As shown above, freer economic systems are on the right, coupled with their
political systems.
It is inescapable that people want to work, they want to survive, and they want to
make life easier and more beneficial for themselves and loved ones. Getting more
and more for the same amount of work, or even from less work, is a major goal of
humankind.
Any and all efforts to interfere with that one goal is inevitability defeated by human
ingenuity. As much as communism caused people to flee, the income tax causes
people to avoid its reach. They are of the same class, and differ only in degree.
Marx himself devised the idea of the graduated income tax. We are leaning
leftward in our application of this tax. The more it intrudes, the more people try to
avoid it. That is a current condition in the United States. The continual leftward
movement in taxes, and hence government control, will lead people to ever more
avoidance. Either through illegal maneuvering, or by just stopping to produce more
wealth.
It is at the point in which no new wealth is being created that we begin to dip into
that national bank account. We have hovered near that from time to time under Ford
and Carter recently. While the Reagan years saw the doubling of the size of the
economy because of its real and perceived politics and attitudes. We are now
appearing to be reentering such an eat-the-wealth period.
The income taxes in America that feeds the entitlement programs are causing
people to do illegal activities centered on hiding their income and wealth. In
addition, there are groups of people, i.e., special interests, attempting to get this or
that loophole or other benefit, so that they can escape the pitfalls of the larger
system. As more people seek loopholes, more people will seek to avoid paying
taxes. Instead of calling for simplification to bring the code within peoples'
expectations, we are calling for more enforcement of an unworkable system.
Special interests are merely people trying to preserve what they see as the ratio --
the balance, between what they put into the system and what they get out of it.
Because the socialist paradigm posits that there is an inherent fight between
different classes of people, there is the idea among those not in a special interest
group to perceive that that group is somehow getting benefits to which it is not
entitled to -- that it does not deserve. At the same time, these same people have
their own special interest, for which they seek their own benefits. Of course the first
special interest takes exception to the second special interest, not only for fighting
against it, but for seeking their own benefits. Thus there is a spiraling multitude of
envies, hatreds, accusations and blamings.
The idea that there is an inherent battle between classes is wrong. The battle lies
between those who want to control things, whether the monarchist, the communist,
or the fascists -- and those who seek to exercise their simple and complex rights to
own and produce, and survive and do as one pleases while leaving others alone in
peace.
There is no doubt that humans come in various levels of intelligence, physical
strength, desire to work or be lazy. There is plethora of social and mental
conditions. There is a variable level of acceptance for risk. Some people are
leaders and some followers. Some are physically coordinated -- some are klutzes.
All the things which make humans different naturally make them suitable to different
tasks. It is this natural differentiation which leads to the congregation of humans. As
one recognizes that he can do one task but not another, he seeks out others who
can do tasks that he cannot do himself. So that by joining in labor -- or trading labor
-- both make themselves better off. Cooperation among those with differences in
abilities creates a better way to survive and a more efficient use of an individuals'
time and labor. He can keep his stored labor longer and make it worth more,
through cooperation.
The creator of an idea -- understanding its components and its wholeness -- and
willing to take the risk of doing harm to his ability for self survival, by engaging in a
certain project economically -- may require help. There are others, of no
imagination, of not understanding the wholeness, but who can labor at creating a
component -- and unwilling to risk survival, who can help, the relationship between
this creator and this laborer is cooperative, mutually beneficial. And not at all
against each other. The worker gets no risk, and some security -- while the creator
assumes the risk with less security. As risk inherently has more value than security
and sureness, than the creator puts more into the project, and so gets more out of
the project.
The laborer is satisfied with his return on his input. Or he gets another job. It is in his
best interest in his quest for survival -- it is in his best interest -- in his quest for
survival, that he cooperates with the creator.
In a worldview -- or paradigm -- of freedom that will supersede the current
paradigm, a worker would seek to join his boss in making a better place of work
and better project. But at a certain point in the relationship the worker realizes that
he is putting in more than he is receiving -- and this will be his view and only his
view of his own condition. As discussed above, people will not long tolerate putting
in more than they get in return. It is intuitively wrongheaded to event the stupidest
coal miner, even to the illiterate sharecropper.
And so that worker asks for a raise, or a piece of the profits, or more time off, or
more benefits. He seeks more of what he values more, in trying to bring the balance
back to what he puts in and what he gets out. In the face of a boss who refuses to
accede the worker inevitably sloughs off, works less diligently. It is absurd, after all,
to expect a worker to continue to work harder than what he receives from his labor.
It is only decades of socialist thinking that has caused so many bosses to think that
he must screw his laborers. Get more from him than the boss is willing to give to the
worker. This leads to labor strife, to lousy worker habits and poor quality -- tension
and alienation and even hatred.
Bosses that heap goodies on their workers have a better product and company,
and a bigger rate of return. Cooperation and mutual rewarding will lead to a better
system. History is filled with such bosses and workers.
The system Marx dissected for his idea that labor and management are at war with
each other was a leftist-statist idea that is part and parcel of the
monarchist/religious systems of government then in place. Marx merely used a
different terminology to describe his communist system. It was, however, the same
system.
It is true, that as each person seeks to get the most out of what he puts in, and as
conditions fluctuate, there comes a time when workers and bosses perception of
what is fair will differ. It is still not an adversarial relationship in the Marxist sense.
The boss has no inherent need to keep his laborers underpaid. The newer class of
bosses has no logical or economic grounds for keeping his workers underpaid. Nor
does the worker have an inherent need to rip off his boss, to bleed his boss dry.
The valuation of the boss's desire to pay and the valuation of the worker's pay is in
a state of flux. Haggling and negotiations are called for; thus to find common cause.
Much as the rug maker will ask for a sum he feels his rug is worth as the purchaser
says he will only pay so much. There is a difference of opinion which cooperation
and working together will solve. This collective bargaining -- contracts, agreement,
etc., are all OK, and not at all adversarial, and thus resolvable. Differning opinions
don't necessarily make adversaries, especially in the apocolyptic way that Marx
viewed labor-management relations.
The concept that bosses have an inherent need to keep wages low is a punitive
and adversarial approach that goes against the natural cooperation of man. That is
essentially irresolvable. And will thus lead to violence. That the boss is a communist
boss is not different from a boss who is a Duke, or a fascist commandant.
Bosses as a class -- being smarter in the first place (at least in regard to the project
on which he is working) see that cooperating with his workers will produce more
and better products, and paying them more for their labors will buy more products.
And the workers will work longer and harder. Generous bonuses are good for the
economy. Stingy bosses are bad.
Of what purpose is a washing machine manufacturer paying his workers the
subsistence wages when they would not be able to buy his machines?
This need to pay workers more than a subsistence level is at the heart of a growing
economy. It is at the heart of a positive boss/worker relationship.
Because Marx saw the value of a thing only in it labor input, any excess value
derived from price, and more than what was paid to the worker already must belong
to the worker. The boss was to be worker. Ignoring the risk bosses took, the extra
intelligence, or at least patience and fortitude and knowledge. They were deemed
to put in no more than labor than the physical laborers. And these bosses so quickly
turned to corruption, and embezzlement, and the taking of perquisites secretly.
Because as humans they want a return on their labor that was greater that they put
in.
Where workers toil all for the government and where bosses receive no relative
extra benefit there is rampant corruption, waste, fraud, mismanagement, and sloth.
And as the wealth of the nation is eaten -- dissipating -- then the level of such
corruption and other ill effects increases. Then economic behavior is altered so that
even the workers join him. Hence, the more government, the more crime (of a
non-violent nature). The more economic crime, too. And this, too, can be laid out on
a left right continuum.
political systems.
It is inescapable that people want to work, they want to survive, and they want to
make life easier and more beneficial for themselves and loved ones. Getting more
and more for the same amount of work, or even from less work, is a major goal of
humankind.
Any and all efforts to interfere with that one goal is inevitability defeated by human
ingenuity. As much as communism caused people to flee, the income tax causes
people to avoid its reach. They are of the same class, and differ only in degree.
Marx himself devised the idea of the graduated income tax. We are leaning
leftward in our application of this tax. The more it intrudes, the more people try to
avoid it. That is a current condition in the United States. The continual leftward
movement in taxes, and hence government control, will lead people to ever more
avoidance. Either through illegal maneuvering, or by just stopping to produce more
wealth.
It is at the point in which no new wealth is being created that we begin to dip into
that national bank account. We have hovered near that from time to time under Ford
and Carter recently. While the Reagan years saw the doubling of the size of the
economy because of its real and perceived politics and attitudes. We are now
appearing to be reentering such an eat-the-wealth period.
The income taxes in America that feeds the entitlement programs are causing
people to do illegal activities centered on hiding their income and wealth. In
addition, there are groups of people, i.e., special interests, attempting to get this or
that loophole or other benefit, so that they can escape the pitfalls of the larger
system. As more people seek loopholes, more people will seek to avoid paying
taxes. Instead of calling for simplification to bring the code within peoples'
expectations, we are calling for more enforcement of an unworkable system.
Special interests are merely people trying to preserve what they see as the ratio --
the balance, between what they put into the system and what they get out of it.
Because the socialist paradigm posits that there is an inherent fight between
different classes of people, there is the idea among those not in a special interest
group to perceive that that group is somehow getting benefits to which it is not
entitled to -- that it does not deserve. At the same time, these same people have
their own special interest, for which they seek their own benefits. Of course the first
special interest takes exception to the second special interest, not only for fighting
against it, but for seeking their own benefits. Thus there is a spiraling multitude of
envies, hatreds, accusations and blamings.
The idea that there is an inherent battle between classes is wrong. The battle lies
between those who want to control things, whether the monarchist, the communist,
or the fascists -- and those who seek to exercise their simple and complex rights to
own and produce, and survive and do as one pleases while leaving others alone in
peace.
There is no doubt that humans come in various levels of intelligence, physical
strength, desire to work or be lazy. There is plethora of social and mental
conditions. There is a variable level of acceptance for risk. Some people are
leaders and some followers. Some are physically coordinated -- some are klutzes.
All the things which make humans different naturally make them suitable to different
tasks. It is this natural differentiation which leads to the congregation of humans. As
one recognizes that he can do one task but not another, he seeks out others who
can do tasks that he cannot do himself. So that by joining in labor -- or trading labor
-- both make themselves better off. Cooperation among those with differences in
abilities creates a better way to survive and a more efficient use of an individuals'
time and labor. He can keep his stored labor longer and make it worth more,
through cooperation.
The creator of an idea -- understanding its components and its wholeness -- and
willing to take the risk of doing harm to his ability for self survival, by engaging in a
certain project economically -- may require help. There are others, of no
imagination, of not understanding the wholeness, but who can labor at creating a
component -- and unwilling to risk survival, who can help, the relationship between
this creator and this laborer is cooperative, mutually beneficial. And not at all
against each other. The worker gets no risk, and some security -- while the creator
assumes the risk with less security. As risk inherently has more value than security
and sureness, than the creator puts more into the project, and so gets more out of
the project.
The laborer is satisfied with his return on his input. Or he gets another job. It is in his
best interest in his quest for survival -- it is in his best interest -- in his quest for
survival, that he cooperates with the creator.
In a worldview -- or paradigm -- of freedom that will supersede the current
paradigm, a worker would seek to join his boss in making a better place of work
and better project. But at a certain point in the relationship the worker realizes that
he is putting in more than he is receiving -- and this will be his view and only his
view of his own condition. As discussed above, people will not long tolerate putting
in more than they get in return. It is intuitively wrongheaded to event the stupidest
coal miner, even to the illiterate sharecropper.
And so that worker asks for a raise, or a piece of the profits, or more time off, or
more benefits. He seeks more of what he values more, in trying to bring the balance
back to what he puts in and what he gets out. In the face of a boss who refuses to
accede the worker inevitably sloughs off, works less diligently. It is absurd, after all,
to expect a worker to continue to work harder than what he receives from his labor.
It is only decades of socialist thinking that has caused so many bosses to think that
he must screw his laborers. Get more from him than the boss is willing to give to the
worker. This leads to labor strife, to lousy worker habits and poor quality -- tension
and alienation and even hatred.
Bosses that heap goodies on their workers have a better product and company,
and a bigger rate of return. Cooperation and mutual rewarding will lead to a better
system. History is filled with such bosses and workers.
The system Marx dissected for his idea that labor and management are at war with
each other was a leftist-statist idea that is part and parcel of the
monarchist/religious systems of government then in place. Marx merely used a
different terminology to describe his communist system. It was, however, the same
system.
It is true, that as each person seeks to get the most out of what he puts in, and as
conditions fluctuate, there comes a time when workers and bosses perception of
what is fair will differ. It is still not an adversarial relationship in the Marxist sense.
The boss has no inherent need to keep his laborers underpaid. The newer class of
bosses has no logical or economic grounds for keeping his workers underpaid. Nor
does the worker have an inherent need to rip off his boss, to bleed his boss dry.
The valuation of the boss's desire to pay and the valuation of the worker's pay is in
a state of flux. Haggling and negotiations are called for; thus to find common cause.
Much as the rug maker will ask for a sum he feels his rug is worth as the purchaser
says he will only pay so much. There is a difference of opinion which cooperation
and working together will solve. This collective bargaining -- contracts, agreement,
etc., are all OK, and not at all adversarial, and thus resolvable. Differning opinions
don't necessarily make adversaries, especially in the apocolyptic way that Marx
viewed labor-management relations.
The concept that bosses have an inherent need to keep wages low is a punitive
and adversarial approach that goes against the natural cooperation of man. That is
essentially irresolvable. And will thus lead to violence. That the boss is a communist
boss is not different from a boss who is a Duke, or a fascist commandant.
Bosses as a class -- being smarter in the first place (at least in regard to the project
on which he is working) see that cooperating with his workers will produce more
and better products, and paying them more for their labors will buy more products.
And the workers will work longer and harder. Generous bonuses are good for the
economy. Stingy bosses are bad.
Of what purpose is a washing machine manufacturer paying his workers the
subsistence wages when they would not be able to buy his machines?
This need to pay workers more than a subsistence level is at the heart of a growing
economy. It is at the heart of a positive boss/worker relationship.
Because Marx saw the value of a thing only in it labor input, any excess value
derived from price, and more than what was paid to the worker already must belong
to the worker. The boss was to be worker. Ignoring the risk bosses took, the extra
intelligence, or at least patience and fortitude and knowledge. They were deemed
to put in no more than labor than the physical laborers. And these bosses so quickly
turned to corruption, and embezzlement, and the taking of perquisites secretly.
Because as humans they want a return on their labor that was greater that they put
in.
Where workers toil all for the government and where bosses receive no relative
extra benefit there is rampant corruption, waste, fraud, mismanagement, and sloth.
And as the wealth of the nation is eaten -- dissipating -- then the level of such
corruption and other ill effects increases. Then economic behavior is altered so that
even the workers join him. Hence, the more government, the more crime (of a
non-violent nature). The more economic crime, too. And this, too, can be laid out on
a left right continuum.
| CHAPTER 14 |
| Jim Hlavac |
The Socialist Era
| Poltics, Theory & Economics |
