持生存的必需品来说，劳动的精细分工和高水平的生产设备是绝对必要的。回顾过去，似乎是田园式的，个人或小群体完全能够自给自足，但这样的时代已经一去不复返了。稍稍夸张一点说，人类在现在就构成了一个生产消费的星球社区。

　　现在，我已经可以简要地说明，什麽构成了我们时代危机的实质，它涉及到个人对社会关系。如今，个人比以往更意识到他对社会的依赖性。但是，他不把这种依赖性当作一份坚实的资产、一条有机的纽带和一种保护的力量，而是当作对他的天赋权利和经济生活的威胁。另外，他的社会地位导致了利己倾向不断加强，而天生较软弱的社会倾向则进一步衰败了。所有的人，不管他的社会地位如何，都在忍受着社会衰败过程的煎熬。他们不自觉地做了利己主义的俘虏，他们感到不安全、孤独，生活中失去了天真、朴实、单纯和快乐。所以，人只有献身于社会，才能找到短暂而充满风险的生命的意义。

　　我的看法是：资本主义社会的经济无政府状况--就像今天存在着的那样，是问题的真正根源。我们看到，我们面对着庞大的工商集团，其成员之间不断掠夺劳动的成果，这种掠夺不是诉诸武力，而是使人们忠诚地服从合法建立起来的规则。在这方面，重要的问题是认识生产资料，也就是说，生产消费品和作为资本的物品所需要的整个生产能力，可以合法地、并且绝大部分是个人的私有财产。

　　为了使问题更简单明了，我把不享有生产资料所有权的那些人称为“工人”，尽管这不十分符合这个词的习惯用法。生产资料的所有者处在购买工人劳动力的地位。工人使用生产资料，生产新的产品，产品变成了资本家的私有财产。这一过程的要害是，工人生产什麽和工人得到什麽之间的相互关系，两者都依据真正的价值来衡量。在劳动合同是自由的情况下，工人所得并不取决于他所生产的产品的真正价值，而是取决于他的最低社会所需，以及资本家对劳动的需求同就业竞争中的工人数量的关系。工人的报酬不是由他所生产的产品价值决定的，在理论上懂得这一点是非常重要的。

laobing

续--
　　私人资本趋向于集中在少数人手里，其原因部分是由于资本家之间的竞争，部分是由于技术的发展和劳动不断加快的分工刺激着较大规模的生产单位的形成，牺牲了较小的生产单位。这样发展的结果就是私人资本的寡头政治，其巨大的权力根本不可能受到民主地组织起来的政治社会的有效控制。这是千真万确的。因为，立法机构的成员由政党挑选，政党的大量经费由私人资本家提供，其他方面也受私人资本家的影响。这样，资本家实际上就把立法机构和选民分离开来。结果，人民的代表不能充分保护没有特权的那部分人的利益。还有，私人资本家必然直接或间接地控制着报纸、电台和教育等等重要信息来源的载体。一个公民想要得出客观结论和理智地运用他的政治权利，是极端困难的，在大多数情况下是完全不可能的。

　　在资本私人占有制经济中，普遍遵循的主要原则是：首先，生产资料(资本)被私人占有，占有者们按他们认为最适当的办法来处置它们。其次，劳动合同是自由的。当然，不存在纯粹意义上的资本主义社会，尤其应该注意到，工人经过长期艰苦的政治斗争，某些行业的工人已经稍稍稍改进了“自由劳动合同”的形式。但从整体来看，目前的经济同“纯粹”资本主义没有太大的差别。生产是为了利润，不是为了使用。没有这样的规定，即那些能够工作和想要工作的人总是有就业的机会。一支“失业大军”几乎总是存在着。工人经常担心失业。因为失业和低收入的工人提供不了一个获利的市场，因此后果是消费品的生产受到限制和社会承受着巨大的艰难困苦。技术的进步常常导致更多的失业者，而不是在整体上减轻劳动负担。资本家之间的竞争和与此相联系的利润刺激，应该对资本积累和使用的不稳定性负责，它造成了日趋严重的衰退。无限制的竞争造成了劳动的大量浪费;也造成了对个人的社会意识的摧残，这一点我已提到过了。

　　我认为，摧残人是资本主义的最大罪恶。我们的整个教育制度深受其害。它以夸张的姿态教学生去竞争，训练他们崇尚物欲的成功，而这些都当作为学生的未来生涯作准备。

　　我相信，只有一种办法可以消灭这种邪恶的灾祸，那就是建立社会主义经济，同时建立以社会为目标的教育制度。在社会主义经济中，生产资料归社会自身所有，并有计划地利用。计划经济调节生产来适应社会需要，保障每个男人、女人和儿童的生活。个人所受的教育，加上激励他的天赋才能，都会设法发展他对同类--人们的责任感，从而取代当今社会对权力和功利的赞扬。

完--

laobing

英语原文最初发表在月评杂志（Monthly Review）1949年5月的创刊上号上。为纪念月评杂志创刊五十周年，又于1998年重发。

Why Socialism?

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.

laobing

续--
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.

完--

laobing

伟大的爱因斯坦！

反毛者乃畜生

多谢laobing网友上传的爱因斯坦的原文。
爱因斯坦的文章风格是从容不迫，思路清晰，绝对难以在其中找到自相矛盾的地方。这样的文章只可能产生于一颗思维异常清晰的大脑里。我一直认为在爱因斯坦的数学技巧和物理知识当然是一流的，但这并不是他最出色的地方。他的特点是能够从纷乱复杂的现象中异常敏锐的找到关键点，然后梳理出一个清晰的脉络，接下来的推导就是自然的顺理成章的事了。

laobing

是，"他的特点是能够从纷乱复杂的现象中异常敏锐的找到关键点，然后梳理出一个清晰的脉络，接下来的推导就是自然的顺理成章的事。" 他在社会问题上的这种眼光让多少社会科学专家汗颜，更不要说他的良心让多少当今的‘精英’无地自容。

棲霞客

以前读过全文, 讚赏! 物理学家做到这样, 算是超值!
许多社会科学家一比, 就是猪头等级.