 |
|
 |
| Ir al artículo anterior |
Ir al principio del artículo |
Ir al artículo
siguiente
|
La cultura de las rentas
básicas. Historia de un concepto
José Iglesias Fernández
Platón
( nacido por el 427-347 a. c.). The Republic.
Penguin Books.
Término: mechanical arts and fire as the
means of life; justice and reverence to
all
Justificación. “Justice
is, for Plato, at once a part of
human virtue and the bond which joins men together in states. It is an
identical quality which makes man good an which makes him social. This
identification is the first and
fundamental principle of Plato’s political philosophy… (p.45)
“This is illustrated by a myth which Plato
puts in the mouth of
Protagoras, the Sophist:
Once upon a
time there were gods only, and no mortal creatures. But when the time
came that
these also should be created, the gods fashioned them out of earth and
fire and
the various mixtures of both elements in the interior of the earth; and
when
they were about to bring them into the light of day, they ordered
Prometheus
and Epimetheus to equip them, and to distribute to them severally their
proper
abilities and powers.
Epimetheus
said to Prometheus: “Let me distribute and do you inspect”. This was
agreed,
and Epimetheus made the distribution. There were some to whom he gave
strength
without swiftness, while he equipped the weaker with swiftness; some he
armed,
and others he left unarmed; and devised for the latter some other means
of
preservation, making some large, and having their size as a protection,
and
others small, whose nature was to fly in the air or burrow in the
ground; this
was to be their way of escape. Thus did he compensate them with the
view of
preventing any race from becoming extinct. And when he had provided
against
their destruction by one another, he contrived also a means of
protecting them
against the seasons of heaven; clothing them with close hair and thick
skins
sufficient to defend them against the winter cold and able to resist
the summer
heat, so that they might have a natural bed of their own when they
wanted to
rest; also he furnished them with hoofs and hair and hard and callous
skins
under their feet. Then he gave them varieties of food –herb of the soil
to
some, to others fruits of trees, and to others roots, and to some again
he gave
other animals as food. And some he made to have few young ones, while
those who
were their prey were very prolific; and in this manner the race was
preserved.
Thus did
Epimetheus, who, not being very wise, forgot that he had distributed
among the
brute animals all the qualities which he had to give, -and when he came
to man,
who was still unprovided, he was terribly perplexed. Now, while he was
in this
perplexity, Prometheus came to inspect
the distribution, and he found that the other animals were
suitably
furnished, but that man alone was naked and shoeless, and had neither
bed nor
arms of defence. The appointed hour was approaching when man in his
turn was to
go forth into the light of day; and Prometheus, not knowing how he
could devise
his salvation, stole the mechanical arts of Hephaestus and Athene, and fire with them (they could neither have
been acquired nor used without fire), and gave them to man. Thus man
had the
wisdom necessary to the support of life, but political wisdom he has
not; for
that was in the keeping of Zeus, and the power of Prometheus did not
extend to
entering into the citadel of heaven, where Zeus dwelt, who moreover had
terrible sentinels; but he did enter by stealth into the common
workshop of
Athene and Hephaestus, in which they used to practise their favourite
arts, and
carried off Hephaestus’ art of working fire, and also the art of
Athene, and
gave them to man. And in this way man was supplied with the means
of life. But
Prometheus is said to have been afterwards prosecuted for theft, owing
to the
blunder of Epimetheus.
Now
man,
having a share of the divine attributes, was at first the only one of
the
animals who had any gods, because he alone was of their kindred; and ho
would
raise altars and images of them. He was not long in inventing
articulate speech
and names; and he also constructed houses and clothes and shoes and
beds, and
drew sustenance from the earth. Thus provided, mankind at first lived
dispersed, and there were no cities.[1] But the consequence was that they
were destroyed by the wild beasts, for they were utterly weak in
comparison of
them, and their art was only sufficient to provide them with the means
of life,
and did not enable them to carry on war against the animals: food they
had, but
not as yet the art of government, of which the art of war is a part.
After a
while the desire of self-preservation gathered them into cities; but
when they
were gathered together, having no art of government, they evil
intreated one another,
and were again in process of dispersion and destruction. Zeus feared
that the
entire race would be exterminated, and so he sent Hermes to them,
bearing
reverence and justice to be the ordering principles of cities and the
bonds of
friendship and conciliation. Hermes asked Zeus how he should impart
justice and
reverence among men: -Should he distribute them as the arts are
distributed;
that is to say, each art to a few men only, one skilled individual
having
enough of medicine or of any other art for many unskilled ones? “Shall
this be
the manner in which I am to distribute justice and reverence among men,
or
shall I give them to all?” “To all”, said Zeus; “I should like them all to have a
share; for cities cannot exist, if a few only share these virtues, as
in the
arts. And further, make a law by my order, that he who has no part in
reverence
and justice shall be put to death, for he is a plague to the state”. (pp. 44-45)
Protágoras
(nacido por el 490-480;
muerto por el 420-411 a. c.). T.A.
Sinclair. A History of Greek Political
Thought. Routledge & Keegan London 1951.
Términos: decency (regard for others) and
right
Justificación.
“Protagoras has left behind no written discussion that has survived.
Political
goodness has its basis on moral goodness; and its discovery was one of
the
foundations upon which Plato built in his Republic. He had of
course a
number of guiding principles, some of which were in evidence in the
working of
the Athenian constitution in the time of Pericles. So that if he did
set about
constructing an ideal constitution we may be sure that he would bear in
mind
three things, the third being by far the most important:
1. All are equal before the law and all are
responsible for their actions.
2.
The able and well-trained man is of more use than the others and
deserves
honour and promotion accordingly.
3. That which is socially
beneficial is ethically sound”. (p. 60
“But it is
well to remember that its Plato’s work, a dramatic
reconstruction, almost a historical play, so skilfully written that it
is easy
to delude ourselves into thinking that we are reading a verbatim
account. Yet we need not on that account reject the evidence; we can at
least
be fairly confident that the myth which Protagoras tells was taken by
Plato
from the work of Protagoras on the original condition of mankind”.(p.
55)
“Protagoras
was not the first to make Man the centre of the cosmos,[2] but he opened up a new line of
thought by seeking to solve some of the
problems of political theory in the light of the origins of political
living…
[First, he said that] ‘About the gods I cannot know either that they
exist or
that they do not; for many are the hindrances to such knowledge, both
the lack
of certainty and the shortness of human life… [Second], Man is the
measure of
all things…[Third], every man has a share of justice and general
citizen-skill…(pp. 56-57)
“Taking as a
basis the myth of Prometheus he adapts and expands it
freely. He notes the miserable condition of primitive man and the
successive
marks of civilisation –religion, language, agriculture, weaving,
building, and
al the various means which helped to make life more tolerable. But the
danger
from wild animals continued and could not be overcome except by
co-operation
and mutual aid; and all the arts which man had hitherto acquired did
not
include the ‘political art’. Hence they did not ‘play fair’ and the
first
experiment in living in cities broke down. In order to save the human
race from
extermination Zeus sent Hermes to bring to men decency and
right. From this we infer
that training in the political art can only be given when the necessary
moral
qualities are present. And these two qualities, we next learn, make for
peace
in cities and unite the citizens in a bond of friendship, but they do
not of
themselves make a cure for decency and right. For this education and
training
are essential. The myth concludes as follows: ‘Hermes then asks Zeus in
what
manner he is to distribute right and decency to men, whether hi is to
follow
the same plan as in the distribution of skill, that is to say, one
person
skilled in medicine to serve a number of other non-medical persons, and
so with
other crafts. Is he to put right and decency into the world on that
system or
is he to bestow them on all men?’ ‘Upon all men’, replied Zeus, ‘they
must all
participate in these. If only a few were to possess these, as is the
case with
professional skills, there would be no cities. And lay it down as a law
coming
from me that anyone who is incapable of decency and right shall be put
to death
as a national pest’”. (pp. 58-59)
1698.
John Locke (1632-1704). Two Treatises of Government.
A
Fundamentos. “Tough the Earth,
and all the inferior
Creatures be common to all Men, yet every Man has a Property
in his own Person.
This no Body has any Right to but himself. The Labour
of his Body, and the Work
of his Hands, we may say, are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes
out of
the State that Nature hath provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to it something
that I his own, and thereby makes it his Property.
It being by him removed from the common state Nature placed it in, hath
by his labour something annexed to it, that
excludes the common right of other Men. For this, Labour
being the unquestionable Property of the Labourer, no Man
but he can have a right to what that is once joined to, at least where
there is
enough, and as good left in common for others”. (Versículo 27;
5, 10, 15)
“If
Man in
the State of
“The great and
chief end therefore, of Men uniting
into Commonwealths, and putting themselves under Government, is the Preservation of their Property.
To which in the state of Nature there are many things wanting. First.
There
wants an establish’d, settled, known Law,
received and allowed by common
consent to be the Standard of Right and Wrong, and the common measure
to decide
all Controversies between them. For though the Law of Nature be plain
an
intelligible to all rational Creatures, yet Men, being biased by their
Interest, as well as ignorant for want of study of it, are not apt to
allow of
it as a Law binding to them in the application of it to their
particular
Cases”. (V. 124; 5,10)
1796. Thomas Paine (1737-1809). Agrarian Justice. En Collected Writings,
pp. 397-399. The Library of
Término: ground-rent.
Justificación. “The most
affluent and the most miserable of
the human race are to be found in the countries that are called
civilized...
Poverty, therefore, is a thing created by that which is called
civilized life”.
(p. 397)
“There could be no such a thing as landed
property originally. Man did
not make the earth, and though he had natural right to occupy
it, he had no right to locate
as his property in perpetuity any
part of it: neither did the Creator of the earth open a land-office,
from
whence the first title-deeds should issue. From whence then arose the
idea of
landed property?” (p. 399)
“The thing
therefore now to be done is, to remedy the evils, and preserve the
benefits,
that have arisen to society, by passing from the natural to that which
is
called the civilized state”. (p. 397)
“It
is a
position not to be controverted, that the earth, in its natural
uncultivated
state, was, and ever would have continued to be, the COMMON
PROPERTY OF THE HUMAN RACE. In that
state every man would have been born to property. He would
have been a joint life-proprietor with the rest in the property of the
soil,
and in all its natural productions, vegetable and animal”. (p. 398)
Financiación. “But the
earth, in its natural state, as
before said, is capable of supporting but a small number of inhabitants
compared with what it is capable of doing in a cultivated state. And as
it is
impossible to separate the improvement made by cultivation, from the
earth itself,
upon which that improvement is made, the idea of landed property arose
from
that inseparable connection; but it is nevertheless true, that it is
the value
of the improvement only, and not the earth itself, that is individual
property.
Every proprietor therefore of cultivated land, owes to the community a ground-rent;
for I know no better term to
express the idea by, for the land which he holds: and it’s from this
ground-rent that the fund proposed in this plan is to issue”. (p. 398)
1819. Robert
Owen (1771-1883). (i) Report
to the Committee for the Relief of the Manufacturing Poor (1817);
(ii) A Catechism of the New View of Society and
Three Addresses (1817); (iii) An
Address to the Working Classes (1819).
En A New View of Society and Other
Writings. Denton & Sons Ltd.
Fundamentos.
“Under the
existing laws, the unemployed working classes are maintained by, and
consume
part of, the property and produce of the wealthy and industrious, while
their
powers of body and mind remain unproductive. They frequently
acquire the bad habits which
ignorance and idleness never fail to produce; they amalgamate with the
regular
poor, and become a nuisance to society.
Most of the
poor have received bad an vicious habits from their parents; and so
long as
their present treatment continues, those
bad and vicious habits will be transmitted to their children and,
through them,
to succeeding generations. Any plan, then, to ameliorate their
condition, must
prevent bad and vicious habits from being taught to their children, and
provide
the means by which only good and useful ones may be given to them… to
provide
useful training and instruction for them, to provide proper labour for
the
adults, to direct their labour and the expenditure so as to produce the
greatest benefit to themselves and to society; and to place them under
such
circumstances as shall remove them from unnecessary temptations, and
closely
unite their interest and duty.
These
advantages cannot be given either to individuals or to families
separately, or
to large congregated numbers. They can be effectually introduced into
practice
only under arrangements that would unite in one establishment a
population of
from 500 to 1.500 persons, averaging about 1.000”. (i; p. 159-161)
“These Villages, Owen suggested, should be in
the main self-supporting. They should be agricultural as well as
industrial,
and should raise the produce needed for their own consumption,
exchanging their
surplus products of different kinds one with another. As they would be
based on
rational principles of education, they would not compete but co-operate
one
with another, and their aim would be as much as to train good citizens
as to
relive the necessities of the poor. If this were done, Owen, argued,
the need
for poor rates would speedily disappear, and, by the same token, the
foundations of a new and better social order for the whole community
would
speedily be laid.”(p. xiii)[3]
“From
infancy you, like others, have been made to despise and to hate those
who
differ from you in manners, language, and sentiments. You have been
filled with
all uncharitableness, and in consequence cherish feelings of anger
towards your fellow-men who have been
placed in
opposition to your interest. Those feelings of anger must be withdrawn
before
any being who has your real interest at
heart can place power in your hands. You must be made to know
yourselves, by
which means alone you can discover what other men are. You will then
distinctly
perceive that no rational ground for anger exists, even against those
who by
errors of the present system have been made your greatest oppressors and you most bitter enemies. An endless
multiplicity of circumstances, over which you had not the smallest
control,
placed you where you are, and as you are. In the same manner, others of
your
fellow-men have been formed by circumstances, equally uncontrollable by
them,
to become your enemies and grievous oppressors. In strict justice they
are no
more to be blamed for these results than you are; nor you than they;
and,
splendid as their exterior may be, this state of matters often causes
them to
suffer even more poignantly than you. They have therefore an interest,
strong
as yours, in the change which is about to commence for the equal
benefit of
all, provide you do not create a more
formidable counteracting interest on their
parts; of which the result must be, to prolong the existing misery of
both
classes, ant to retard the public good”. (iii; p. 149)
“Are you
then prepared to look upon all your fellow-creatures, in power or out
of power,
rich and poor, learned and un learned, good and bad, as beings formed
solely by
the circumstances of their birth, and who have been made as they are,
whatever
they may be, from causes which exclude the possibility of the smallest
control
on their parts in the formation of those faculties and qualities they
may
happen to possess?” (iii; p. 150-151)
Financiación. “There are
several modes by which this plan may
be effected. It may be accomplished by individuals, -by parishes, by
counties,
by districts, etc., comprising more counties than one, and by the
nation at
large, through its Government. (i; p. 164)
“It
appears
to me that the country posses the most ample means to attain this
object, if
they were called into action. Those means consist of land unemployed;
land
imperfectly cultivated; money employed unprofitably; manual powers of
labour
idle, demoralizing, and consequently generating every kind of evil in
society;
artificial or mechanical agency almost unlimited, and which might be
made
available for the most important purposes. These are the means which,
if
properly combined and put into action, would soon relieve the country
from
poverty and its attendants evils”. (ii; p. 175)
“The first
thing that it is necessary is, to raise a sum of money adequate to
purchase the
land (or it may be rented) to build the square manufactories,
farm-houses, and
their appendages – to stock the farm- and to provide everything to put
the
whole in motion…
The
money
necessary for founding establishments on
the principle of the plan now proposed, may be obtained by
consolidating the
funds of some of the public charities; by equalizing the poor rates and
borrowing on their security. The poor, including those belonging to
public
charities, should be made national… The funds may be raised by
borrowing of
individuals who have now a surplus capital unemployed; by borrowing
from any
other financial arrangement that may be deemed preferable. The
establishments
rapidly increasing in value by the labour of the individuals on the
land, will
soon become a sufficient security for a large proportion of the money
that may
be expended in this purchase.
Hence will
arise a superabundance of funds and labour. The country should be
surveyed, and
the best situations for these agricultural and manufacturing
establishments be
ascertained”. (i; pp. 164-167)
1917. Bertrand
Russell (1872-19 ). Political Ideals.
Unwin Books.
Término: free sharing
Justificación. “Economic
systems are concerned essentially
with the production and distribution of material goods. Our present
system is
wasteful on the production side, and unjust on the side of
distribution. It
involves a life of slavery to economic force for the great majority of
the
community, and for the minority a degree of power over the lives of
others
which no man ought to have”. (1963, 40-41)
“In the choice of a means of livelihood
all [persons] ought, as far as
possible, to be able to choose what is attractive to them; if no
money-making
occupation is attractive , they ought to be free to do little work for
little
pay, and spend their leisure as they choose”. (1966, 73)
“The idea
of purchase and payment is so familiar that the proposal to do away
with it
must be thought fantastic. Yet I do not believe it is nearly so
fantastic as it
seems. Even if we could all have bread for nothing, we should not want
more
than a quite limited amount. As things are, the cost of bread to the
rich is so
small a proportion of their income as to afford practically no check
upon their
consumption; yet the amount of bread that they consume could easily be
supplied
to the whole population by improved methods of agriculture. The amount
of food
that people desire has natural limits, and the waste that would be
incurred
would probably not be very great. As the Anarchists[4] point out, people at present enjoy
an unlimited water-supply, but very few leave the taps running when
they are
not using them. And one may assume that public opinion would be opposed
to
excessive waste. I think that the principle of unlimited supply could
be
adopted in regard to all commodities of which the demand limits that
fall short
of what can be easily produced. And this would be the case, if
production were
efficiently organized, with the necessaries of life, including not only
commodities, but all such things as education. Even if all education
were free
up to the highest, young people, unless they were radically transformed
by the
Anarchist régime, would not want more
than a certain amount of it. And the same applies to plain foods, plain
clothes, and the rest of the things that supply our elementary needs”.
(1966,
74-75)
Viabilidad. “I
think we may conclude that there is no technical impossibility in the
Anarchist plan of free
sharing. But, would the
necessary work be done, if the individual were assured of the general
standard
of comfort even though he did no work?
“Most people
will answer this question unhesitatingly in the negative. In
particular, those
employers who are in the habit of denouncing their employees as a set
of lazy,
drunken louts will feel quite certain that no work could be got out of
them
except under threat of dismal and consequently starvation… There would,
of
course, be a certain proportion of population who would prefer
idleness.
Provided the proportion is very small, this need not matter. And among
those
who would be classed as idlers might be include artists, writers of
books, men
devoted to abstract intellectual pursuits, in short, all those whom
society
despises while they are alive and honours when they are dead. To such
men, the
possibility of pursuing their own work regardless of any public
recognition of
its utility would be invaluable. Whoever will observe how many of our
pots have
been men of private means will realize how much poetic capacity must
have
remained undeveloped through poverty; for it would be absurd to suppose
that
the rich are better endowed by nature with the capacity for poetry.
Freedom for
such men, few as they are, must be against the waste of the mere
idlers. (1966,
75-77)
1919. Nicolai Ivanovich Bukharin (1888-1938) y Evgenii Alexeievic Preobrazhensky (1886-1937). The ABC of Communism. Pelican Classics. Penguin Books. England 1969.
Expresión de referencia. de cada uno según su capacidad; a cada uno según se necesidad
Justificación.
“Capitalism is based upon the exploitation of
labour. A small minority owns everything; the working masses own
nothing. The
capitalists command; the workers obey. The capitalists exploit; the
workers are
exploited. The very essence of capitalist society is found in this
merciless
and ever-increasing exploitation.
As opposed
to it, “the basis of communist society must be social ownership of the
means of
production and exchange…
Producción. “Capitalist
production is a practical
instrument for the extraction of surplus vale. This greed knows no
limits. It
is the pivot, the prime motive, of capitalist production. As opposed to
it,
“the communist method of production must present the following
characteristics:
In the first place it must be an organized
society; it must be free from anarchy of production, from competition
between
individual entrepreneurs, from wars and crises. In the second place, it
must be
a classless society, not a society in
which two halves are at eternal enmity one with the other; it must not
be a
society in which one class exploits the other. Now a society in which
there are
no classes, and in which production is organized, can only be a society of comrades, a communist society
based upon labour…
“The
cooperative character of communist production is likewise displayed in
every
detail of organization. Under communism, for example, there will not be
permanent managers of factories, nor there persons who do one and the
same kind
of work throughout their lives. Under capitalism, if a man is a boot
maker, he
spends his whole life in making boots; if he is a pastry cook, he
spends all
his life baking cakes; if he is a manager of a factory, he spends his
days in
issuing orders and in administrative work; if he is a mere labourer,
his whole
life is spent in obeying orders. Nothing of this sort happens in
communist
society. Under communism people receive a many-sided culture, and find
themselves at home in various branches of production: today I work in a
administrative capacity, I reckon up how many felt boots or how many
French
rolls must be produced in the following month; tomorrow I shall be
working in a
soap-factory, next month perhaps in a steam-laundry, and the month
after in an
electric power station. This will be possible when all the members of
society
have been suitably educated…
Distribución. “The
communist method of production
presupposes in addition that production is not for the market, but for
use.
Under communism, it is no longer the individual manufacturer or the
individual
peasant who produces; the work of production is affected by the
gigantic
cooperative as a whole. In consequence of this change, we no longer
have commodities, but only products.
These products are not
exchanged one for another; they are not bought or sold. They are simply
stored
in the communal warehouses, and are subsequently delivered to those who
need
them. In such conditions, money will no longer be required. ‘How can
that be?’
some of you will ask. ‘In that case one person will get too much and
another
too little. What sense is there in such a method of distribution?’ The
answer
is as follows. At first, doubtless, and perhaps for twenty or thirty
years, it
will be necessary to have various regulations. Maybe certain products
will only
be supplied to those persons who have a special entry in their
work-book or in
their work-card. Subsequently, when communist society has been
consolidated and
fully developed, no such regulations will be needed. There will be an
ample
quantity of all products, our present wounds will long since have been
healed,
and everyone will be able to get just as much as he needs. ‘But will
not people
find it to their interest to take more than they need?’ Certainly not.
Today,
for example, no one thinks it worth while when he wants one seat in a
tram, to
take three tickets and keep two places empty. It will be just the same
in the case
of all products. A person will take from communal storehouse precisely
as much
as he needs, no more. No one will have any interest in taking more than
he
wants in order to sell the surplus to others, since all these others
can
satisfy their needs whenever they please. Money will then have no value.
“Our meaning is that in the first days of communist society products will probably be distributed in proportion to the work done by the applicant (which does not mean that the worker will receive ‘the full product of his labour’); at a later stage, however, they will simply be supplied according to the needs of the comrades, for there will be an abundance of everything… (pp. 113-117).
Este sería seguramente el momento de poder aplicar el importante criterio sobre la distribución socialista establecido por Marx en la Crítica al Programa de Gotha: “de cada cual, según sus capacidades; a cada cual, según sus necesidades”.
Disciplina laboral fraterna versus vagancia. “The productivity of a country is
not solely determined by the quantity of machinery, raw materials and
other
material means of production; its productivity depends also upon labour
power…
“The
capitalist method of production kept the workers in subjection;
compelled them
to work for their masters; imposed upon them, in effect, the discipline
of the
lash…
“The period
of the destruction of the old [capitalist] discipline is over. There is
now
being inaugurated a new, a comradely labour discipline, not imposed and
sustained by masters… or the capitalist whip, but by the labour
organizations
themselves, by the factory and workshop committees, and the trade
unions. When
we are organizing production, we cannot leave out of account the
organization
of labour in the factory…
“A
comradely labour discipline is one of the most important means for the
organization of social production and for the increase of productivity:
Comradely discipline must be accompanied by the complete
spontaneity of the working class. The workers must not
wait for orders from above, must not lack initiative. Far from this,
every
improvement in production, every discovery of new methods of organizing
labour,
must be trail for itself… Everything that is needed can be effected
from below
upwards through the instrumentality of the labour organizations…[5]
“Labour
discipline must be based upon the feeling and the
consciousness that every worker is responsible to his class,
upon the consciousness that slackness and carelessness are treason to
the
common cause of the workers. The capitalists no longer exist as a
dominant
caste. The workers no longer work for capitalists, usurers, and
bankers; they
work for themselves.[6]
“Finally,
labour discipline must be based upon the
strictest mutual control. Since all the comrades know that a
decline in the
productivity of labour will involve the ruin of the whole working
class, that
if we fail to improve in this respect we shall inevitably perish, they
must all
supervise with a proprietary eye the common tasks of utilizing the
life-giving
energies of nature. For labour is a struggle; it is a struggle with
nature…
(pp. 338-340).
1928. Bernard
Shaw (1856-1950). The Intelligent Woman's Guide to
Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism. Pelican Book. Penguins Book.
Expresión: enough wealth for
everybody to be fairly respectable and well-to-do
Let
us
consider for a moment what any plan must do to be acceptable. And
first, as
everybody except the Franciscan Friars and the Poor Clares will say
that no
plan will be acceptable unless it abolishes poverty (and even
Franciscan
poverty must be voluntary and not compelled) let us study poverty for a
moment.
It
is
generally agreed that poverty is a very uncomfortable misfortune for
the
individual who happens to be poor. But poor people, when they are not
suffering
from acute hunger and severe cold, are not unhappy than rich people:
they are
often much happier. You can easily find people who are ten times as
rich at
sixty as they were at twenty; but no one of them will tell you that
they are
ten times as happy. All the thoughtful ones will assure you that
happiness and
unhappiness are constitutional, and have nothing to do with money.
Money can
cure hunger: it cannot cure unhappiness. Food can satisfy the appetite,
but not
the soul. A famous German Socialist, Ferdinand Lassale, said that what
beat him in his efforts to stir up the poor to revolt
against poverty was their wantlessness. They were not, of course,
content;
nobody is; but they were not discontented enough to take any serious
trouble to
change their condition….
Such poverty as we
have
today in all our great cities degrades the poor, and infects with its
degradation the whole neighbourhood in which they live. And whatever
can
degrade a neighbourhood can degrade a country and a continent and
finally the
whole civilized world, which is only a large neighbourhood. Its bad
effects
cannot be escaped by the rich. When poverty produces outbreaks of
virulent
infectious disease, as it always does sooner or later, the rich catch
the
disease and see their children die of it. When it produces crime and
violence
the rich go in fear of both, and are put to a good deal of expense to
protect
their persons and property. When it produces bad manners and bad
language the
children of the rich pick them up no matter how carefully they are
secluded,
and such seclusion as they get does them more harm than good. If poor
and pretty
young women find, as they do, that they can make more money by vice
than by
honest work, they will poison the blood of rich young men who, when
they marry,
will infect their wives and children, and cause them all sorts of
bodily
troubles, sometimes ending in disfigurement and blindness and death,
and always
doing them more or less mischief…. Though the rich end of the town can
avoid
living with the poor end, it cannot avoid dying with it when the plague
comes…
Besides, as
long as poverty remains possible we shall never be sure that it will
not
overtake ourselves. If we dig a pit for others we may fall into it: if
we leave
a precipice unfenced our children may fall over it when they are
playing. We
see the most innocent and respectable families falling into the
unfenced pit of
poverty every day: and how do we know that it will not be our turn next?
It
is
perhaps the greatest folly of which a nation can be guilty to attempt
to use
poverty as a sort of punishment for offences that it does not send
people to prison
for. It is easy to say of a lazy man ‘Oh, let him be poor: it serves
him right
for being lazy: it will teach him a lesson’. In saying so we are
ourselves too
lazy to think a little before we lay down the law. We cannot afford to
have
poor people anyhow, whether they are lazy or busy, drunken or sober,
virtuous
or vicious, thrifty or careless, wise or foolish. If they deserve to
suffer let
them be made to suffer in some other way; for mere poverty will not
hurt them
half as much as it will hurt their innocent neighbours. It is a public
nuisance
as well as a private misfortune. Its toleration is a national crime.
Distribución. “We must
therefore take it as an
indispensable condition of a sound distribution of wealth that everyone
must
have a share sufficient to keep her or him from poverty.
This is not
altogether new. Ever since the days of Queen Elizabeth it has been the
law of
“To
that
extent the law of
1930.
John
Maynard Keynes (1883-1946). "Economic possibilities for our grandchildren". The
Collected Writings of John Maynard
Keynes. Volume IX, Macmillan.
Expresión: to devote our further energies to
non-economic purposes / doing nothing
for ever end ever.[7]
Justificación. “The
modern age opened, I think, with the
accumulation of capital which began in the sixteenth century... At the
same
time technical improvements in manufacture and transport have been
proceeding
at a greater rate in the last ten years than ever before in history...
For the
moment the very rapidity of these changes is hurting us and bringing
difficult
problems to solve... namely, technological
unemployment... But this is only a temporary phase of
maladjustment. All
this means in the long run that mankind
is solving its economic problem. I would predict that the standard
of life
in progressive countries on hundred years hence will be between four
and eight
times as high as it is today”.
“Now it is
true that the needs of human beings may seem to be insatiable. But they
fall
into two classes -those needs which are absolute in the sense that we
feel them
whatever the situation of our fellow human beings may be, and those
which are
relative in the sense that we feel them only if their satisfaction
lifts us
above, makes us feel superior to, our fellows. Needs of the second
class, those
which satisfy the desire for superiority, may indeed be insatiable; for
the
higher the general level, the higher still are they. But this is not so
true of
the absolute needs- a point may soon be reached, much sooner perhaps
than we
all of us are ware of, when these needs are satisfied in the sense that
we
prefer to devote our further energies to non-economic purposes”.
“I
draw
that, assuming no important wars and no important increase in
population, the economic problem may be solved, or at
least within sight of solution, within a hundred years. This means that
the
economic problem is not -if we look into the future- the
permanent problem of the human race”.
“We
find
that the economic problem, the struggle for subsistence, always has
been
hitherto the primary, most pressing problem of the human race... [But],
if the
economic problem is solved, will this be a benefit? [Let us hearer] the
traditional epitaph written for herself by the old charwoman:
Don't mourn for me, friends,
don't weep for me never,
For
I'm going to do nothing for ever
and ever.
“Thus for
the first time since his creation man will be faced with his real, his
permanent problem -how to use his freedom from pressing economic cares,
how to
occupy the leisure, which science and compound interest will have won
for him,
to live wisely and agreeably and well”.
“The
strenuous purposeful money-makers may carry all of us along with them
into the
lap of economic abundance. But it will be those peoples, who can keep
alive,
and cultivate into a fuller perfection, the art of life itself and do
not sell
themselves for the means of life, who will be able to enjoy the
abundance when
it comes”.
“Yet there
is no country and no people, I think, who can look forward to the age
of
leisure and of abundance without a dread. For we have been trained for
too long
to strive not to enjoy. It is a fearful problem for the ordinary
person, with
no special talents, to occupy himself, especially if he no longer has
roots in
the soil or in custom or in the beloved conventions of a traditional
society.
To judge from the behaviour and the achievements of the wealthy classes
today
in any quarter of the world, the outlook is very depressing!”
“For many
ages to come the old Adam will be so strong in us that everybody will
need to
do some work if he is to be
contended. We shall do more things for ourselves than is usual with the
rich
today, only too glad to have small duties and tasks and routines. But
beyond
this, we shall endeavour to spread the bread thin on the butter -to
make what
work there is still to be done to be as widely shared as possible.
Tree-hour
shifts or a fifteen-hour week may put off the problem for a great
while. For
three hours a day is quite enough to satisfy the old Adam in most of
us!”
“Of
course
there will still be many people with intense, unsatisfied purposive
ness who
will blindly pursue wealth -unless they can find some plausible
substitute. But
the rest of us will no longer be under any obligation to applaud and
encourage
them”.
“I
look
forward, therefore, in days not so very remote, to the greatest change
which
has ever occurred in the material environment of life for human’s
beings in the
aggregate. But, of course, it will all happen gradually, not as a
catastrophe.
Indeed, it has already begun. The course of affairs will simply be that
there
will be ever larger and larger classes and groups of people from whom
problems
of economic necessity have been practically removed. The critical
difference
will be realised when this condition has become so general that the
nature of
one's duty to one's neighbour is changed. For it will remain reasonable
to be
economically purposive for others after it has ceased to be reasonable
for
oneself”.
1932.
Jacques
Duboin (1876-1976). Egalité
économique (1938); L'economie distributive de l'abondance
(1945)
Término:
revenu social / maximum vital
Justificación.
“Pourtant, cette solution bancale est tellement
nécessaire aux entreprises capitalistes, qu'il est question
maintenant de la
généraliser: de partout viennent des propositions pour
assurer un revenu minimum a
tout les foyers. Lorsqu'elle venait d'humanistes révoltés
de voir que des êtres
humains mourraient de misère à côté de
montagnes d'invendus, une telle
proposition ne recevait pas d'écot. Mais aujourd'hui, la
publicité capitaliste
a été tellement efficace, elle a si bien convaincu que
hors du capitalisme il
ne pouvait y avoir que le goulag, qu'on en arrive á un consensus
pour adopter
ce moyen de sauver encore le système du marché. Tous les
partis politiques,
qu'ils soient de droite ou de gauche, syndicalistes compris vont tomber
d'accord: les discussions s'ouvrent déjà sur le montant
du minimum à garantir;
elles remplaceront bientôt les discussions paritaire sur les
salaires ».
p. 24. La Grande Relève des Hommes par la
Science.
Tout
être humain
a droit à la vie, il lient de la nature et donc avoir sa part
des richesses du
monde. Tout être humain vivant est l'héritier d'un immense
patrimoine culturel,
oeuvre collective poursuivie pendant des siècles par une foule
innombrable de
chercheurs et de travailleurs, tacitement associés pour
l'amélioration de la
condition humaine. Il est donc l'usufruitier de ce patrimoine. Les
droit
politiques ne suffisent plus à assurer la liberté de
l'Homme, car la plus
essentielle est celle de l'esprit, or n'a l'esprit libre que celui dont
l'existence matérielle est assurée. Les droits du citoyen
doivent donc se
compléter de ses droits économiques,
concrétisés par un revenu social,
dont chaque individu bénéficiera du berceau au tombeau.
Le revenu social libera
la femme, aucune loi naturelle ne la condamnant à
dépendre économiquement de
l'homme. En contrepartie de cette revenue sociale, le citoyen
accomplira un
service social au cours duquel il fournira sa part de travail que
réclame
l'appareil de production et d'administration. L'économie distributive de
l'abondance (1945). Extraits d'un
article publié dans
la Grande relève le 19 Avril 1958 y en La
Grande Relève, Nº hors série
Janvier 1992.
1936. Oskar Lange (1904-1965). “On the Economic Theory of Socialism”. The Review
of Economic Studies, pp.
53-71 y 123- 141, Volume IV. Reprinted by Kraus Reprint Corporation.
Término: social dividend / free sharing
Justificación: “In the
socialist system... we have a genuine
market (in the institutional sense of the word) for consumers' goods
and for
services of labour. But there is no market for capital goods and
productive
resources... Just as in a competitive individualist régime, the
determination
of equilibrium consists of two parts. (A) On the basis of given
indices of alternatives... both the individuals participating
in the economic system as consumers and as owners of the services of
labour,
and the managers of production and the ultimate resources outside
labour...
make decisions according to certain principles. These managers are
assumed to
be public officials. (B) The prices (whether market or accounting) are
determined by the condition that the quantity demanded of each
commodity is equal
to the quantity supplied. Te conditions determining the decisions under
(A) are
the subjective while those under (B)
are the objective equilibrium
conditions. Finally, we have also a condition C expressing the social
organisation of the economic system. As the productive resources
outside of
labour are public property, the incomes of the consumers are divorced
from the
ownership of those resources and the form of condition C is determined
by the
principles of income formation adopted. The possibility of determining
condition C in different ways gives to socialist society a considerable
freedom
in matters of distribution of income. But the necessity of maintaining
freedom
of the choice of occupation limits the arbitrary use of this freedom,
for there
must be some connection between the income of a consumer and the
services of
labour performed by him. It seems, therefore, convenient to regard the
income
of consumers as being composed of two parts: one part being the
receipts for
the labour services performed and the other part being a social dividend constituting the individual's share in the
income derived from the capital and the natural resources owned by
society. We
assume that the distribution of the social dividend is based on certain
principles, reserving the content of those principles for later
discussion.
Thus condition C is determinate and determines the incomes of the
consumers in
terms of prices of the services of labour an social dividend, which, in
turn,
may be regarded as determined by the total yield of capital and of the
natural
resources and by the principles adopted in distributing this yield”.
(p. 61)
Distribución. Thus,
“condition C determines the incomes of
the consumers by the prices of the services of ultimate productive
resources
and the principles adopted for the distribution of the social
dividend"...
One of the two problems that "deserve some special attention is related
to
the determination of the best distribution of the social dividend.
Freedom of
choice of occupation assumed, the distribution of the social dividend
may
affect the amount of services of labour offered to different
industries. If
certain occupations received a larger social dividend than others,
labour would
be diverted into the occupations receiving a larger dividend.
Therefore, the
distribution of the social dividend must be such as not to interfere
with the
optimum distribution of labour services between different industries
and
occupations. The optimum distribution is that which makes the value of
the
marginal product of the services of labour in different industries and
occupations proportional to the marginal disutility of working in those
industries or occupations. To secure this not only wages but also the
social
dividend received by individuals must bear some relation to the
marginal
disutility of the particular kind of labour services performed. The
social
dividend paid to each individual must be such as no to disturb the
proportionality of the supply price of the different services of labour
and of
the disutility of performing them. This is attained by making the
social
dividend a fixed percentage of the
wage rate. As a result of this principle of distributing the social
dividend
the money incomes earned in different occupations are proportional to
the value
of the marginal product of the labour services performed by each
occupation,
but they are not equal to it. The excess of money incomes over the
value of the
marginal product of the services of labour is the social dividend”.
(Pp.64-65) [8]
“The idea
of distributing goods and services by free sharing[9] sounds utopian, indeed. However, if
applied to only a part of commodities free sharing is by no means such
economic
nonsense as might appear at first glance... The demand for many
commodities
becomes, from a certain point on, quite inelastic.
If the price of a commodity is below and the
consumer's income is above a certain minimum the commodity is treated
by the
consumer as if it were a free good.
The commodity is consumed in such quantity that the want it serves to
satisfy
is perfectly saturated. Take, for
instance, salt. Well-to-do people do the same with bread or with
heating in
winter. They do not stop eating bread at a point where the marginal
utility of
a slice is equal to the marginal utility of its price, nor do they turn
down
the heat by virtue of a similar consideration. Or would a decline of
the price
of soap to zero induce them to be so much more liberal in its use? Even
if the
price were zero, the amount of salt, bread, fuel, and soap consumed by
well-to-do
people would not increase noticeably. With such commodities saturation
is
reached even at a positive price. If the price is already so low, and
income so
high, that the quantities consumed of those commodities is equal to the
saturation amount, free sharing can be
used as a method of distribution. Certain services are distributed in
this way
already in our present society. If a part of the commodities and
services is
distributed by free sharing, the price system needs to be confined only
to the
rest of them. However, though the demand for the commodities
distributed by
free sharing is, within limits, a fixed quantity, a cost has to be
accounted
for in order to be able to find out the best combination of factors and
the
optimum scale of output in producing them. The money income of the
consumers
must be reduced by an equivalent of the cost of production of those
commodities. This means simply that the free sharing provides, so to
speak, a
“socialist sector” of consumption the cost of which is met by taxation
(for the
reduction of consumers' money-incomes which has just been mentioned is
exactly
the taxation to cover the consumption by free sharing). Such a sector
exists
also in capitalist society, comprising, for instance, free education,
free
medical service by social insurance, public parks, and all the
collective wants
in Cassel's sense (e.g. street lighting). It is quite conceivable that
as
wealth increases this sector increases, too, and an increasing number
of
commodities is distributed by free sharing until, finally, all the
prime
necessaries of life are provided for in this way, the distribution by
the price
system being confined to better qualities and luxuries. Thus, Marx's
second
phase of communism may be gradually approached: from each
according to his capacity, to each according to his need”.
(pp. 141-142)
1941. Simone Weil (1909-1943). “Our Father”. Waiting on God. Collins
Término: right to a compensation
Justificación: “And forgive us our
debts, as we also forgive our debtors”… At the moment of saying these words we must
have already remitted everything that is owing to us. This not only
includes
reparation for any wrongs we think we have suffered, but also gratitude
for the
good we think we have done, and it applies in a quite general way to
all we
expect from people and things, to all we consider as our due and
without which
we should feel ourselves to have been frustrated. All these are the
rights
which we think the past has given us over the future. Fist there is the
right
to a certain permanence. When we have enjoyed something for a long
time, we
think that it is ours, and that we are entitled to expect fate to let
us go on
enjoying it. Then there is the right to a compensation for every effort
whatever its nature, be it work, suffering or desire. Every time that
we put
forth some effort and the equivalent of this effort does not come back
to us in
the form of some visible fruit, we have a sense of false balance and
emptiness
which makes us think that we have been cheated. The effort of suffering
from
some offence causes us to expect the
punishment or apologies of the offender, the effort of doing good makes
us
expect the gratitude of the person we have helped, but these are only
particular cases of a universal law of the soul. Every time we give
anything
out we have an absolute need that at least the equivalent should come
into us,
and because we need this we have a right to it. Our debtors comprise
all beings
and all things; they are the entire universe. In every claim which we
think we
posses there is always the idea of an imaginary claim of the past on
the
future. That is the claim which we have to renounce”. (pp. 172-173)
“This
principal claim which we think we have
on the universe is that our personality should continue. This claim
implies all
the others.. The instinct of self preservation makes us feel this
continuation
to be a necessity, and we believe that a necessity is a right… We live
on the
expectation of these compensations. The near approach of death is
horrible
chiefly because it forces the knowledge upon us that these
compensations will
never come… God will have forgiven our debts when he has brought us to
the
state of perfection… Until the God forgives our debts partially in the
same
measure as we forgive our debtors”. (pp. 174-175).
1964. James Edward Meade (1904-1965). (a) Planning and the Price Mechanism, George Allen
& Unwin Ltd.
Término: equal
social dividend
Justificación: Dice JE. Meade que comenzó a estudiar
económicas “because he abhorred mass unemployment and wanted to
know why society
was failing to avoid the stupidity of idle men and machines combined
with
crying real needs for the products of those men and machines. The
problems of
the present age are different. The huge and growing disparities of
wealth
between the rich developed and the poor underdeveloped countries of the
world
would be the problem which would be most likely to attract him to
economics if
he were now starting once more at the beginning”.(c; p. 13)
“In the
highly developed industrialized countries a substantial proportion
of the real product does accrue to the owners of property and property
is very
unequally owned. There is already, therefore, a problem. The pattern of
real
wage rates which is required on efficiency grounds may lead to a very
high
level of real income per head for the small concentrated number of rich
property owners”. (b; p. 25)
The
welfare
state means that “taxation of the incomes of the rich (could) subsidize
directly the incomes of the poor”. But, even if “the system could be
used to
equalize incomes, it would not directly equalize property ownership.
Extreme
inequalities in the ownership of property are in my view undesirable
quite
apart from inequalities of income which they may imply. A man with much
property has great bargaining strength and a great sense of security,
independence and freedom; and hi enjoys these things not only vis-à-vis
his propertyless fellow citizens but also vis-à-vis the
public
authorities. He can snap his fingers at those on whom he must rely for
an
income; for he can always live for a time on his capital. The
propertyless man
must continuously and without interruption acquire his income by
working for an
employer or by qualifying to receive it from a public authority. An
unequal
distribution of property means an unequal distribution of power and
status even
if it is prevent from causing too unequal a distribution of income”.
(c; p.
38-39)
“Let us
turn now to the Social Ownership of Property as an alternative means
for
combining an efficiency level of the real wage rate with an equitable
distribution of income. Suppose that by the wave of some alternative
magic
wand, the ownership of all property were transferred from private
individuals
to the State. The real wage rate is set at the level which enables is
to be
used exclusively as an ‘efficiency’ guide for the use of labour. If
this
‘efficiency’ level is a low one, then a large part of the national
income
accrues as profits on capital of all kinds. But these profits now go to
the
State, which could use them to pay out an equal social dividend to every citizen. In both cases income from
property is equally divided
between all citizens… In the case in which property is in private
ownership the
achievement of the budget surplus will require increased tax revenue;
and the
rise in rates of taxation may have unfortunate effects on economic
incentives.
In the case of the social ownership of property, on the other hand, all
income
from property accrues to the State. The State can, therefore, generate
a given
level of public savings through the budget with a lower level of tax
rates and
therefore with less adverse effects on efficiency in the case of State
ownership of property, than in the case of equalized private ownership
of
property”. (c; pp. 66-67)
“One should
avoid the risk of claiming more for one’s analysis than one can in fact
rightfully claim. The art of political economy is to choose models
which
combine simplicity with relevance to certain important features of the
real
world. The economist can never be sure that he knows the answer. But if
he has
built a large number of models which between them incorporate in
various
ingenious combinations all the main features of the real world which he
thinks
are likely to be relevant to the issue which he is examining, and each
of these
models passes the same verdict upon a given economic policy, then he
may have
some confidence that this verdict is more likely to be right than
wrong”. (c;
p. 23)
“A
large
part of economic policy consists of a judicious choice of measures
which
preserve a tolerable distribution of income without damaging too much
the use
of prices as guides to the efficient use of resources. The most
complete way to
deal with the clash is, no doubt, to affect fundamentally the
distribution of
the ownership of property. If, in our example, land were evenly owned
by all
citizens, prices could be used for the pursuit of economic efficiency
without
detrimental effects upon the distribution of income. What the
representative
citizen lost through a fall in his wages he would make up by a rise in
his
rents. Or if all property were owned by the State and the rents
received by the
State were used to pay social benefits to all the citizens, the same
would be
true. What the representative citizen lost through a fall in his wages
he would
make up by a rise in social benefits”. (c; p. 191)
“A more direct measure would be to tax the incomes of the rich
landlords
and to use the revenue to pay social
benefits to the
poorer members of society. This might have little adverse effect upon
economic
efficiency other than to disturb somewhat the balance between work and
leisure
for those whose incomes were taxed –and even this effect might be
avoided by
confining the tax to income from rent”. (c; p. 191)
“Suppose finally that the incomes received from social benefits
and from wages can be spent in a free consumers’ market on the products
of the
various firms and farms. The essential features of this arrangement are
(i)
that the worker’s real wage varies directly with the value of the
marginal
product of his current work and (ii) that this is not offset by
counter-acting
variations in the social benefits received by him and his family”. (c;
p.232)
“Similarly it would be possible for the individual worker to indicate
to
the Central Authority whether at the real wage per hour which he was
receiving
(and which would correspond to the value of his marginal product) he
preferred
more work or more leisure. To the extent to which it was
administratively
possible the Central Authority could then adjust the hours worked in
the
desired direction”. (c; p. 233)
“But would the distribution of income be an equitable one? An essential
feature of the above arrangement for achieving an efficient deployment
of
labour is that the incomes received as social dividends or
social
benefits should not be adjusted to take into account differences in
wage
earnings. The reason for this is clear. A man considering a move, say,
from a
pleasant low-paid job to an unpleasant high-paid job would reach the
correct
decision if both of two conditions are fulfilled: (i) the two wages
reflect the
different marginal products of the jobs and (ii) the wage earner keeps
the
whole (no more and no less) of the increase in the wage income if he
moves. But
if a man’s social dividend or social benefits are reduced when
his wage
income goes up, the worker will not feel the whole of the incentive
which he
should feel on moving from a job with a low marginal product to one
with a high
marginal product. For an efficient solution then (i) wage rates must be
equal
to marginal products and (ii) social dividends and social benefits must
be
fixed independently of wage earnings”.(c; p.235)
“The basic conditions in the economy may be such that wage earnings
make
up a much larger proportion of the national income than do the social
dividends and benefits paid out of income from property… The
progressive
taxation of high wage earnings to supplement the social benefits of
the
poor would blunt the incentives for efficiency which depend upon
variations in
retained earnings corresponding to variations in the marginal products
of the
work done”. (c; p. 235)
1974.
Robert
Nozick .Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books Inc., Publishers.
Término: compensation
Fundamentos: “The subject of
justice in holdings consists of
three major topics. The first is the original
acquisition of holdings, the appropriation of upheld things... [To
the
issues and processes related with the upheld holdings we shall refer
as] the
principle of justice in acquisition. The second topic concerns the transfer of holdings from one person to
another... [To the issues and processes related with voluntary exchange
and
gifts we shall call] the principle of justice in transfer. (p. 150) the
existence of past injustice (previous violations of the first two
principles of
justice in holdings) raises the third major topic under justice in
holdings:
the rectification of justice in holdings... The principle of
rectification
presumably will make use of its best estimate of subjunctive
information about
what have occurred (or a probability distribution over what might have
occurred, using the expected value) if the injustice had not taken
place”. (p.
152)
“The
general outlines of the theory of justice in holdings are that the
holdings of
a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principle of justice
in
acquisition and transfer, or by the principle of rectification of
injustice (as
specified by the two principles). If each person's holdings are just,
then the
total set (distribution) of holding is just”. (p. 153)
“Whether or
not Locke's particular theory of appropriation can be spelled out so as
to
handle various difficulties, I assume that any adequate theory of
justice in
acquisition will contain a proviso similar to the weaker of the ones we
have
attributed to Locke. A process normally giving rise to a permanent
bequearthable property right in a previously unwoned thing will not do
so if
the position of others no longer at liberty to use the thing is thereby
worsened. It is important to specify this
particular mode of worsening the situation of others, for the proviso
does not
encompass other modes. It does not include the worsening due to more
limited
opportunities to appropriate (the first way above, corresponding to the
more
stringent condition), and it does not include how I 'worsen' a seller's
position if I appropriate materials to make some of what he is selling,
and
then enter into competition with him. Someone whose appropriation
otherwise
would violate the proviso still may appropriate provided he compensates
the
others so that their situation is not thereby worsened; unless he does
compensate these others, his appropriation will violate the proviso of
the
principle of justice in acquisition and will be an illegitimate one. A
theory of
appropriation incorporating this Lockean proviso will handle correctly
the
cases (objections to the theory lacking the proviso) where someone
appropriates
the total supply of something necessary for life”. (p. 178)
Con los pertinentes matices que R. Nozick menciona, “a theory which includes this proviso in its principle of justice in acquisition must also contain a more complex principle of justice in transfer”. (p. 179) y el oportuno principio de rectificación.
1986. Robert J. Van der Veen
and Philippe Van Parijs.
Término: universal grant
Concepto. “If, on the other hand, guaranteed
income takes the form of a universal grant, unconditionally awarded to every
citizen, things are different indeed. Because citizens have an absolute
right
to this grant whatever their income from other sources, they start
earning
additional net income as soon as they do any work, however little and
however
poorly paid it may be. Combined with some deregulation of the labour
market (no
administrative obstacles to part-time work, no compulsory minimum wage,
no
compulsory retirement age, etc.), the universal grant would made it
possible to
spread paid employment much more widely than it is now. Consequently,
if the
guaranteed income takes this form, its growth need no longer generate
acute
tensions between the overworked who feel exploited and the jobless who
feel
excluded. Moreover, it also follows -however paradoxical it may seem-
that
awarding a decent basic income [10] to all may be, under appropriate
conditions, much 'cheaper' (in terms of marginal tax rates), and
therefore more
realistic, than awarding it only to those who 'need' it”. (pp. 643-644)
Justificación.
“Consequently, if communism is to be
approached within a capitalist society, it must be by way of raising as
much as
possible the guaranteed income in the form of a universal grant. Note
that this
maximization could be conceived in either absolute or relative terms.
Maximizing the guaranteed income in absolute terms could be justified
on the
basis of John Rawls's well-known 'difference principle': it would
amount to
eliminating all income inequalities that are required if the least
advantaged
-here identified as those who have no income, in cash or kind, apart
from the
guaranteed minimum- are to be as well off as possible. Such an elegant
way of
combining the imperatives of equality and efficiency may seem
attractive to
many. But it does not coincide with the Marxian objective of abolishing
alienation, which implies instead, at least as a first approximation,
that the
guaranteed income should be maximized in relative terms. Communism is
achieved
when the whole social product is distributed irrespective of each
person's
contribution, not when the share each
gets irrespective of his contribution reaches some absolute threshold".
(p. 644)
1992. Philippe Van Parijs.
"Competing Justifications of Basic
Income" en Arguing
for Basic Income: ethical foundations for a radical reform. Verso 1992.
Término: basic income
Concepto. "A basic income is an income
unconditionally paid to all on an individual basis, without means test
or work
requirement. In other words, it is a form of minimum income guarantee
that
differs from those that now exist in various European countries by
virtue of
the fact that is paid:
1.
to
individuals rather than
households;
2.
irrespective
of any income from
other sources;
3.
And
without requiring any present or
past work performance, or the willingness to accept a job if offered.
Thus, the
expression 'basic income' is meant here to convey both the notion that
it is
granted by virtue of an unconditional entitlement, and the idea that an
income
from other sources will come on top of the basis it provides. It is not, however, meant to suggest a link
with so-called basic needs. As the expression will be used here, a
basic income
can in principle fall short of as well as exceed whatever level of
income is
deemed sufficient to cover a person's basic needs". (pp. 3-4)
1986. Agustí
Chalaux de Subirà. “Apunts de recerca interdisciplinari”. Disseny de Civisme. Centre d'Estudis Joan Bardina.
Justificación.
“Assegurar a les persones individuals
el dret
essencial d'un mínim vital [11]
(com a qualsevol altra persona nacional-comunitària o
social-col.lectiva), i
d'uns serveis culturals humanistes gratuïts per a una
existència digna i una
inexistència sense procupants "mals de caps" materials”. (p. 202)
Per a assegurar les necessitats mínimes de consum a totes les persones s'establiran uns sous comunitaris... L'estatut general acollirà totes les persones, que tindran dret a un mínim mensual vitalici, (p. 57). Propostes innovadores per repensar l'economia. EcoConcern - Innovació Social, Barcelona 1995. Garantir “un salari vital de solidaritat social- financera individual, que tothom cobrarà com a mínimum vital des del día del naixement fins al de la mort: diferencial segons grau de marginació social”, (p. 151) Assaig sobre moneda, mercat i societat. Centre d'Estudis Joan Bardina, Barcelona 2000.
1994. Yoland
Bresson. Le partage du temps et des revenus. Ed. Economica, Paris 1994.
Término: revenu d'existence
Justificación. "Une
nouvelle liberté est à conquérir; pour chacun, la
maîtrise de son
temps. Ce qui était réservé aux maîtres, aux
nobles, aux rentiers, aux
héritiers, aux capitalistes est non seulement ouvert, par
l'abondance, à tous,
dans les pays développés, mais aussi indispensable, pour
que le capital humain
puisse produire avec son rendement le plus efficace. Notre mode
d'allocation de
revenues doit se mettre en harmonie avec cette exigence. Il nous faut
rompre
avec le strict lien Emploi-Revenue, caractéristique du salariat.
Chaque
individu, parce qu'il existe, parce qu'il est un potentiel
d'échange de temps,
quels que soient son âge, son sexe, sa profession, qu'il
travaille ou non, doit
recevoir un Revenue d'existence". (p. 15)
1995. Jean-Marc Ferry. L'Allocation
universelle:
pour un revenu de citoyenneté.
Les Editions du Cerf. Paris 1995.
Término: L'allocation
universelle
Justificación.
"L'Allocation universelle est un revenu
social primaire distribué égalitairement de façon
inconditionnelle. Il s'agit
d'un véritable revenu de citoyenneté. Même si la
reprise se confirme, la croissance
économique ne créera pas plus d'emplois que de
chômage. Elle n'apportera par
elle-même aucune solution à l'exclusion sociale. La crise
nous appelle à
réfléchir sur un nouveau paradigme de la
répartition: distribuer un revenu de
base a tous les citoyens, quelle que soit leur situation dans la
production:
riches ou pauvres, actifs ou chômeurs, étudiants ou
retraités. C'est en
développant un droit indépendant au revenu, lequel
favoriserait aussi l'essor
d'un secteur quartenaire d'activités
personnelles, non mécanisables, que le droit au travail cessera
d'être une
hypocrisie". (p. 7)
1997. Michel Aglieta. Régulation et crises du
capitalisme.
Editions Odile Jacob. Paris 1997.
Término: revenu minimum
garanti
Justificación. La logique
qui consiste à fiscaliser tout ce qui, dans la protection
sociale, ne ressortit pas à l'assurance résulte de
l'évolution des sociétés
salariales modernes. La démarche politique de la
solidarité en tant qu'attribut
de la citoyenneté remplace l'approche socio.professionnelle qui
est affaiblie
par la destruction des corporatismes sous l'impact du progess technique
et de
la mondialisation. Il en résulte que les droits sociaux ne
doivent plus prendre
la forme dégradante de l'assistance et que l'aide aux
entreprises doit être
remplacée par l'aide à la personne. La France est sans
doute le pays qui a
pousse le plus loin les aides a l'emploi, en arrosant les entreprises
de
subsides divers tout au long des années quatre-vingt- Cette
méthode
s'inscrivait dans le prolongement du fordisme postulant que
l'entreprise était
toujours une structure d'intégration sociale. Elle le faisait au
moment même ou
les entreprises éliminaient le travail non qualifie et
desserraient leurs
attaches avec les territoires. On no peut donc pas être surpris
de la faible
efficacité de ces aides. Plus grave est l'aveuglement a
persister dans cette
voie au cours des annes quatre-vingt-dix- Cependant, les illusions sont
maintenant dissipées. Les pièges a l'emploi et a la
pauvreté que constituent
les multiples formes d'assistance sont dénonces de touts parts.
Le temps est
venu d'un projet politique qui engage une reforme radicale de la
redistribution. Il s'agit d'instaurer un revenu minimum
garanti, moyen
économique des droits inconditionnels du citoyen. C'est un
dispositif qui
cherche à combiner l¡efficacité économique
et l'équité sociale.
Les
économistes
ont souvent fait des propositions dans ce sens. L'avantage du revenu
minimum
garanti est qu'il procède d'une conception universelle de la
fiscalité incitant
à l'emploi au lieu de le décourager. Parce que ce revenu
est accorde a chaque
personne en age de travailler, il évite toute discrimination
entre ceux qui
sont assistes et ceux qui ne le sont pas. Parce qu'il est maintenu que
l'on ait
un emploi ou pas, il ne provoque pas de trappe de pauvreté.
Enfin, ce revenu
est une aide aux individus et non aux entreprises. Il corrige les
inégalités
résultant des grandes différences de salaires et permet
d'employer des
travailleurs à faible qualification et basse productivité.
Le
mécanisme de
redistribution consiste à définir le montant d'un
transfert forfaitaire sans
condition de ressource. Corrélativement, on détermine un
impôt a taux uniforme
et prélève a la source tous les revenues, quelle que soit
leur nature. Enfin,
on y superpose un profil progressif par une surtaxe sur les hauts
revenus. Le
taux moyen d'imposition est calcule de manière a réaliser
la neutralité
budgétaire- Le revenu minimum peut alors remplacer les
transferts d'assistance
existants (allocations familiales et allocation logement en France) qui
lui
sont inférieurs, et réduit ces allocations du montant du
revenu lorsqu'elles
lui sont supérieures. Soumettent l'ensemble de revenus, quelle
que soit leur
nature, au même taux de prélèvement pour un montant
donne, ce dispositif se
combiner a la CSG, aux cotisations santé et a ce qui
subsisterait des
cotisations familiales". (pp.
474-475)
|
|
|
| Ir al artículo anterior |
Ir al principio del artículo |
Ir al artículo
siguiente
|
|
|
|
|
Ir al índice |
Ir a la página principal |
