marxist

when Nikita Khrushchev' Soviet Union declares itself an enemy of the United States starts developing nuclear technology, may it be right to stop it by force? or if other countries feel the threat from USA or USA declares itself an enemy of this country, can they have the right to develop the nuclear technology to stop the threat from USA by force?

there are various laws in a society. if there is a law which stipulates eveyone as a child has the obligation to accept the education so his /her parents should and have to sent him/her to school, what would you think about it. another question, does child has the individual rights?

Can the law of society be used to everyone in this society including those men who don't accept it at the beginning per Objectivism? Who make the law? Does the nature or man's nature make the law or the people make the law according to the man's nature? So the law should be accept by everyone without negotiation. If the people can negotiate it, then you can say the people can negotiate the absolute man's nature or are there various man's nature there. If there are various man's nature there, can you say it is certain that the people will make the law which they will all accept? If there is only one absolute man's nature, you have to accept it without negotiation, then why there are some people still go against it at the beginning of making this law and can you force him to accept this man's nature's law? [Moderator's note 1: I have modified your post in the following two ways. Firstly, I capitalized the first word in each sentence. Secondly ran a spell-check and fixed a couple of spelling errors. Please do the same when you post next time. Since you aren't a native English speaker, getting the correct capitalization and spelling are easy ways to make the text more readable. (If you install the Google Toolbar, it contains spell-check.) Thanks. - sN] [Moderator's note 2: I have moved this thread from the "Critics of Objectivism" sub-forum; please do not post there. If you want to debate, use the Debate forum. If you want to ask about Objectivism, use the "Questions about Objectivism" sub-forum. Thanks - sN]

(Mod's note: Merged with previous thread - sN) is initiating force to other country when you feel the threat from this country right per Objectivisim? it is said the current USA's foreign policy permit initiating force to other country(other society) when you feel the threat from this country.can you use force to others when you feel the threat from others? (Mod's note: Marxist, I realize you are not a native English speaker. Please start the first word of every sentence with a capital letter. It makes the text easier to read. - sN)

i have something to say about it. yes, many state-owned companies in China are bankrupt or just unproductive. because the state don't want to own these companies any more not because the state-owned companies can't perform their functions.they are putting the westen economic idea to be widely used.they don't believe the marxism any more. the official try to make the state-owned companies into their own companies, they are becoming the capitlaist who steal the "capital" from the state. but the workers refuse to do so but they have no army now. it is the only real reason not anything else. in addition, to Japan economy, it is Government magistral economy not like the USA if you study it carefully. in Japan, after world war 2, they put the company before anything else, there are lifetime employment system. the worker must put the company before himself. they regard the company as their family.there are no Individul rights like in USA. there are only the company rights. and in Japan, the government has great effect on economy.can anyone here tell me why this system can make his country to be the second biggest one in economy in this world.

yes , in socialism, there is no Bill Gates but the society or everyone is bill Gate, it is possible for society(every person) to success. it is not good for him. the money naturally already means the nothing to him. when you have 100000 pcs shirts, about 999900 pcs already means the nothing to you. Bill Gates don't has the needs to trade with you and get money i.e now he only need to buy anything he want, he don't need to sell anything because he has so much money in banks. i think Bill Gates will not put his money to the fire but it is possible for him to give it to the society.

There is no escape from being ruled by the bosses or capital.It is a part of reality in capitalism system that you have to work to for yourself and for the bosses. in the another hand, assording to Objectivism, you have no obligation to work for others: boss-run company or society-run company. i think this kind of the option is meanless. in real socialism, you can elect the Official. no one whose IQ is lower 50 can be the Official in real socialism but in the Capitalism, if the boss' son's IQ is lower 50. but he have the "machine",you have to be led by him or by his agent. in real socialism, if the value you bring to the society is something the society needed - the society will listen to your concerns and you can be a official In China between 1956 and the 1978 or in Soviet Russia, it is not a real socialism, Mao put the equalitarianism high on the list, it is not the socialism but the equalitarianism that make the people try to make less as possible as he can. it is not real socialism. there is no sacrifice, they do for themselves and for the collectivity including himself not for the boss not including himself. what is society, Objectivism's definition of the society is wrong.one individual +one individual +one individual ... not =society. one pig +one pig +one pig not =pig's society because pig has no society.no real interaction between pigs. the society is production of interaction between individuals. pls see the word collectivism, it put the collectivity(including the individual) high on the list,it is right to Marxism but not right to Objectivism. pls see the word individualism, it put the individual high on the list. it is right to Objectivism and Marxism. marx needs the community of the free individuals. pls see the word socialism, it put the society i.e the production of interaction between individuals (including individual) high on the list. it is right to Marxism but not right to Objectivism. pls see the word Capitalism, it put the Capital( it is material not man of individual) high on the list. it is right to Objectivism but not right to Marxism. according to Objectivism, individualism=Capitalism, it is contradiction. according to Marxism, collectivism=socialism, they are the same thing including the individual. in capitalism, there is no man but the Capital. in socialism, there is no Captial but the man, it is real humanism. the competition makes misery between the farmers in that story. the cooperation makes happyness between the farmers in that story

would i say you support nothing but the Capital and the freedom of captial not of man.and you support the man who hold the capital to be free to lead or rule and exploit the workers i.e. another form of slaves. no one need "you" in any style society but your wealthy. no one even the robber will force you if you have nothing but youself or you can't make something for him.i.e.no one will need your freedom. they will not want to take away your freedom if you have nothing but yourself.they force you just because they want to get the "capital(marx don't think anything is captial,such as money which is not to be used to invest)" from you.you just want to support your capital and prevent them from being taken away without trade.

i don't think People are all about money and profit, on the contrary, i think people will have more other need other than the money and profit when they are rich enough. although they don't want to be asked to be selfless but they have need to help other people when they are rich enough. in communism, ereyman are rich enough, although the communism don't need anyone to be selfness but everyone has the need to cooperate and help each other! it is based on the right to life, liberty and Great Harmony , non-agression &c.

what my question means is how many gold-rings do your figer need when your 10 figers already wore 10 gold-rings. yes, The only thing you should be concerned with is how much money - YOU are able to aquire from your own work.you can't want to be a king unless you have the ability to be a king. to Bill Gates, he find his needs of money are met and now his unmeted need is to give the money to the society, give his "empty houses" to society or the poor man or charity. if he want to throw his 50 billion USD to the fire, what whoud you think！ If we divide the earth into two parts C and L and all the capitalist select C and carry out the capitalism there but the salary man (workers) select L and carry out the socialism. What would happen? In C, the capitalist have to go to the workshop and become a worker because he can't make workers by any ways, then he has to select L and go into L. in L, there are no machines, but workers can plant to get rice and mine to get coal and so on until have the means to make machine. They can live well.

if you have nothing but the labor, you can select boss, but you can't choise not to select boss,i.e you refuse to do anything that any boss want you to do, or you would die from hungry. when the rober point the Gun at you, you have to regard him as your boss and do what he want you to do or refuse to do so and were shot to death. the result is the same:death. in Soviet Russia style socialism, you will get the same result:death because of hungry.the official of Soviet Russia will not shoot you like the rober(not include the period of revolution).in Soviet Russia style socialism,you choise to do what the official want you to do or not to do so and die from hungry. actually. before 1978 in China, the people refuse to do more. the officer require everyone to make more pcs a day while he try to make less pcs a day. the officer can't shoot them. if the official has the right to shoot them if they make less pcs a day, they will do more, but this is not socialism. it is slavery.in Soviet Russia style socialism,only the officials want the socialism, so at the end, it is damaged. in real socialism,the people want the socialism, in state-run hospital not in the boss-run hosiptal, a surgeon will do the same thing but he don't do anything for a person but for the collectivity. They are not all the same. Wages are not the same, conditions are not the same, resources and medical equipment is presentted.he would be able to acquire from his productive work.if he do more , he can get more, at the same time the collectivity(including himself) get more not the boss get more. "What you call 'the machine of Capital' is not one person, is not one machine. It is many machines that compete with each other for a piece of the market. Competition is what is allowing people to have options and thus they are not forced by anyone." in real socialism, the Competition is not needed, only the cooperation is required.

as to the man's nature, i would like to say something about it. perhaps you will agree on that one would like to get something more and more without damaging others. it is better than that farmer. you get something by making by yourself or trading. Ok no one would deny your this requirement. if you were Bill Gazz(i don't know how to spell this name who is the master of the Microsoft). you have so much money. now you still need money? can you tell me what use of these money. to you, these money's function is to help you make more money. do you agree it is your nature.actually, Bill Gazz don't need any more money, now he do something for the soceity.i think you get the benefit from him although you have no cognition on it because you think i get something from trading with Microsoft. but Bill Gazz has already gotten anything he want to have and by his nature, he don't need more money any more. why he would like to trade with you again and again now.is it because he want to get money from you? if everyone in USA were Bill Gazz, what would happen in USA? i think the communism would come of it because the property means nothing in this sitiuation. you can't ask any poor country to enter into communism according to marx. now, what do you wnat to have by your nature? do you need Gold-ring which you can wear on your fingers, can you tell me how many Gold-ring do you need. is it enough to have 10 pcs. i think it is enough by natural man's nature as you only have 10 fingers. another more one will have no function to you in the communsm. of cause, you will need more to hold and store it in your house or to trade something with them in capitalism.but it is meanless in communism, you can get anything else per your natural need but another more Gold-ring(because it is not your natural need). you can't be a king in communism. even in capitalism, you can be a king. a king is that man who want to have something which is not his natural need but the market style need). in captialism, you store another one Gold-ring when you wear 10 pcs Gold-rings on your 10 figers, it will cause poor condition of other people.you have 10 houses but you only sleep in one house and let others empty, but i have 0 house. of cause you will sell or rent it to me.but i have no moeny.because you are the boss, i am a worker. of cause i can't rob your empty house,because the army(you would say it is the law) support you.yes i have to take something out to trade with you or i have to do something for you. can you tell me, how much money do you naturally need by your nature?

we see eye to eye at this point.. i think the forced socialism is not real socialism.

unfortunetly no one can prove who is at fault for damaging it under this situation. you can't blame this society, it is its reality! no one in this society go to your land and damage it or force you to lose the land. it is just the consequence of society or the actions of many members of this society or the anarchism's individuals' actions like the earthquake or "greenhouse effect" caused by the greenhouse gas. can you tell me what the rational action is and how to do rationally. is there any absolute rational action. a farmer decide to cut down trees, so he can get more land. another farmer decide to cut down trees, so he can get more land,... which one's same action to get more land will get to the point where everyone will lose the land. i think the last one should be the wise man to do rationally.but who can stop those men before this last man or after him from cutting down the trees. why those men before this last man can be permitted to get more land while those men after him can not be permitted to do so. yes they should cooperate and plan how to cut trees and how to distribute the new land to each other.if some people refuse to do so rationally, they should be forced to do so by Gun or law. the absolute capitalism will cause miseries soon or late like this story! there are more and more socialism factors in your country. but the socialism not the state capitalism will win in the future.

you can select different boss who hold the Captial or to be the boss holding the captial in capitalism. you can also select different official who hold the Gun or to be official holding the Gun in Soviet Russia. the boss is not the robber and the official is not the robber as well. the robber is those men who hold the Gun and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when he point the Gun at you. of cause, at the beginning or later, you can choise to be a robber. the bosses is those men who hold the Capital and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when you have nothing but the labor and have to work under boss' management(this boss' or another boss' management), of cause, at the beginning , you have enough captial and are boss or later you make more money and choise to be a boss.the officials is those men who hold the Gun (army,police)and make you have no choice but to do what he want you to do when you are not a official of cause, at the beginning , you are a official or later you can work hard and choise to be a official. do you think the official in Soviet Russia is like the robber who want to rob something from the workers.yes at the beginning, they rob the property of the capitalism.but it is for revolution. in the Soviet Russia economy, the official is not the robber. it is like the boss under the capitalism society.can you tell me what happened at the beginning of the capitalism?IT IS THE "CAPITAL primary accumulation" we know the history of England! can you tell me what the substaintial difference between the machine or the Capital(the machine will not force you to do anything but the boss who has the machine can force you to do something) and the Gun or the military force (the Gun will not force you to do anything but the army(official) who has the Gun can force you to do something.) in marxism, you are free of being forced by "Gun" and "Machine". it is the real freedom!

in Objectivism, the "freedom" just means no one will force you to do anything by Gun.is it right. in marxism, the "freedom not only means no one will force you to do anything by Gun but also means you will free of being led by the capitalist or by the machine i.e capital. could i say no one is boss or everyone is boss in communism! i am confusion why we should not forced to do something by Gun but we can permit to be forced to do something by Capital. even if we can be led by Capital, why we can't be led by Gun? of cause, you choise and be willing to do something under the boss' (a man who hold the Capital)management and you won't choise and be willing to do something under the Gun's(another man who hold the Gun) management! of caouse, you can chiose to be a boss and hold the capital to lead other people freely, so you think you are free. you also can choise to be a man and hold the Gun to lead other people freely.of cause, you will feel free under captial but not free under Gun.why? a Gun is visible but the capital is incognizant. maybe it is one of the reasons!

i have no clear idea now. maybe the mixed-economy is ok now but maybe to me, socialist is prefered.

in Objectivism ethics of <the virture of selfness>, have a sentence reading as follows: "the collective, which, in relations to every individual, consists of everybody except himself." maybe it is true in Soviet Russia socialism, but according to marx's opinion, it should be modified as following:"the collective, which, in relations to every individual, consists of everybody including himself." in communism, no one would be asked to be the selfless or selfness,we just need a community of free individuals.you can find it in marx's works!

yes i am trying to express myself well in english, but it seems difficult for me to do so. in one sentence, i say a farmer can use his land without damaging others, and in the next sentence i say the use of their(many farmers) land is causing damage.when a farmer want to get more land by clearing a wild area for cultivation, he really can get more land and will not cause the mud-rock flow, because he can't cut down all trees by himself.if many farmers do the same thing like him, many many trees will be cut down and it will cause "water loss and soil erosion"and the mud-rock flow.i think it will happen in this story. (Fixed quote-block -sN)

softwareNerd yes, it is too complicated for me to make out the answer to this question.the society is complicated. you maybe found there are many products made from China and designed in USA. the producing will cause pollution but the designning will not cause pollution.i think it is one of the reason. several decades ago, there are pollution in USA as well. in the other hand, in non-industrial society,there is no pollution problem!

To a farmer, it is absolute rational action because he can get more rice even without causing any damage to others. To a farmer, his action will not cause the damage to others and he can get more land as well. but if most of them do the same thing, they and those who are wise and do not want to cut down the trees are damaged.i think there is no contradicts! in this story.the Objectivism maybe whould agree that this society may have a government and make the law to protect the environment so that the government can force some farmers not to do the actions i.e cutting down the trees to make more land by Gun under the name of the law. or no one can be prohibited by suggestion: not to clear a wild area for cultivation. although the reality is more complicated, we can't conclude there is absolutely no such consequence in some regards. who make the law. what is the law? can the law lead us include those men who don't agree with this law in this society? why the government can lead you by law that you don't accept at all. if there is no law, the individual will do something which is ratioanl to him but irrational to the society. Soviet Union lead or force some workers to do "by Gun" while the USA lead or force some workers to do by Gun under the name of the law. actually our occupational choice is relatively limited, can i go to USA and have a job there? in market economy, we have to get to the right position by going through many mistakes or the failures, because there is transaction cost.such as i should spend more than two months to find a job and maybe this job was still not a decent one, so i have to change and change until i find one that is the right one and so on. if in this world,there is only the market without plan, nothing would produced. the company is a unit to perform the function of plan. maybe we can have a bigest company i.e country

According to the Objectivism, the government should not force the farmer not to do the "rational" actions or "irrational" action..the civil court also can't force the farmer not to do the "rational" actions when there is no contract berween them and others but the the principle of getting more land by clearing a wild area for cultivation.To a farmer, it is absolute rational action because he can get more rice even without causing any damage to others. in this society, the other wise people have no any choise but to be damaged or to suggest those farmers not to cut trees (although he know it would not work,because those farmers have the right to clear a wild area for cultivation. you can't leave this society and live in moon. (No need to quote the entire previous post - sN)

1 or 2 men of them don't do so to get more plant, they are damaged too. can you tell me if they also deserve the consequences they get. if there is no government and some farmers insist on cutting the trees but some farmers go agaist it(you can not deny this sitiuation,when they don't think this action will damage them according their "rational" judgement. ) what would happen!

for example: there are some peasants who make up a society and are living around a hill and they plant on the field of the hill, a peasant want to get more land to plant, so he decide to cut the trees. yes thus he can get more rice.but if many peasants want to get more land to plant and they decide to cut the trees.the result is the mud-rock flow and lost all land. the society was damaged.

”现代经济体系具有很复杂的组织结构，在工业领域、机器与人力被企业组