For a change, I watched a good film on DSTV last week. Normally, there's nothing but rubbish, so it came as a pleasing and welcome surprise to see a heart-warming tale of a salesman taking care of his 5-year-old while grappling with a host of day-to-day challenges - The Pursuit of Happyness.
The film's title reminded me of the following quote: Well-being and happiness never appeared to me as an absolute aim. I am even inclined to compare such moral aims to the ambitions of a pig. (Albert Einstein)
A thought-provoking statement from a man whose contribution to theoretical physics and, indirectly, to the creation of the atomic bomb, assures his position as one of the world's greatest scientists.
The pursuit of happiness is the overwhelming objective of modern life. To confess to unhappiness is often met with derision or, worse, moral condemnation. And yet there is a contradiction: increasing numbers of people report themselves unhappy - and happiness seems to have little correlation with material wealth (at least after basic needs of food, water and housing are fulfilled). A few years ago, in the BBC's global poll, Nigerians (to most people's surprise) reported themselves the happiest nationality on the planet, despite all the manifest difficulties and challenges of living in a developing country. For anyone living in Uganda, the main surprise was that it was Nigeria - not Uganda - which boasted the highest happiness quotient. Certainly, I am yet to live anywhere with so much joie de vivre.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Einstein provides an explanation for the malaise of unhappiness afflicting society, contained in his marvellously crafted essay in the first edition of the Monthly Review in May 1949, entitled "Why Socialism?" (which can be read in full online at http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php) I have reproduced an extract, below, which serves to demonstrate his wisdom, foresight and continuing relevance to modern times.
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. ............... ...... 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.
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.
A brilliant analysis! How did we let it happen?
A thought-provoking statement from a man whose contribution to theoretical physics and, indirectly, to the creation of the atomic bomb, assures his position as one of the world's greatest scientists.
The pursuit of happiness is the overwhelming objective of modern life. To confess to unhappiness is often met with derision or, worse, moral condemnation. And yet there is a contradiction: increasing numbers of people report themselves unhappy - and happiness seems to have little correlation with material wealth (at least after basic needs of food, water and housing are fulfilled). A few years ago, in the BBC's global poll, Nigerians (to most people's surprise) reported themselves the happiest nationality on the planet, despite all the manifest difficulties and challenges of living in a developing country. For anyone living in Uganda, the main surprise was that it was Nigeria - not Uganda - which boasted the highest happiness quotient. Certainly, I am yet to live anywhere with so much joie de vivre.
Perhaps not surprisingly, Einstein provides an explanation for the malaise of unhappiness afflicting society, contained in his marvellously crafted essay in the first edition of the Monthly Review in May 1949, entitled "Why Socialism?" (which can be read in full online at http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php) I have reproduced an extract, below, which serves to demonstrate his wisdom, foresight and continuing relevance to modern times.
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. ............... ...... 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.
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.
A brilliant analysis! How did we let it happen?
No comments:
Post a Comment