Lunarmony’s Journal

The road to serfdom, condensed version by F. A. Hayek

Note the striking similarity between the policies of the CCP and what was described in the book published in 1943.

Some excerpts:

To decentralize power is to reduce the absolute amount of power, and the competitive system is the only system designed to minimize the power exercised by man over man. Who can seriously doubt that the power which a millionaire, who may be my employer, has over me is very much less than that which the smallest bureaucrat possesses who wields the coercive power of the state and on whose discretion it depends how I am allowed to live and work?

It is only because the control of the means of production is divided among many people acting independently that we as individuals can decide what to do with ourselves.

They do not realize that democratic socialism, the great utopia of the last few generations, is not only unachievable, but that to strive for it produces something utterly different the very destruction of freedom itself. As has been aptly said:`What has always made the state a hell on earth has been precisely that man has tried to make it hisheaven.'

Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude. (de Tocqueville, 1948)

Socialism was to bring `economic freedom' without which political freedom was `not worth having'. To make this argument sound plausible, the word `freedom' was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.

The communists and Nazis clashed more frequently with each other than with other parties simply because they competed for the same type of mind and reserved for each other the hatred of the heretic. Their practice showed how closely they are related.

There are three main reasons why such a numerous group, with fairly similar views, is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society. First, the higher the education and intelligence of individuals become, the more their tastes and views are differentiated. If we wish to find a high degree of uniformity in outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive instincts prevail. ... Second, since this group is not large enough to give sufficient weight to the leader's endeavours, he will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed. He must gain the support of the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are ready to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. ... Third, to weld together a closely coherent body of supporters, the leader must appeal to a common human weakness. It seems to be easier for people to agree on a negative programme on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of the better off than on any positive task.

collectivism means the end of truth. To make a totalitarian system function efficiently it is not enough that everybody should be forced to work for the ends selected by those in control; it is essential that the people should come to regard these ends as their own. This is brought about by propaganda and by complete control of all sources of information.

The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning.

It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support of the regime.

Control extends even to subjects which seem to have no political significance. The theory of relativity, for instance, has been opposed as a `Semitic attack on the foundation of Christian and Nordic physics' and because it is `in conflict with dialectical materialism and Marxist dogma'. Every activity must derive its justification from conscious social purpose. There must be no spontaneous, unguided activity, because it might produce results which cannot be foreseen and for which the plan does not provide.

The principle extends even to games and amusements. I leave it to the reader to guess where it was that chess players were officially exhorted that `we must finish once and for all with the neutrality of chess. We must condemn once and for all the formula chess for the sake of chess.'

There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which provides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem in Britain and America are precisely those on which Anglo-Saxons justly prided themselves and in which they were generally recognized to excel. These virtues were independence and self-reliance, individual initiative and local responsibility, the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one's neighbour and tolerance of the different, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority.

It is significant that socialists (and Nazis) have always protested against `merely' formal justice, that they have objected to law which had no views on how well off particular people ought to be, that they have demanded a `socialization of the law' and attacked the independence of judges.

Unfortunately, purely economic ends cannot be separated from the other ends of life. What is misleadingly called the `economic motive' means merely the desire for general opportunity.

The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving our own economic problems and that the bitter choices which this often involves are to be made for us. Since under modern conditions we are for almost everything dependent on means which our fellow men provide, economic planning would involve direction of almost the whole of our life. There is hardly an aspect of it, from our primary needs to our relations with our family and friends, from the nature of our work to the use of our leisure, over which the planner would not exercise his `conscious control'.

The younger generation of today has grown up in a world in which, in school and press, the spirit of commercial enterprise has been represented as disreputable and the making of profit as immoral, where to employ 100 people is represented as exploitation but to command the same number as honourable.

We must regain the conviction on which liberty in the Anglo-Saxon countries has been based and which Benjamin Franklin expressed in a phrase applicable to us as individuals no less than as nations: `Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.'

原来self contradiction是自Karl Marx之时就存在的传统啊。口口声声要消灭阶级对立的一个人居然不知道应该如何定义阶级？

资本论，Das Kapital, Chapter 52. Classes

“... The first question to he answered is this: What constitutes a class? — and the reply to this follows naturally from the reply to another question, namely: What makes wage-labourers, capitalists and landlords constitute the three great social classes? ...”

然后是Engels的注释。

[Here the manuscript breaks off.]

假设--*假设*--Marx同学只是没有想清楚应该怎么定义他的的阶级理论吧 (虽然其他文献suggest Marx停止写作之时距他逝世还有10年以上的时间)。那么他的信徒们为什么也没能完成这位革命导师未竟的任务呢？一个fundamentally flawed的theory是怎么被当成self-evident的truth被传播的？

就算一个人没有时间调查，至少也该有时间思考下某些结论是不是合理吧。

只列(正常民工的)税收数据不推结论，因为我没时间具体分析其他case。

China
Income            120,000
Total Income Tax   37,725 [1]
% after tax         68.6%

U.S. (assuming that the work location is CA)
Income             75,000
Federal Income Tax 13,506 [2]
Social Security     4,650 [3]
Medicare            1,072 [3]
CA State Tax        5,000 [3]
CA SDI                825 [3]
Total              25,053
% after tax         66.6%

注意几个问题，a) 这里没有考虑到CA 9%的销售税，b) US 75,000只是household的top 25% [4] ，而中国即使在考虑隐性收入之后也应在15%之上, c) 我觉得我高估了中国民工的收入&低估了美国民工的收入。

如果我遗漏了什么地方麻烦指正，谢谢。

Links:

[1] http://finance.21cn.com/bank/computer/tax.html
[2] http://www.dinkytown.net/java/Tax1040.html
[3] http://www.paycheckcity.com/NetPayCalc/netpaycalculator.asp
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States

By Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci

Wendy M. Williams and Stephen J. Ceci are Cornell professors of human development and the editors of "Why Aren't More Women in Science? Top Researchers Debate the Evidence" (2007). This article was excerpted from the authors' previously published article in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Submissions are invited for the Chronicle's regular column of ideas and opinion.

Universities save money by offering tenure to fewer professors: Today less than 40 percent of U.S. faculty members are on tenure track. In all the research and debate, one unexamined aspect of tenure is whether it fulfills its original justification, espoused by the American Association of University Professors since 1915, which is to ensure academic freedom -- professors' freedom to teach, conduct research and perform other duties without fear of job loss or censure. But does it?

One assistant professor was afraid to study a topic because senior colleagues with a contrasting view of the field did not want to see rival positions bolstered. Even now, as a tenured associate professor, she does not feel comfortable undertaking the research. She reasons that once promoted to full professor, she will finally pursue the topic without fear. Whatever happened to tenure's ensuring academic freedom -- wasn't tenure supposed to liberate professors to pursue controversial ideas?

Empirical data were absent, so we conducted a survey (with Katrin Mueller-Johnson, published in Behavioral and Brain Sciences). After e-mailing a random sample of 2,700 professors of all ranks and varied disciplines from top-rated colleges and universities across the country, 36 percent (961) agreed to participate. We also telephoned a random sample of 48 nonresponders; 43 responded, and their attitudes matched the original 961 responders.

We asked these 1,004 professors to react to real-world dilemmas involving colleagues wishing to teach courses unpopular with their peers, investigate unpopular topics and publish controversial findings; e.g., "Assistant Professor B is considering teaching a new course that several of B's senior colleagues frown upon. What would the typical assistant professor in B's position do?" For one-third of the professors, the question referred to an assistant professor; for another third, an associate professor; and for the final third, a full professor. Equal numbers of assistant, associate and full professors got each version of the question.

We compared how professors of a given rank believed colleagues of their own versus other ranks would behave. Our large sample enabled us to see how actual full professors said their peers would behave, for example, compared with how people at that rank were perceived as behaving by more junior colleagues.

Because we wondered if the lure of tenure and promotion impeded ethical behavior, we also asked our participants how colleagues act when confronted with such dilemmas as a colleague misappropriating grant funds or having a sexual relationship with an undergraduate.

Academic freedom should mean that professors with tenure act without fear of reprisal in these real-life situations, pursuing research that interests them, reporting unethical conduct by colleagues, etc. Sadly, tenure does not appear to confer such freedom.

Professors in our study were more timid than we expected, rarely confronting departmental colleagues who disagreed with the content of their research and teaching. Interestingly, everyone thought that everyone else would behave more boldly than they themselves would.

Having tenure was not associated with a greater willingness to speak one's mind or publish controversial findings. Comparing tenured associate professors with untenured assistant professors and tenured full professors revealed that the associates behaved more like their junior colleagues than like their senior ones.

The biggest increase in the tendency to engage in the academic freedoms mentioned above came upon promotion to full professor. That point usually comes 12-20 years after the Ph.D., during which time academic freedom is stifled, or at least muted.

One happy finding was that the idea of the renegade tenured professor -- often invoked during tenure reviews to block a candidate by instilling fear of the person's future selfish or irresponsible behavior -- turned out to be a myth. Most professors lack the moxie or desire to become renegades.

All the professors in our sample assumed that the colleague down the hall would be more likely than they themselves were to report another professor for misappropriating grant funds or having an inappropriate relationship with a student. (Interestingly, our survey revealed few disciplinary or gender differences.) In fact, some professors appear more concerned with remaining in their colleagues' good graces than they are with maintaining ethical standards.

One could argue that tenure helps attract a talented workforce, results in higher graduation rates at colleges and universities with higher proportions of tenure-track faculty members, and protects the few who most need it. But is tenure the most efficient way to achieve those goals? Some nations that do not offer tenure still protect academic freedom, through legislation or union contracts (e.g., Britain and New Zealand).

We conclude that tenure is not living up to its original promise: It does not liberate professors to exercise the freedoms of speech, writing and action. The muzzling effect of the current system of promotion in higher education must be weighed against tenure's virtues, such as higher graduation rates and the recruitment of a talented workforce.

The truth is, most of us walk on eggshells until we become full professors. To quote one 45-year-old friend, newly promoted to that rank, "It's great to finally be able to speak my mind at work."

=======================================
Originally posted at http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/May07/opedWilliamsCeci.html, May 10, 2007.