風蕭蕭_Frank
以文會友
加拿大的養老金計劃是社會主義概念的證明
作者：Taylor Scollon 2020 年 3 月 6 日
https://www.readthemaple.com/canadas-pension-plan-is-a-proof-of-concept-for-socialism/
批評者說社會主義行不通，但加拿大養老金計劃提供了令人驚訝的證據，證明社會主義是可行的。
加拿大的養老金計劃是社會主義概念的證明
如果你相信周二民主黨初選的投票結果，那麽社會主義就占了上風。加利福尼亞州、北卡羅來納州和田納西州的選民都告訴民意調查員，他們對社會主義的看法比負麵看法要好。在德克薩斯州，情況甚至不相上下：57% 的人對社會主義持正麵看法，而隻有 37% 的人持負麵看法。
社會主義的複興並不局限於美國。在加拿大，去年夏天的一項民意調查發現，58% 的人對社會主義持讚成態度。
對於那些穩居政壇的人來說，這樣的數字一定令人震驚，因為幾代以來，社會主義一直被視為一個笑話，最糟糕的是，它隻是通往古拉格和鬥爭會議的一步。
但選民們發現了政治精英們所忽略的東西。社會主義遠非一個（他們喜歡說的）從未在任何地方奏效的激進思想，它的價值證據就在我們身邊。事實上，現代民主形式的社會主義最好的概念驗證之一可以在一個意想不到的地方找到：加拿大退休金計劃基金。
每個加拿大人在一生中的某個時刻都會收到加拿大退休金計劃 (CPP) 的付款，他們至少要部分感謝加拿大退休金計劃基金。CPP 付款由雇員及其雇主在其工作生涯中繳納的款項資助。但如果這些錢留在儲蓄賬戶中，它們將無法支付我們退休期間的福利費用。這就是基金以及負責監管該基金的加拿大退休金計劃投資委員會 (CPPIB) 發揮作用的地方。他們的工作是匯集這些捐款，投資於世界各地的資產，然後這些資產增值並產生回報，其中一些被再投資，一些被支付給 CPP 的受益人。CPPIB 本質上是一個大型私募股權投資者（事實上是世界上最大的私募股權投資者之一）。
對你來說，這些聽起來可能都不太像社會主義。但請考慮一下：社會主義的一個重要方麵是一種經濟安排，在這種安排中，生產資料由公眾而不是私人資本家共同擁有。
CPPIB 的基本職能是通過 CPP 基金擴大公共對生產資料的所有權。當然，這一點並沒有明確說明。委員會的既定任務是“在不承擔過度風險的情況下最大化長期投資回報”。但由於 CPPIB 是一家最終由加拿大人民擁有並對其負責的皇家公司，這在實踐中意味著 CPPIB 尋求將越來越多的資產納入公共所有。
由於該基金的投資，現在每個加拿大人都是世界上一些最大公司的間接股東。CPPIB 於 2011 年向中國電子商務巨頭阿裏巴巴投資了 7.86 億美元。他們共同擁有維京郵輪 17% 的股份。去年，他們以 2 億美元的價格購買了加拿大公司 Premium Brands 的股份，該公司生產了該國大約一半的預包裝三明治，包括星巴克銷售的三明治。總的來說，該基金擁有超過 4200 億美元的資產，並在過去 10 年中獲得了 2510 億美元的回報。
加拿大人從這些所有權股份中獲得了真正的好處。部分得益於該基金產生的回報，2050 年退休且已繳納 40 年 CPP 的工人每年將額外獲得 2,500 美元的退休福利。2065 年退休的工人每年將額外獲得 4,000 美元。這些都是公有製的成果，也是社會主義製度實現目標的真實例子。
公共養老基金是我們資本主義領域中如此熟悉的一部分，以至於將它們視為實際存在的社會主義的例子似乎很奇怪。但事實上，長期以來，民主社會主義者一直認為，像這樣的大型基金可以為完全社會化的經濟提供基礎設施。瑞典社會民主黨政府甚至在 20 世紀 70 年代初開始實施一種基金社會主義，即梅德納計劃，但該計劃最終被 1976 年上台的右翼聯盟放棄。
這種“基金社會主義”的教父是魯道夫·希法亭，他是一位奧地利經濟學家，在魏瑪共和國時期是德國社會民主黨的頂級思想家，後來於 1941 年被蓋世太保折磨和殺害。在 1910 年的開創性著作《金融資本》中，希法亭注意到金融機構正在推動經濟中資本所有權的集中化，並指出，這不應被視為挫折，而應被視為
這對他想要實現的社會主義項目大有裨益：
“金融資本的社會化功能極大地促進了克服資本主義的任務。一旦金融資本將最重要的生產部門納入其控製之下，社會就可以通過其自覺的執行機構——工人階級征服的國家——奪取金融資本，從而立即控製這些生產部門。”
希法亭認為，資本主義的金融家們在不知不覺中為他們做了社會主義者的工作，將經濟控製權集中在少數幾家公司，然後公眾可以一舉奪取這些公司。確切地說，他意識到這不僅是將經濟納入公有製的有效方式，而且還可以避免國家征用經常伴隨的混亂局麵：
“沒有必要將征用過程擴大到絕大多數農民農場和小企業，因為征用這些農場和小企業長期以來依賴的大型工業，會間接地將它們社會化，就像工業直接社會化一樣。因此，有可能讓征用過程緩慢地成熟，恰恰是在那些分散生產領域，征用過程將是一個漫長而政治危險的過程。換句話說，由於金融資本已經實現了社會主義所要求的征用程度，因此有可能放棄國家突然征用的行為，而代之以通過社會將賦予的經濟利益逐步實現社會化的過程。”
CPPIB 的經理和分析師可能從未聽說過希法亭，而且幾乎肯定不認為自己是他的追隨者。但實際上，他們的工作正是他所建議的：通過公有投資基金間接地將經濟的大部分社會化。
從民主社會主義的角度來看，對 CPP 基金的明顯批評是它不民主。加拿大人可能會從其增長中獲益，但無法實際控製其功能。決策是由雇傭的槍手做出的——基金經理被指示最大化回報而不考慮其他問題。公民對基金的資源分配方式或基金擁有的公司如何運作沒有發言權。
這是事實，但不一定非得如此。CPPIB 是議會立法的產物，其授權可以由議會調整。如果選民願意，他們可以選舉一個政府，例如修改 CPPIB 的授權，強製撤資化石燃料。挪威的社會財富基金——世界上最大的基金——就是這麽做的。
人民政策項目智庫的創始人馬特·布魯尼格 (Matt Bruenig) 勾勒出了一個社會財富基金的方案，該基金的設計將是民主的。根據他的方案，該基金行使對其持有股份的公司的股東事務的投票權。民選政府將指導該基金如何投票，實際上是允許民選代表影響公司的方向。例如，有這種傾向的政府可以利用該基金否決奢侈的首席執行官薪酬方案，或罷免威脅工人養老金的高管。基金社會主義本身並不具有不民主性，盡管當今大多數公有基金都不是民主運作的。
CPP 基金並不是通過公有基金實現經濟社會化的完美模式。除了其不民主的結構外，它相對於經濟規模而言也較小，就像漂浮在私有製海洋中的公有浮標。但它仍然是社會主義概念的有效證明。我們可以想象一個擴大版的加拿大養老金基金，其資本儲備通過財富稅或杠杆資產購買增加，購買加拿大資產的更大份額，並以股息的形式將這些資產的回報平等地分配給我們所有人。
使用傳統上與資本主義經濟相關的投資基金等機構將讓許多社會主義者感到不快。有些人會認為它賦予國家太多權力。另一些人會反對，認為它是改革派，需要的是革命。這樣的分歧對社會主義社區來說並不新鮮，但我所主張的社會主義基金種類繁多，可以舒適地融入民主社會主義框架。
我們所有人都平等地分享增長的成果，公民有權民主地決定如何運行和管理經濟的問題：這是民主社會主義的願景，它可以通過與今天已經在運作的機構非常相似的機構來實現。 CPP 基金並非某種激進的空想，而是一個值得信賴的機構，為數百萬加拿大人提供退休和真正的物質福利保障。它也是加拿大人退休金製度的證明。
Canada's Pension Plan Is A Proof Of Concept For Socialism
by Taylor Scollon March 6, 2020
https://www.readthemaple.com/canadas-pension-plan-is-a-proof-of-concept-for-socialism/
Critics say socialism cannot work, but the Canada Pension Plan offers surprising proof that it can.
Canada’s Pension Plan Is A Proof Of Concept For Socialism
Socialism’s renaissance is not limited to the United States. Here in Canada, a poll from last summer found that 58 per cent of people have a favourable view of socialism.
These sorts of numbers must be astonishing to those firmly ensconced in the political class, where socialism has been viewed for generations as a joke at best and, at worst, a step down the road to gulags and struggle sessions.
But voters are on to something that political elites are missing. Far from being a radical idea that has (as they are fond of saying) never worked anywhere, evidence of socialism’s value are all around us today. In fact, one of the best proof-of-concepts for a modern democratic form of socialism can be found in an unexpected place: the Canada Pension Plan Fund.
Every Canadian at some point in their lifetime will receive payments from the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), and they have the Canada Pension Plan Fund at least in part to thank for that. CPP payments are funded by contributions made by employees and their employers over the course of their working life. But left to stagnate in a savings account, these contributions would not cover the cost of paying out benefits during our retirements. This is where the Fund — and the Canadian Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which oversees the Fund — comes in. Their job is to pool those contributions and invest in assets around the world which then grow in value and generate returns, some of which are reinvested and some of which are paid out to CPP recipients. The CPPIB is, essentially, a big private equity investor (one of the world’s largest, in fact).
None of this may sound very socialist to you. But consider: an important aspect of socialism is an economic arrangement in which the means of production are commonly owned by the public rather than by private capitalists.
The basic function of the CPPIB is to extend public ownership over the means of production through the CPP Fund. Of course, this is not made explicit. The stated mandate of the Board is to “maximize long-term investment returns without undue risk.” But because it’s a Crown corporation ultimately owned by and accountable to the Canadian people, what this means in practice is that the CPPIB seeks to bring more and more assets under public ownership.
Because of the Fund’s investments, every Canadian is now an indirect shareholder in some of the world’s largest companies. CPPIB invested $786 million in the Chinese e-commerce giant Alibaba in 2011. They co-own a 17 per cent stake in Viking Cruises. And last year, they bought a $200 million share in a Canadian company, Premium Brands, which makes about half of the pre-packaged sandwiches in the country, including those sold at Starbucks. In total, the Fund owns over $420 billion in assets, and has returned $251 billion in returns over the past 10 years.
Canadians get real benefits from these ownership stakes. Thanks in part to returns generated by the Fund, workers retiring in 2050 with 40 years of CPP contributions will enjoy an extra $2,500 each year in retirement benefits. That will jump to an extra $4,000 per year for workers retiring in 2065. These are the fruits of public ownership, and a real example of a socialist institution delivering the goods.
Public pension funds are such a familiar part of our capitalist landscape that it seems bizarre to regard them as examples of actually existing socialism. But in fact, there is a long and rich strain of democratic socialists who have argued that large funds such as these could provide the infrastructure for a fully socialized economy. The Social Democratic government of Sweden even began implementing a version of funds socialism with the Meidner Plan in the early 1970s, a project which was ultimately abandoned by a right-wing coalition that came to power in 1976.
The godfather of this “funds socialism” is Rudolf Hilferding, an Austrian economist who was a top thinker in Germany’s Social Democratic Party during the Weimar years before he was tortured and murdered by the Gestapo in 1941. In his seminal 1910 work, Finance Capital, Hilferding noticed that financial institutions were driving the centralization of capital ownership in the economy, and pointed out that rather than a setback this should be regarded as a boon for the socialist project he wanted to bring about:
“The socializing function of finance capital facilitates enormously the task of overcoming capitalism. Once finance capital has brought the most important branches of production under its control, it is enough for society, through its conscious executive organ – the state conquered by the working class – to seize finance capital in order to gain immediate control of these branches of production.”
Hilferding thought capitalism’s financiers were unwittingly doing the socialist’s job for them, centralizing control of the economy within a few firms which could then be seized by the public in one fell swoop. Precisently, he realized this would not only be an effective way of bringing the economy into public ownership, but would also avoid the messiness that often accompanies state expropriation:
“There is no need at all to extend the process of expropriation to the great bulk of peasant farms and small businesses, because as a result of the seizure of large-scale industry, upon which they have long been dependent, they would be indirectly socialized just as industry is directly socialized. It is therefore possible to allow the process of expropriation to mature slowly, precisely in those spheres of decentralized production where it would be a long drawn out and politically dangerous process. In other words, since finance capital has already achieved expropriation to the extent required by socialism, it is possible to dispense with a sudden act of expropriation by the state, and to substitute a gradual process of socialization through the economic benefits which society will confer.”
The managers and analysts at the CPPIB have likely never heard of Hilferding, and almost certainly do not regard themselves as his acolytes. In effect, however, their work is doing exactly what he recommended: indirectly socializing large swathes of the economy through a publicly-owned investment fund.
The obvious critique of the CPP Fund from a democratic socialist perspective is that it’s undemocratic. Canadians may reap the rewards of its growth, but have no actual control over its function. Decisions are made by hired guns — fund managers instructed to maximize returns without regard to other concerns. Citizens do not have a say in how the Fund’s resources are allocated, or how the companies owned by the Fund operate.
This is true, but does not necessarily need to be the case. The CPPIB is a creature of Parliamentary legislation, and its mandate can be adjusted by Parliament. If voters wanted to, they could elect a government that would, for example, modify the CPPIB’s mandate to force divestment from fossil fuels. Norway’s social wealth fund — the largest in the world — has done just this.
Matt Bruenig, the founder of the People’s Policy Project think tank, has sketched a proposal for a social wealth fund that would be democratic by design. Under his scheme, the fund exercises its right to vote on shareholder matters of the companies it owns a stake in. The elected government would instruct the fund on how to cast its vote, in effect allowing elected representatives to influence corporate direction. For example, a government so inclined could use the fund to vote down lavish CEO pay packages, or oust executives who threaten worker pensions. There is nothing inherently undemocratic about funds socialism, though most publicly-owned funds today are admittedly not run democratically.
The CPP Fund is not a perfect model for how the economy could be socialized through publicly-owned funds. Aside from its undemocratic structure, it’s also small relative to the size of the economy, a publicly-owned buoy floating in a sea of private ownership. But it’s still an effective proof of concept for socialism. We can imagine a scaled-up version of the CPP Fund, its capital reserves boosted through wealth taxes or leveraged asset purchases, buying an ever greater portion of Canada’s assets and distributing the returns on those assets to all of us equally in the form of dividends.
Using institutions like investment funds traditionally associated with capitalist economies will be off-putting to many socialists. Some will think it assigns too much power to the state. Others will object that its reformist, and what’s needed is revolution. Disagreements like this are nothing new to the socialist community, but the variety of funds socialism I have argued for can sit comfortably within a democratic socialist framework.
All of us sharing equally in the fruits of growth and citizens empowered to democratically determine questions about how to run and manage the economy: that’s the democratic socialist vision, and it’s achievable through institutions that look a lot like ones that are already working today. The CPP Fund is not some radical pie-in-the-sky idea — it’s a trusted institution that secures retirement and real material benefits for millions of Canadians. It’s also a proof-of-concept for democratic socialism.
