Einstein - Why Socilaism

[NoZed Avenger]

It might help if you actully read what I said.

That is, of course, one possible assumption/solution. Another might be for you to be clearer in your writing, as the message I quoted was far from clear on that subject. I apologize for not interpreting your post correctly, but that could have been easily pointed out without the gratuitous insult and pompous attitude.

I never said anyone would be paid the same.

The system would work in a similar way to Social Security, except the money would be invested in a whole market stock index and also whole market bond index and you would have access to the funds at all times instead of waiting until retirement.

Everyone would receive the same shares in the system just like everyone gets generally the same out of Social Security. Standard pay would remain unchanged a doctor would not manek any less money than they make now, and a fast food person would make no more. Private industry would benefit greatly from the increased investment.

I think that this is an unfounded assumption. That isn't "new" money. It would have been spent or invested , regardless, meaning no guaranteed net gain.

Plus, if all you are doing is changing the mechanism for Social Security, you are lowering the contribution from a current 15% contribution to 5% and then mandating a pay-out with no restrictions on timing or income. Since the money can be accessed immediately, there is no guarantee that any will actually be invested through this system. The people may prefer to get all or some of the money now to either spend or invest on their own.

Finally, the pay-out at 5% seems to be somewhat less than the current system -- especially as the number of people receiving benefits has been expanded slightly from the current system.

I am not saying that your system could not have good points, but I don't see that it necessarily equates to a huge shift in money or wealth as compared to present efforts.

Do the unemployed get any benefits under this system, or are the benefits tied to when people are working?

NA

 

[Victor Danilchenko]

Cain

Yep, and it's never, ever the reverse: Nicaragua, Chile, Vietnam, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Cuba, Afghanistan. I can continue if you wish.

it's not "the reverse" in the relevant sense; those regimes weren't repressing socialist economic competition, it's not like socialist economic agents were threatening capitalist economic model. the opposite, however, is true: you would need governmental intervention (and a pretty heavy-handed one) to ensure that in the general case, socialist entities have a competitive chance against privately-owned ones. This is a so simply because distatorship is efficient. It's by far not efficient enough to compensate for lack of freedom implementing dictatorship on a societal scale would effect, but it's sufficiently more efficient that dictatorially-run economic entities will outcompete the democratically-run ones. This is why a socialist state would have to employ force to suppress competition from privately owned enterprises; and it would have one hell of a time preventing the creation of privately-owned enterprises, since the concept of private property is so deeply entrenched in the popular culture.

Socialism does not necessitate a state.

then a stateless socialist culture will be conquered by opportunistic enemy states.

As I've said, there are many anarchist alternatives that resist centralization: parecon, municipal libertarianism, syndiclism.

I am not familiar with the last one, but the former two, if I correctly understand what you mean by those, would be ripe pickings for any tinpot dictator with a fewhundred armed cutthroats at his disposal.

I agree that we as a society can do a lot to remedy the shortcomings of the natural competition of various stripes; but we cannot remove such altogether. Therefore, we must balance the need to remain competitive and efficient, with the imperative to be fair and democratic.

Fine; but what's the argument for legitimate ownership? Where does it come from?

First claim. Contributed effort. Possession ("possession is 9/10th of the law", remember). All of those can be ethically justified, and all of those contribute at least partially to the de-facto property status in our world.

I might even disagree that they're "representative." The Constitution originally held that the Senators were to be elected by House representatives. That's still representative, in a sense. But it means less control over our lives.

Yeah. And having power brakes means less control over your breaking system. And having electric ignition means less control over your engine.

Direct democracy is fine in some circumstances, and problematic in others. Representative democracy has some very, very good things to recommend for it. Just because an individual has less direct control, doesn't mean that the system is bad.

No doubt. But I do not even agree that capitalism is the most efficient system: the maldistribution of resources, no understanding of sustainability, etc.

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the most inefficient system, except for all others. Show me the money -- prove to me that purely socialist system can be efficient and competitive while also being more democratic -- and I will be with you. i would very much like proof by example here, I would like to see how real socialist cultures can prosper and match the efficiency of the capitalist neighbors.

If your comeback is that socialism couldn't survive in the presence of capitalism, don't bother. I can hypothesize with the best of them, but I won't accept empty hypothesizing as evidence.

But where's your trade-off?

Sacrifice of a measure of fairness in exchange for tremendous gain in efficiency.

Economists can place a value on human life. I think the average person today is worth around five million dollars (minorities, women, and the handicapped, are worth less, on average, than white males). It's not difficult to imagine a factory producing a frivolous luxury good for rich people while polluting poor people in the surrounding area. Do we run a cost-benefit analysis to see if they live?

Yes, we do! We always run cost-benefit analysis. The question is not if, but what utility function we employ.

Allow me to insert a moral principle in here that deals with production: Individuals ought to have control over a policy to the proportion in which they are affected.

Allow me to introduce a complementary moral principle: individuals ought to have control over policy in proportion to their contribution (where pay counts against contribution, and risk counts towards it).

And we need to balance both principles.

An office, according to the parecon scheme to use an example, isn't just a simple democracy. We do not democratically decide whether or not Becky can place a picture of her son her desk. The people on the fifth floor have no say on the punk rock music Jim listens to (unless they can hear it). But surrounding co-workers DO in so far that it affects them.

By the same token, if Becky builds a kitchenette herself, she should have more control over it, even though everyone in her area is affected by the kitchenette's presence equally.

??

Rawl's idea is based on complete ignorance of what possible form the society on the other side of veil of ignorance could take; furthermore, he is comitted to the political policy being static, rather than dynamically adjustable based on the state on the other side of the veil. If either of those assumptions is rejected, utilitarianism becomes far better -- i.e. utilitarianism is better if we can know approximate expected societal structure, and it's better if we can adjust policy based on currenbtly observable social structure. In both cases, a rational individual behind the veil of ignorance (i.e. unaware of their station in society) would choose utilitarianism -- if they know social structure then they would want to maximize their expected utility (utilitarianism) rather than maximize worst-case outcome (Rawlsianism), and if they expect to be able to adjust policy then they would select utilitarianism due to expecting to optimize their utility later base don observaitons.

Since neither one of Rawls's assumptions pass the very basic muster of sanity, rawlsian political theory is crap.

But that's not how capitalism or labor markets work. Instead it's one person or company offering the unemployed a wage. When I work at blockbuster, say, I generate more money than the store pays me (Marx's exploitation via the theft of surplus value). There's no incentive to work harder, and others are getting rich by virtue of their ownership, not effort or sacrifice.

if you work harder, you can gain extra value either gby getting raise (if your employer is not rock-dumb), or improving your resume; you can also get experience which will help you get more money when you find a better employer. No matter which way you slice it, extra effort does generally result in a measure of extra reward.

Socially useful labor is addressed under all models. Nobody says that anyone doing anything deserves to get compensated.

How? How would you accomplish that end without either planned economy or market economy?

A third alternative is the elimination of scarcity by technological means, but we are nowhere near that point now. So how would you propose that socially useful labor is encouraged, which maintaining th eprinciple of renumeration for effort and sacrifice?

 

[Malachi151]

I think that this is an unfounded assumption. That isn't "new" money. It would have been spent or invested , regardless, meaning no guaranteed net gain.

?

Plus, if all you are doing is changing the mechanism for Social Security, you are lowering the contribution from a current 15% contribution to 5% and then mandating a pay-out with no restrictions on timing or income. Since the money can be accessed immediately, there is no guarantee that any will actually be invested through this system. The people may prefer to get all or some of the money now to either spend or invest on their own.

Investing is essnetially public ownership. Right now you have to have money in order to invest. This system would simply be designed to help lower income people gain a share of the investment market. This would make it so that people who cannot afford to invest in any meaningful way now would at least get some investment.

Finally, the pay-out at 5% seems to be somewhat less than the current system -- especially as the number of people receiving benefits has been expanded slightly from the current system.

The current SS system used about 7% tax and invests the money in a low interest fund, like 2% and you get a set amount when you retire. This system would be nothing like that at all. This would work more like a 401K, except instead of putting 5% of your money into the account you are really putting 5% of the national average pay into your account. This would mean that the rich get less than they put in, the poor get more than they put in. Unlike SS that tries to use current input to fund current output, this would simply be what you see is what you get. Whatever goes in every month is what you have available. This would be a whole market index so it would go up and down based on the stock market, put it would also pay dividends too.

I am not saying that your system could not have good points, but I don't see that it necessarily equates to a huge shift in money or wealth as compared to present efforts.

No, it really doesn't, which is why I think its an acceptable idea. Its not totally radical, its actually workable.

Do the unemployed get any benefits under this system, or are the benefits tied to when people are working?

Sort of. Like SS you only get contribution when you work, but say you worked for 20 years, then lost your job, then you could start dipping into that account.

What I would try to do is have the account managed with a goal of paying 5%-8% dividends. The person with the account could choose to have that money reinvest or take it as income whever they wanted. I would put a 10 year hold on the accounts, so that when you first get your account you can't sell any shares for at least 10 years, you could receive divided if you wanted, but not sell the shares. After 10 years everyen can do whatever they want with the account. You receive new shares every month that you work.

The goal would be that for people who have worked for 15 to 20 years, they should have enough in the account that it would serve as a second source of minor income at that time, just as investment does for the wealthy today.

The accounts would be non-transferable upon death; the shares would be redistributed through the system.

It would be just a start and a way to help poor and middle class people invest. They could certiably invest on thier own too if they were able and wanted to. Hopefully as time went on average people would be able to retire sooner due to the investments, and this would keep unemployment down. The amount of the tax could be regulated over time to find a good balance.

This keep everything almost the same as now, yet also increases public ownership "of the means of production". I think its very capitalist friendly, and also socially responsible at the same time.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Thanks for the reply.

One point - current contributions from the employee are at approximately 7.5% currently, but the "employer" presently matches that amount -- so the amount effectively being taken from the paycheck is 15%.

I would need to run he math before I can make any useful comment, but I don't think its crazy in concept.

NA

 

[Cain]

it's not "the reverse" in the relevant sense; those regimes weren't repressing socialist economic competition, it's not like socialist economic agents were threatening capitalist economic model.

I emphatically disagree. The United States crushed or subverted economic alternative models precisely because they offered another vision. You don't think our foreign policy was self-interested in this regard?

the opposite, however, is true: you would need governmental intervention (and a pretty heavy-handed one) to ensure that in the general case, socialist entities have a competitive chance against privately-owned ones. This is a so simply because distatorship is efficient. It's by far not efficient enough to compensate for lack of freedom implementing dictatorship on a societal scale would effect, but it's sufficiently more efficient that dictatorially-run economic entities will outcompete the democratically-run ones. This is why a socialist state would have to employ force to suppress competition from privately owned enterprises; and it would have one hell of a time preventing the creation of privately-owned enterprises, since the concept of private property is so deeply entrenched in the popular culture.

And, as I said earlier, there's a similar degree of authortarianism in modern capitalist production that completely shuns democratic decision-making and self-mangement. I think we should be extremely skeptical of claimants who insist there's no alternative to hierarchy and authoritarianism. You favor a degree democracy in government, so why not the work place? Why can't people elect their bosses, for example?

then a stateless socialist culture will be conquered by opportunistic enemy states.

Oh sure, that's always a real possibility. Look- a free, democratic society is not going to work unless people want it.

First claim. Contributed effort. Possession ("possession is 9/10th of the law", remember). All of those can be ethically justified, and all of those contribute at least partially to the de-facto property status in our world.

Didn't Lennon-- that is, John Lennon -- say property is 9/10ths of the problem? I disagree with the above, of course. Suppose Mr. Lennon helps write a wildly popular album before the age of 25, so that he can live off the royalties for the rest of his life. I don't really see the effort and sacrifice, which, below you indicate, is a principle that you reject anyway.

Yeah. And having power brakes means less control over your breaking system. And having electric ignition means less control over your engine.

I see these as mistaken analogies, of course (Straw man!). We are -- or at least I am -- talking about control over one's own life; self-determination.

Direct democracy is fine in some circumstances, and problematic in others. Representative democracy has some very, very good things to recommend for it. Just because an individual has less direct control, doesn't mean that the system is bad.

OK. Again, though, why can't we have a representative democracy in the work place? Many market socialists advocate pay in accordance to output (rather than effort). The same institutions and structures are in place, but people vote for their bosses and managers. There's popular referenda for new company rules, etc. You can have everything you want: markets, output in effort, a degree of authoritarian and control (because a special class of people would be empowered to make most decisions), and so on. The only thing that's removed is property ownership- always a nagging problem (and still lacking proper justification).

To paraphrase Churchill, capitalism is the most inefficient system, except for all others. Show me the money -- prove to me that purely socialist system can be efficient and competitive while also being more democratic -- and I will be with you. i would very much like proof by example here, I would like to see how real socialist cultures can prosper and match the efficiency of the capitalist neighbors.

I've offered the Spanish anarchists and Mondragon. South End Press is a small publishing cooperative located in Boston. It's performed quite admirably over the years.

Sacrifice of a measure of fairness in exchange for tremendous gain in efficiency.

Yes, we do! We always run cost-benefit analysis. The question is not if, but what utility function we employ.

Sure, but not in the dollar sesne I'm talking about. If we want to use the Utilitarian calculations of, say, Singer, whom I quoted approvingly in our discussion of animal rights, then the business will most assuredly get shut down. But that moral calculus runs opposes to the dollars and cents(lessness) of market valuations.

Allow me to introduce a complementary moral principle: individuals ought to have control over policy in proportion to their contribution (where pay counts against contribution, and risk counts towards it).

I've already stated my reasons for rejecting such a principle on moral grounds (it's arbitrary). I think contributions would be extremely difficult to measure, perhaps even more so than effort and sacrifice. I'm talking about marginal product of labor.

No contribution can be viewed in isolation. Your output during your eigth our of work depends, in part, on hours 1 through 7. More critical, your contributions depend on what others are doing. Let me try to give a silly example:

Suppose we play basketball against each other for one hour, and you win by a score 25 to 20. Suppose the next day you play Malachi, and win 27 to 25. At the end of the week we decide that Malachi and I will both play against you simultaneously. Suppose the score is 35 to 10. Just because we're sadists, a third person joins our team, and we win 45-0.

Do we reward on the basis of production? Perhaps we can use a waited scale of points, assists, rebounds, and so on. Measuring defense would be difficult, though. Self-interested incentives may create less than optimal outcomes, too. Why should I defend if the money comes from scoring? How do we gauge the contribution of that second or third person?

By the same token, if Becky builds a kitchenette herself, she should have more control over it, even though everyone in her area is affected by the kitchenette's presence equally.

Does she build in in the workplace or her home? And I agree she ought to have nearly full control if it's in her home. The way I choose to comb my hair is pretty much nobody's business, so I have dictatorial control. The car I drive is another matter. My choice to murder someone still another (the victim's life is affected in such a way that she as veto power).

I was just curious about your comment on Rawls. Not worth exploring in great detail here, but I think the dismissal as "crap" is slightly offensive (Rawls, after all, is nearly single-handedly responsible for reinvigorating political philosophy in the 20th century).

if you work harder, you can gain extra value either gby getting raise (if your employer is not rock-dumb), or improving your resume; you can also get experience which will help you get more money when you find a better employer. No matter which way you slice it, extra effort does generally result in a measure of extra reward.

Market relations has me working with the least possible effort for the greatest possible pay; my employer seeks exactly the opposite. I'm tiring so I can't go into detail here.

As for a third way between markets and central planning, it's not neccessary to socialism (though it is the model I'm defending here. Greater detail can be found, again, on the parecon site (if you're looking for methods of allocation, production, consumption, etc). My defense here, though maybe half-hearted, is considerably less committed than actual belief in my heart of hearts. That is to say, I'm undecided, but don't mind defending it on a public forum to gain a better understanding.