Happy Holidays

Purple Tree images

Wishing all my readers a Happy Holiday season.

Why Socialism by Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein is the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.

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.

Coming up in December

Its hard to believe that this is the last day of November. Where has the time gone?

I just wanted to write up a short little post and let you know that I will be planning a  whole month of Christmas themed posts for the month of December.

If any of my readers would like to take part with a short guest post I would love to hear from you. It can be anything holiday related, such as a favorite holiday recipe, a favorite holiday movie, book etc you get the idea.  You can leave me a comment and I will get back to you.

I have a bunch of great holiday posts planned and I hope you will enjoy them.


Make your tax deductible donation to Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox

Thanks to Alliance for Global Justice, donations to the Soapbox can be deducted from your income taxes

(Make sure you scroll down the donation page to 
Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox)

or send a Check/Money order to:

Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox, LLC
PO Box 6264
Vacaville, Ca 95696

Frivolity by Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan

It’s been almost eight years since my son, Casey, was killed in Iraq on 04/04/04.

The last time we saw him was when he came home for Christmas in 2003. As most people (with functioning hearts) can probably imagine, this time of year is hard for anyone who has buried a child no matter what the cause of death was.

When Casey was first killed many well-meaning people told me that “time heals all.” I have discovered that the farther away I get from that horrible day, the less the physical pain of loss is, but the wound never heals, it is just like a chronic condition that one learns to live with.

I have had some wonderful experiences in the last past seven years since we Occupied Crawford, Tx, but those experiences are tinged with the fog of loss. Even the profound joy of grandchildren is dampened by the absence of their uncle. The same things that make me happy about the babies also make me sad. Each one carries a piece of their uncle in them and I know he would love each and everyone of them so much. All this is without having to wonder if he would be a father by now, or not—which is also so hard.

As I have previously stated in other articles and speeches I have made, when Casey was killed for lies and profit in Iraq, I decided, out of guilt at first, that I would not pay my income taxes. The more I became involved in peace and human rights’ work, the more my guilt expanded to a principled stand against paying for the crimes of my government and I have not filed or paid my income taxes since 2005.

Now, the IRS is hounding me. It wants my financial information and my money/property to pay what it says that I owe. Any argument highlighting my opposition to what the government does with that money is considered by the IRS as “frivolous.”

Here is Dictionary.com’s definition of “frivolous:”

1. Characterized by lack of seriousness or sense: frivolous conduct.

2. Self-indulgently carefree; unconcerned about or lacking any serious purpose.

3. (Of a person) given to trifling or undue levity: a frivolous, empty-headed person.

4. Of little or no weight, worth, or importance; not worthy of serious notice: a frivolous suggestion.

According to the above definitions, my reason for not paying the IRS is anything but “frivolous.”

I don’t consider burying a child, “frivolous.”

I don’t consider war crimes such as bombing villages with drone technology, “frivolous.”

I don’t consider imprisoning and torturing people based solely on his religious affiliation and geographical location, “frivolous.”

I don’t consider war for the sole purpose of profit and total imperial hegemony, “frivolous.”

Indeed, all of the above (and much more) are deadly serious activities, and my opposition to them is not “frivolous” but also, deadly serious.

I can’t stress hard enough how the rest of my life will be clouded by Casey’s death. The IRS can threaten, me, a tax resister with prison, yet the institution cannot realize that I am already in a virtual prison--forged by the Empire with lies and violence. I am in a prison of grief that I can never escape. And as a tax resister, I have dedicated my life to antithetical American living—no job, no income, and no possessions, besides my personal clothes and furniture (which is actually a very liberating way to live if one can pull it off).

In our society and during this season where “frivolity” seems to be measured by how many pieces of plastic consumer crap we can buy on credit, I reject that paradigm, I mourn my loss, I appreciate the good and I rededicate my life to peace.

Goop-It Never Tasted this Good

The Eats  A handful of treats for the holidays
Sorry there's no pic. :(
Go meet some new authors here and enter the giveaways. Only 2 days left.

My cute friend Michelle made this for neighbors for Christmas one year. Yum!


1 box Graham cereal
1 box Rice Chex
2 C. slivered almonds
4 C. coconut
2 C. roasted pecans (10 mins. at 350 degrees in oven)
2 C. sugar
2 C. corn syrup
1 1/2 C. butter

  1. Melt butter, corn syrup, and sugar until smooth- (boil about 2 min)
  2. In a huge bowl combine cereals, nuts and coconut
  3. Pour melted ingredients on to of mix and stir
  4. Spread onto wax paper to "dry"
Eat by the handful or give as a gift in a clear bag with a fun bow.

emmy and lila

The Mailbox Post

I have to send out a huge thank you to  Marcia from Mailbox Monday and from A Girl and her Books for coming up with Mail Box Monday. This past year Marcia put Mailbox Monday on a blog tour and for the month of November Marcia is the host so be sure to go and check out her blogs.

Just a reminder that the host for Mailbox Monday in December is Jenny Q from Let Them Read Books who just happens to be a new to me blogger so I am excited to check out this new blogger.

Another blogger who hosts In My Mailbox is Kristi from The Story Siren.

This was a super quiet week in books. I only received one book for review and that was this one:

I am officially on a book buying ban from now and up to June 2012. The reason is because I have been given the offical green light and I will be going to NYC/BEA in June. So in order to make this trip possible I have to make some much need sacrifices such as not buying anymore books and forgoing some Birthday/Christmas presents until then.

Courageous Resistance on Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox (November 27)

Your Tax Dollars at Work

  Click here to listen or download, beginning at 2:00 PM San Francisco time.  

Today, (November 27th), Cindy brings us a virtual smörgåsbord of principled resisters to a globalized American military empire.  [Note to self:   some people DO object - and effectively!]  First up are Ruth Benn and Ed Hedemann of the National War Tax Resistance Coordinating Committee (NWTRCC).  Ed is the author, and Ruth a co-editor of War Tax Resistance: A Guide to Withholding Your Support From the Military.  Next comes Cheryl LaBash, co-coordinator of the U.S. Cuba Labor Exchange (an association of individuals who act on their belief that the best way to learn about working people around the world is through meeting with them face to face).  Shockingly, they're somehow rather anti imperial propaganda oriented!  Plenty of informative and fascinating discussion follows.  Please check out THESE conversations! 

Soapbox Winter Fundraiser


PO BOX 6264