风萧萧_Frank
以文会友
加拿大的养老金计划是社会主义概念的证明
作者：Taylor Scollon 2020 年 3 月 6 日
https://www.readthemaple.com/canadas-pension-plan-is-a-proof-of-concept-for-socialism/
批评者说社会主义行不通，但加拿大养老金计划提供了令人惊讶的证据，证明社会主义是可行的。
加拿大的养老金计划是社会主义概念的证明
如果你相信周二民主党初选的投票结果，那么社会主义就占了上风。加利福尼亚州、北卡罗来纳州和田纳西州的选民都告诉民意调查员，他们对社会主义的看法比负面看法要好。在德克萨斯州，情况甚至不相上下：57% 的人对社会主义持正面看法，而只有 37% 的人持负面看法。
社会主义的复兴并不局限于美国。在加拿大，去年夏天的一项民意调查发现，58% 的人对社会主义持赞成态度。
对于那些稳居政坛的人来说，这样的数字一定令人震惊，因为几代以来，社会主义一直被视为一个笑话，最糟糕的是，它只是通往古拉格和斗争会议的一步。
但选民们发现了政治精英们所忽略的东西。社会主义远非一个（他们喜欢说的）从未在任何地方奏效的激进思想，它的价值证据就在我们身边。事实上，现代民主形式的社会主义最好的概念验证之一可以在一个意想不到的地方找到：加拿大退休金计划基金。
每个加拿大人在一生中的某个时刻都会收到加拿大退休金计划 (CPP) 的付款，他们至少要部分感谢加拿大退休金计划基金。CPP 付款由雇员及其雇主在其工作生涯中缴纳的款项资助。但如果这些钱留在储蓄账户中，它们将无法支付我们退休期间的福利费用。这就是基金以及负责监管该基金的加拿大退休金计划投资委员会 (CPPIB) 发挥作用的地方。他们的工作是汇集这些捐款，投资于世界各地的资产，然后这些资产增值并产生回报，其中一些被再投资，一些被支付给 CPP 的受益人。CPPIB 本质上是一个大型私募股权投资者（事实上是世界上最大的私募股权投资者之一）。
对你来说，这些听起来可能都不太像社会主义。但请考虑一下：社会主义的一个重要方面是一种经济安排，在这种安排中，生产资料由公众而不是私人资本家共同拥有。
CPPIB 的基本职能是通过 CPP 基金扩大公共对生产资料的所有权。当然，这一点并没有明确说明。委员会的既定任务是“在不承担过度风险的情况下最大化长期投资回报”。但由于 CPPIB 是一家最终由加拿大人民拥有并对其负责的皇家公司，这在实践中意味着 CPPIB 寻求将越来越多的资产纳入公共所有。
由于该基金的投资，现在每个加拿大人都是世界上一些最大公司的间接股东。CPPIB 于 2011 年向中国电子商务巨头阿里巴巴投资了 7.86 亿美元。他们共同拥有维京邮轮 17% 的股份。去年，他们以 2 亿美元的价格购买了加拿大公司 Premium Brands 的股份，该公司生产了该国大约一半的预包装三明治，包括星巴克销售的三明治。总的来说，该基金拥有超过 4200 亿美元的资产，并在过去 10 年中获得了 2510 亿美元的回报。
加拿大人从这些所有权股份中获得了真正的好处。部分得益于该基金产生的回报，2050 年退休且已缴纳 40 年 CPP 的工人每年将额外获得 2,500 美元的退休福利。2065 年退休的工人每年将额外获得 4,000 美元。这些都是公有制的成果，也是社会主义制度实现目标的真实例子。
公共养老基金是我们资本主义领域中如此熟悉的一部分，以至于将它们视为实际存在的社会主义的例子似乎很奇怪。但事实上，长期以来，民主社会主义者一直认为，像这样的大型基金可以为完全社会化的经济提供基础设施。瑞典社会民主党政府甚至在 20 世纪 70 年代初开始实施一种基金社会主义，即梅德纳计划，但该计划最终被 1976 年上台的右翼联盟放弃。
这种“基金社会主义”的教父是鲁道夫·希法亭，他是一位奥地利经济学家，在魏玛共和国时期是德国社会民主党的顶级思想家，后来于 1941 年被盖世太保折磨和杀害。在 1910 年的开创性著作《金融资本》中，希法亭注意到金融机构正在推动经济中资本所有权的集中化，并指出，这不应被视为挫折，而应被视为
这对他想要实现的社会主义项目大有裨益：
“金融资本的社会化功能极大地促进了克服资本主义的任务。一旦金融资本将最重要的生产部门纳入其控制之下，社会就可以通过其自觉的执行机构——工人阶级征服的国家——夺取金融资本，从而立即控制这些生产部门。”
希法亭认为，资本主义的金融家们在不知不觉中为他们做了社会主义者的工作，将经济控制权集中在少数几家公司，然后公众可以一举夺取这些公司。确切地说，他意识到这不仅是将经济纳入公有制的有效方式，而且还可以避免国家征用经常伴随的混乱局面：
“没有必要将征用过程扩大到绝大多数农民农场和小企业，因为征用这些农场和小企业长期以来依赖的大型工业，会间接地将它们社会化，就像工业直接社会化一样。因此，有可能让征用过程缓慢地成熟，恰恰是在那些分散生产领域，征用过程将是一个漫长而政治危险的过程。换句话说，由于金融资本已经实现了社会主义所要求的征用程度，因此有可能放弃国家突然征用的行为，而代之以通过社会将赋予的经济利益逐步实现社会化的过程。”
CPPIB 的经理和分析师可能从未听说过希法亭，而且几乎肯定不认为自己是他的追随者。但实际上，他们的工作正是他所建议的：通过公有投资基金间接地将经济的大部分社会化。
从民主社会主义的角度来看，对 CPP 基金的明显批评是它不民主。加拿大人可能会从其增长中获益，但无法实际控制其功能。决策是由雇佣的枪手做出的——基金经理被指示最大化回报而不考虑其他问题。公民对基金的资源分配方式或基金拥有的公司如何运作没有发言权。
这是事实，但不一定非得如此。CPPIB 是议会立法的产物，其授权可以由议会调整。如果选民愿意，他们可以选举一个政府，例如修改 CPPIB 的授权，强制撤资化石燃料。挪威的社会财富基金——世界上最大的基金——就是这么做的。
人民政策项目智库的创始人马特·布鲁尼格 (Matt Bruenig) 勾勒出了一个社会财富基金的方案，该基金的设计将是民主的。根据他的方案，该基金行使对其持有股份的公司的股东事务的投票权。民选政府将指导该基金如何投票，实际上是允许民选代表影响公司的方向。例如，有这种倾向的政府可以利用该基金否决奢侈的首席执行官薪酬方案，或罢免威胁工人养老金的高管。基金社会主义本身并不具有不民主性，尽管当今大多数公有基金都不是民主运作的。
CPP 基金并不是通过公有基金实现经济社会化的完美模式。除了其不民主的结构外，它相对于经济规模而言也较小，就像漂浮在私有制海洋中的公有浮标。但它仍然是社会主义概念的有效证明。我们可以想象一个扩大版的加拿大养老金基金，其资本储备通过财富税或杠杆资产购买增加，购买加拿大资产的更大份额，并以股息的形式将这些资产的回报平等地分配给我们所有人。
使用传统上与资本主义经济相关的投资基金等机构将让许多社会主义者感到不快。有些人会认为它赋予国家太多权力。另一些人会反对，认为它是改革派，需要的是革命。这样的分歧对社会主义社区来说并不新鲜，但我所主张的社会主义基金种类繁多，可以舒适地融入民主社会主义框架。
我们所有人都平等地分享增长的成果，公民有权民主地决定如何运行和管理经济的问题：这是民主社会主义的愿景，它可以通过与今天已经在运作的机构非常相似的机构来实现。 CPP 基金并非某种激进的空想，而是一个值得信赖的机构，为数百万加拿大人提供退休和真正的物质福利保障。它也是加拿大人退休金制度的证明。
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.
