Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[marxist]

As it happens, Socialism, to me, is not just a theory I have read about in a book and concluded it was evil. I was born and raised in Poland. I have moved to America at the age of 17 (15 years ago) without knowing a word of English. So, I have been on your side of the fence.

how about Poland now? in market economy, we(most of us except the owners of the factory) work very hard but we get a few in china.

maybe you think the socialism is a Utopia.my major is foreign trade and i study marxism plutonomy and "Western economics( i don't know what name it is in USA)",we study what you quoted above in "Western economics", so we know very well some weakness of the market economy.

Edited June 28, 2006 by marxist

[LaszloWalrus]

where have you been in China?

I am living in SuZhou which is a beautiful chinese classical garden city nearest from the ShangHai.

if you come to Suzhou, i think i can be your guide.haw-haw!

I spent a bit over a month in China. I went to Beijing, Guilin, Xian, Lhasa (in Tibet), Chengdu, Wuhan, and Hong Kong. The Three Gorges Dam area is beautiful.

[~Sophia~]

how about Poland now? in market economy, we(most of us except the owners of the factory) work very hard but we get a few in china.

Poland, due to the comprehensive reform program to replace the centralized command economy with a market-oriented system – is a success story.

The privatisation of small and medium state-owned companies and a liberal law on establishing new firms have allowed the development of an aggressive private sector in Poland. The economic reforms of the Balcerowicz plan introduced in 1990 removed price controls, eliminated most subsidies to industry, opened markets to international competition, and imposed strict budgetary and monetary discipline. Poland was the first former centrally planned economy in central Europe to end its recession and return to growth in the early 1990s.

Poland today stands out as one of the most successful and open examples of the transition from a centralized economy to a primarily privately owned market economy.

maybe you think the socialism is a Utopia.

Yes I do. Socialism has brought economic paralisis to every country (no matter what continent or culture) that tried it. The degree of socializaton has been the degree of disaster.

Socialism to me is not an issue of economics but an issue of morality. Socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole. It states that a man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and work do not belong to him. "Common good" it is the slogan under which socialism destroys basic human rights.

my major is foreign trade and i study marxism plutonomy and "Western economics( i don't know what name it is in USA)",we study what you quoted above in "Western economics", so we know very well some weakness of the market economy.

Capitalism is not a hundrance to the productive forces as it is being shown in Marxian model. Marx did not foresee that capitalism itself, in its further progress, can change its structure to accomodate and manage new productive forces.

[Lathanar]

my major is foreign trade and i study marxism plutonomy and "Western economics( i don't know what name it is in USA)",we study what you quoted above in "Western economics", so we know very well some weakness of the market economy.

So far you've not really made any real points about any "weakness" of the market economy except to say that a centralized economy would be better. Just look at the data present, how capitalistic economies outperform, outgrow, and provide a better standard of living then any central planned economy. I think America may very well be the only country where our poor people living under the levels of poverty have an obesity problem. Just stop and look at the data, look at how countries turn around after excepting free-market price-controlled economies and how they start going downhill the more socialist they become. Explain to me why this is without falling back on "they did socialism wrong", that much is evident. Tell me why the capitalists models are doing better than the socialist models.

Part of my analogy with the widgets is the other side of the equation with capitalism everyone stuck on the terms "profit" and "greed" can't see, "loss". If you keep making a product that doesn't sell, that tells you people don't want it, stop making it or go bankrupt. If you keep trying out an economic model that doesn't bring desired results, stifles innovation, and only makes matters worse, stop doing it or lose your economy.

[marxist]

Poland, due to the comprehensive reform program to replace the centralized command economy with a market-oriented system – is a success story.

The privatisation of small and medium state-owned companies and a liberal law on establishing new firms have allowed the development of an aggressive private sector in Poland. The economic reforms of the Balcerowicz plan introduced in 1990 removed price controls, eliminated most subsidies to industry, opened markets to international competition, and imposed strict budgetary and monetary discipline. Poland was the first former centrally planned economy in central Europe to end its recession and return to growth in the early 1990s.

Poland today stands out as one of the most successful and open examples of the transition from a centralized economy to a primarily privately owned market economy.

it sounds good. i got something from the lecture of Mr.Grzegorz W. Kolodko(former vice prime minister of Poland)in china, he said

Poland's transition got the support from USA and EU and end its recession and return to growth in the early 1990s but the economic policy from the government (not only the market)plays great role there.

So far you've not really made any real points about any "weakness" of the market economy except to say that a centralized economy would be better. Just look at the data present, how capitalistic economies outperform, outgrow, and provide a better standard of living then any central planned economy. I think America may very well be the only country where our poor people living under the levels of poverty have an obesity problem. Just stop and look at the data, look at how countries turn around after excepting free-market price-controlled economies and how they start going downhill the more socialist they become. Explain to me why this is without falling back on "they did socialism wrong", that much is evident. Tell me why the capitalists models are doing better than the socialist models.

By Bertell Ollman at least what he said happened in China, maybe also in India and Argentina and so on!

Distorted investment priorities, as wealth gets directed into what will earn the largest profit and not into what most people really need (so public health, public education, and even dikes for periodically swollen rivers receive little attention);

Worsening exploitation of workers, since the harder, faster, and longer people work—just as the less they get paid—the more profit is earned by their employer (with this incentive and driven by the competition, employers are forever finding new ways to intensify exploitation);

Overproduction of goods, since workers as a class are never paid enough to buy back, in their role as consumers, the ever growing amount of goods that they produce (in the era of automation, computerization and robotization, the gap between what workers produce—and can produce—and what their low wage allows them to consume has increased enormously);

Unused industrial capacity (the mountain of unsold goods has resulted in a large percentage of machinery of all kinds lying idle, while many pressing needs—but needs that the people who have them can't pay for—go unmet);

Growing unemployment (machines and raw materials are available, but using them to satisfy the needs of the people who don't have the money to pay for what could be made would not make profits for those who own the machines and raw materials—and in a market economy profits are what matters);

Growing social and economic inequality (the rich get richer and everyone else gets poorer, many absolutely and the rest in relation to the rapidly growing wealth of the rich);

With such a gap between the rich and the poor, egalitarian social relations become impossible (people with a lot of money begin to think of themselves as a better kind of human being and to view the poor with contempt, while the poor feel a mixture of hatred, envy and queasy respect for the rich);

Those with the most money also begin to exercise a disproportional political influence, which they use to help themselves make still more money;

Increase in corruption in all sectors of society, which further increases the power of those with a lot of money and puts those without the money to bribe officials at a severe disadvantage;

Increase in all kinds of economic crimes, with people trying to acquire money illegally when legal means are not available (and sometimes even when they are);

Reduced social benefits and welfare (since such benefits are financed at least in part by taxes, extended benefits generally means reduced profits for the rich; furthermore, any social safety net makes workers less fearful of losing their jobs and consequently less willing to do anything to keep them);

Worsening ecological degradation (since any effort to improve the quality of the air and of the water costs the owners of industry money and reduces profits, our natural home becomes increasingly unlivable);

With all this, people of all classes begin to misunderstand the new social relations and powers that arise through the operations of a market economy as natural phenomena with a life and will of their own (money, for example, gets taken as an almost supernatural power that stands above people and orders their lives, rather than a material vehicle into which people through their alienated relations with their productive activity and its products have poured their own power and potential; and the market itself, which is just one possible way in which social wealth can be distributed, is taken as the way nature itself intended human beings to relate to each other, as more in keeping with basic human nature than any other possibility. As part of this, people no longer believe in a future that could be qualitatively different or in their ability, either individually or collectively, to help bring it about. In short, what Marx called "ideological thinking" becomes general);

The same market experiences develop a set of anti-social attitudes and emotions (people become egotistical, concerned only with themselves. "Me first", "anything for money", "winning in competition no matter what the human costs" become what drives them in all areas of life. They also become very anxious and economically insecure, afraid of losing their job, their home, their sale, etc.; and they worry about money all the time. In this situation, feelings as well as ideas of cooperation and mutual concern are seriously weakened, where they don't disappear altogether, for in a market economy it is against one's personal interest to cooperate with others);

With people's thoughts and emotions effected in these ways by their life in a market economy, it becomes very difficult for the government, any government, to give them a true picture of the country's problems (it is more conducive to stability to feed people illusions of unending economic growth and fairy tales of how they too can get rich. Exaggerating the positive achievements of society and seldom if ever mentioning its negative features is also the best means of attracting foreign investment. With so much of the economy depending on "favorable market psychology", the government simply cannot afford to be completely honest either with its own people or the rest of the world on what is really happening in the country);

Finally, the market economy leads to periodic economic crises, where all these disadvantages develop to a point that most of the advantages I mentioned earlier simply dry up —the economy stops growing, fewer things are made, development of the forces of production slows down, investment drops off, etc. (a close look at the trends apparent in the disadvantages of the market should make clear why such crises are inevitable in a market economy). Until an economic crisis occurs, it is possible to take the position that the advantages of a market economy outweigh its disadvantages, or the opposite position, and to develop a political strategy that accords with one's view, whatever it is. But if a crisis does away with most of the important advantages associated with the market, this is no longer possible. It simply makes no sense to continue arguing that we must give priority to the advantages of the market when they are in the process of disappearing.

Edited June 28, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Why would you have a tax in the first place? The very fact that you have a tax would mean that you have given up a part of your economic freedom.

But this is a good example to explain what I mean:

Let's say you have only three people. Let's say there is no tax. Everyone may keep 100% of what he earns. The only way to deal with one another is through free trade. Now one of the three people is way more productive than the others. He works longer and he works smarter. He saves and builds tools to increase his productivity. Now the two others come along and say: We want what you have. Let's start a tax. He who earns more than average should be taxed and the taxed money should be distributed to those who don't earn it. That's democracy. It's still rule by force. That it "benefits" most people creates its appeal. What you don't understand is the difference between individual rights and democracy. These are completely different terms. If the two people vote to kill that man, they can. What protects him and gives him freedom is not democracy. His freedom comes from his rights. And these rights actually hinder the ruling of democracy.

What made America big was not democracy, but respect for individual rights.

but the taxed money is not sure to be distributed to those who don't earn it。 it is used to build public accommodation. as you know. you can be richer when your society is richer. for example i can earn less money in China than in USA. if there were no public education and so on in USA. the society would not be healthy and there would be some social struggle between peoples(the poor and the rich)

In a certain sense, yes. What you have to understand is that there isn't "the workers" on one side and "the market" on the other. They are the same thing. "the market" is just another term for "all the people in a country" (or on the planet). You are part of that market, so am I. No matter where I am born or how. As long as I am alive and have needs and wants, I am part of a market and people have a reason to produce what I want to get my money in exchange. The same is true for you. Wherever there's a need, there's a market and an incentive to produce something that fills that need.

and the market means the relations of the exchange.

You can still get a job. And you don't need state support to learn useful skills to then get a better job. I would also challenge your statement that no bank would lend you money.

Of course you have advantages if you start out with a lot of money. But the point I am trying to make is that your fate is not determined by the cards you are dealt. The good thing about capitalism is that it's possible to work your way to the top if you want to. Wealth is not inherited, it is created. And if you can do good work, you get paid good money as companies will seek those who do good work.

And don't forget that poor people are a market by themselves, so companies produce goods that are as cheap as possible so that even poor people can afford them and they constantly underbid each other regarding prices to get increased market share.

but there are high rate of unemployed in this world.

Edited June 28, 2006 by marxist

[Inspector]

You see what you guys get when you don't stick to principles? Pages and pages of textbook Marx.

Come on, people! Let's keep this simple!

Marxist, what do you say to my example of Democracy with the three men?

[Lathanar]

I had actually answered all those points, but then I thought no, this is stupid. Although there was one point I really got a kick out of.

Overproduction of goods, since workers as a class are never paid enough to buy back, in their role as consumers, the ever growing amount of goods that they produce (in the era of automation, computerization and robotization, the gap between what workers produce—and can produce—and what their low wage allows them to consume has increased enormously);

We have a ton of variety to choose from when we buy stuff and the shelves in the store don't go empty. Wow. We really need to stop that.

Copy and pasting some drivel that is all conjecture and none based in fact is all nice and such, but it did not really answer my question. Tell me why the capitalists models are doing better than the socialist models.

[Felix]

but the taxed money is not sure to be distributed to those who don't earn it。 it is used to build public accommodation. as you know. you can be richer when your society is richer. for example i can earn less money in China than in USA. if there were no public education and so on in USA. the society would not be healthy and there would be some social struggle between peoples(the poor and the rich)

Well, you can be richer when your society is richer for two reasons:

1) lots of technological advances which allow you to raise your productivity

That's the benefit of specialization and free trade

2) Other people's money is stolen and given to you

That's immoral as those who produce don't get what they have earned and people who haven't earned it get it. That's exploitation.

Public accomodation built with taxes means that the money which building this accommodation costs is stolen. Taxation is nothing but another word for theft. Nobody has the right to take your money. The very best thing that can happen is that your tax money is spent on things you would have financed anyway. But that means that the best thing your taxed money can do is to do what you would have done hadn't you been taxed in the first place. But since you also have to pay for the tax collectors themselves, you end up worse in general.

and the market means the relations of the exchange.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Can you clarify?

but there are high rate of unemployed in this world.

Yup. Because of government restrictions and free handouts to the unemployed (stolen from those who actually work).

[marxist]

Tell me why the capitalists models are doing better than the socialist models.

i just think the capitalists models in USA,EU,Japan are doing better than the "socialist models" in Soviet Union;North Korea,Cuba. i have no answer to this question now. actually,i think the capitalists model in USA is a best social model in the world NOW. if China could be rich and free like the USA, i would argue for nothing but accoring to our society conditions, maybe we can't get to be a country like the modern USA through the way the USA has gotten through!

[Bold Standard]

i just think the capitalists models in USA,EU,Japan are doing better than the "socialist models" in Soviet Union;North Korea,Cuba. i have no answer to this question now. actually,i think the capitalists model in USA is a best social model in the world NOW. if China could be rich and free like the USA, i would argue for nothing but accoring to our society conditions, maybe we can't get to be a country like the modern USA through the way the USA has gotten through!

I once heard someone say that there is a popular saying about Chinese businessmen, it went something like this, "The Chinese do fantastic in business-- everywhere but in China." It seems to me (though I'm not an expert on China or on economics) that the main thing holding China back from success is the oppressive Chinese government. I know that many Americans are afraid to invest in any Chinese businesses, because they are afraid that at any moment another Mao type will come into power, and seize all of the private property over there, and they'll lose all of their investments-- and the Chinese government might even start invading other countries, and possibly even America! (China has nuclear missles pointed at us now, and every few years threatens to blow up California). If the oppressive communist regime were eliminated, and China became a peacefull, capitalist country like America, then it would have all the benifits of every other capitalist country, and there would be nothing preventing America from helping China out just like it sometimes helps out other friendly countries.

Marxists are notoriously bad at utilizing inductive methods of reasoning. Freedom and capitalism worked for USA because they're universal principles. They work for every country that tries them to the extent that the country tries them. It's just like the law of gravity is a universal principle. You release a stone from your hands, and it falls to the ground. Someone else tries it, and it happens the same way. A Chinese person tries it, and suddenly it floats up in the air and turns into a boquet of flowers? No, gravity works on principle. And capitalism (meaning a system which consistently upholds individual rights, including life liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) does, too. It's not a coincidence that capitalism has worked so far-- it works for a reason. (The essential reason could be stated as "the mind cannot be forced").

[RationalBiker]

if China could be rich and free like the USA,

And how did the USA get "rich and free"? What's that, Capitalism you say? China can't get "rich and free" and then turn to Capitalism, they have to turn to Capitalism first and earn it the hard way like the USA did.

Tell me how the rich get richer if they're producing things that most people (the poor) don't need? Who is buying all of the things they are producing? Tell me why a business has any obligation (other than profit motive) to produce what "the poor" need just because they are "the poor"?

Edited June 28, 2006 by RationalCop

[Lathanar]

i just think the capitalists models in USA,EU,Japan are doing better than the "socialist models" in Soviet Union;North Korea,Cuba. i have no answer to this question now. actually,i think the capitalists model in USA is a best social model in the world NOW.

Here's your answer to why we know capitalism is better.

[marxist]

I once heard someone say that there is a popular saying about Chinese businessmen, it went something like this, "The Chinese do fantastic in business-- everywhere but in China." It seems to me (though I'm not an expert on China or on economics) that the main thing holding China back from success is the oppressive Chinese government. I know that many Americans are afraid to invest in any Chinese businesses, because they are afraid that at any moment another Mao type will come into power, and seize all of the private property over there, and they'll lose all of their investments-- and the Chinese government might even start invading other countries, and possibly even America! (China has nuclear missles pointed at us now, and every few years threatens to blow up California). If the oppressive communist regime were eliminated, and China became a peacefull, capitalist country like America, then it would have all the benifits of every other capitalist country, and there would be nothing preventing America from helping China out just like it sometimes helps out other friendly countries.

Marxists are notoriously bad at utilizing inductive methods of reasoning. Freedom and capitalism worked for USA because they're universal principles. They work for every country that tries them to the extent that the country tries them. It's just like the law of gravity is a universal principle. You release a stone from your hands, and it falls to the ground. Someone else tries it, and it happens the same way. A Chinese person tries it, and suddenly it floats up in the air and turns into a boquet of flowers? No, gravity works on principle. And capitalism (meaning a system which consistently upholds individual rights, including life liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness) does, too. It's not a coincidence that capitalism has worked so far-- it works for a reason. (The essential reason could be stated as "the mind cannot be forced").

Actually, there are many problems in China when we transform the planning system to market economy system. our reform has brought about some disputes now but the mainstream of the economists and the government insist on the way to be a market economy system. a few economists object it but they are powerless. in China, i think the workers and the peasants are suffering from the reformation. many people (incl. some from UNIVERSITY) can't find job. and most of the people work in the very bad working conditions. but the investing environment in china is good. many people from Japan, Taiwan,Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea,USA and EU are investting here, the economy and political environment is better and better for Chinese businessmen in china now. my major is foreign trade and i want to do business with foreign people by myself but i have no money for the time being.now i have a job with a chinese private company as a translator. it export products to Japan and USA. a Month ago, some business man from USA visited our company.one of them can speak chinese.

actually, the Mao type will not come into power any more because we think it is wrong, although we still think the Marx theory is right on.as to "the Chinese government might even start invading other countries, and possibly even America! " it is impossible. china will not go to war unless the Taiwan legally declare to be independent country.the war will bring nothing to us now. we are become more and more a capitalism society now but i don't know what would happen to us in the future.

Edited June 29, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

You see what you guys get when you don't stick to principles? Pages and pages of textbook Marx.

Come on, people! Let's keep this simple!

Marxist, what do you say to my example of Democracy with the three men?

so the Democracy dependents on a condition or conditions!

we put the "Democracy" and "science" high on the list since 1910s.New Culture Movement in China advocate "Democracy" and "science" in 1910s, they don't think the "freedom" is a important thing to China as well. many people accept the marxism from 1917 on. as you know,in China like the Japan, we are affected by Confucius, so we have the collectivism culture.maybe it is the reason why they don't think the "freedom"(from westen as well) is a important thing to China.

[~Sophia~]

Actually, there are many problems in China when we transform the planning system to market economy system. our reform has brought about some disputes now but the mainstream of the economists and the government insist on the way to be a market economy system. a few economists object it but they are powerless, in China, i think the workers and the peasants are suffering from the reformation. many people (incl. some from UNIVERSITY) can't find job. and most of the people work in the very bad working conditions. but the investing environment in china is good. many people from Japan, Taiwan,Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea,USA and EU are investting here, the economy and political environment is better and better for Chinese businessmen in china now. my major is foreign trade and i want to do business with foreign people by myself but i have no money for the time being.now i have a job with a chinese private company as a translator. it export products to Japan and USA. a Month ago, some business man from USA visited our company.one of them can speak chinese.

actually, the Mao type will not come into power any more because we think it is wrong, although we still think the Marx theory is right on.as to "the Chinese government might even start invading other countries, and possibly even America! " it is impossible. china will not go to war unless the Taiwan legally declare to be independent country.the war will bring nothing to us now. we are become more and more a capitalism society now but i don't know what would happen to us in the future.

In the early stages of capitalism things are hard but they get better - as they did in Poland. As more wealth is accumulated by companies, as there are more employment opportunities, the wages and working conditions improve. China's economy is booming due to foreign investments and will continue to do so (unless political environment changes for the worse - which would not be wise).

Edited June 29, 2006 by ~Sophia~

[Inspector]

so the Democracy dependents on a condition or conditions!

I don't know what you mean. Are you agreeing that the example of Democracy was wrong... and that it must be limited by "conditions" (rights) which the government may not violate?

as you know,in China like the Japan, we are affected by Confucius, so we have the collectivism culture.maybe it is the reason why they don't think the "freedom"(from westen as well) is a important thing to China.

That's likely. But as I said, it is freedom that brings wealth.

[simplypractical]

Socialism and communism does not "invest" in the poor it GIVES to the poor based on

need. But that is an altruistic philosophy. Not everyone feels they are their

brother's keeper. It is best to help 60% of someone's total need not 100%. If you give

100% of someone's need then they won't work.

Maslow was wrong. The poor have not

obtained higher education once their needs were met.

There is no giving to the poor -only "investing" in the poor. We must require

something from the poor before they are fed...a "B" in English, an "A" in Math.

Something.

If this is logical, it will work.

[marxist]

I don't know what you mean. Are you agreeing that the example of Democracy was wrong... and that it must be limited by "conditions" (rights) which the government may not violate?

That's likely. But as I said, it is freedom that brings wealth.

yes, i agree the example of Democracy was wrong. i think everyone is not only individual but also one of the society.i think the Democracy must be limited by "conditions" (rights) which the government may not violate and at the same time we need Democracy to organise a government to protect our individual rights.

Socialism and communism does not "invest" in the poor it GIVES to the poor based on

need. But that is an altruistic philosophy. Not everyone feels they are their

brother's keeper. It is best to help 60% of someone's total need not 100%. If you give

100% of someone's need then they won't work.

Maslow was wrong. The poor have not

obtained higher education once their needs were met.

There is no giving to the poor -only "investing" in the poor. We must require

something from the poor before they are fed...a "B" in English, an "A" in Math.

Something.

If this is logical, it will work.

Socialism: to each according to his work.

communism:to each according to need.

per marx, in communism society, the productive forces are very high, so no one is poor.

now i don't think It is best to directly help 60% of someone's total need not 100%. we should have a society which can make evey people meet 60% or more to 100% of his total need, i.e. a society where he can have a job according to his ability and he can develop his ability according to his need.

Edited June 30, 2006 by marxist

[Inspector]

yes, i agree the example of Democracy was wrong. i think everyone is not only individual but also one of the society.i think the Democracy must be limited by "conditions" (rights) which the government may not violate and at the same time we need Democracy to organise a government to protect our individual rights.

Then what you must decide is: What are individual rights? What are the limits that must be placed on what government can do?

We have already answered this: The government must never initiate force. It must never harm, attack, or confiscate the property of an innocent man. It must also prevent anyone else from initiating force, so that all men are safe from predation.

A government which does this is a precondition for a prosperous, wealthy society. The fact that the USA has (mostly) done this is why we are so advanced and so rich. That fact that socialism does not do this is why socialist contries are always poor and backwards.

The only option to improve the lives of the citizens of socialist countries is to abandon socialism.

[Sherry]

Actually, there are many problems in China when we transform the planning system to market economy system. our reform has brought about some disputes now but the mainstream of the economists and the government insist on the way to be a market economy system. a few economists object it but they are powerless. in China, i think the workers and the peasants are suffering from the reformation. many people (incl. some from UNIVERSITY) can't find job. and most of the people work in the very bad working conditions. but the investing environment in china is good. many people from Japan, Taiwan,Hong Kong,Singapore, South Korea,USA and EU are investting here, the economy and political environment is better and better for Chinese businessmen in china now. my major is foreign trade and i want to do business with foreign people by myself but i have no money for the time being.now i have a job with a chinese private company as a translator. it export products to Japan and USA. a Month ago, some business man from USA visited our company.one of them can speak chinese.

actually, the Mao type will not come into power any more because we think it is wrong, although we still think the Marx theory is right on.as to "the Chinese government might even start invading other countries, and possibly even America! " it is impossible. china will not go to war unless the Taiwan legally declare to be independent country.the war will bring nothing to us now. we are become more and more a capitalism society now but i don't know what would happen to us in the future.

Of course it isn't going to be an easy road...but you say here that things are chaning. things are getting better for Chinese businessman. That is wonderful news.

So what are YOU going to do for YOURSELF? You don't like being a translator? Okay, maybe you are not able to get the exact position you want in a foreign trade field, or start a business in a foreign trade field, but you need to continue to cultivate your career.

That is no different in the US either. Do you understand that working as a translator can be a huge benefit to you in the future? Are you making good contacts. networking, doing what you can to meet with influential business people in the type of business you want to be in?

I see all this posting about the how China's move to a more capitalistic economy is effecting your efforts to get a job. But I don't see you taking any responsibility for your own career outside of you showing up for your education. Am I missing something? I am not trying to be harsh, but my profession is that of a recruiter. I spend 40 plus hours a week talking on the phone with candidates in business. It doesn't matter how good of an education you have if you are not going to figure out what to do.

Make yourself a career plan. If you truly cannot figure out how to work in your chosen profession in your geographic area, then move to another area in China. If you really don't think you can do it in China, then try Hong Kong or somewhere else. Come to the US!

The bottomline is this: if you value a certain profession/career and that is truly your passion, you will do what you can to work in it. Complaining that "oh if we were socialist I would have a job because the government would give me one' is disturbing. No job should exist if there is no need for it. Even my own job. (I am a consultant recruiter, so when my employer doesn't have projects, I am on the bench...aka no work. I have to find other work during that time. That's fine. It's bad business to pay people when there is no need to.)

[Felix]

Here's a nice von Mises quote:

Neither the entrepreneurs nor the farmers nor the capitalists determine what has to be produced. The consumers do that. . . . Their buying and their abstention from buying decides who should own and run the plants and the farms. They make poor people rich and rich people poor. They determine precisely what should be produced, in what quality, and in what quantities. They are merciless bosses, full of whims and fancies, changeable and unpredictable.

(For further discussion sparked by this quote, see this split thread. - sN)

Edited July 3, 2006 by softwareNerd

[Bold Standard]

If you truly cannot figure out how to work in your chosen profession in your geographic area, then move to another area in China. If you really don't think you can do it in China, then try Hong Kong or somewhere else. Come to the US!

Do Chinese people have that kind of freedom of mobility? I know in lots of communist countries, you have to get official permission from the State just to go out of town for a day, let alone leaving the country.

[Strangelove]

Red China is less commie these days and more of a Fascist power. They allow for a greater degree of mobility to be able to keep the economy moving, while still keeping tabs on the population.

Beijing watched the events of 1989 with great interest and does not want the same to happen to them. They are willing to allow their people to get a degree of luxury and "freedom" to keep them content, but will of course keep the monopoly on power and the press.

So if you are a regular Chinese person, I would expect you to have slightly (but not significantly) more mobility then you would have had in the Warsaw Pact. If you are Tibetan, or another minority, well, then you are stuck. Its also my understanding that freely traveling to Macao and Hong Kong is easier said then done.

[marxist]

Do Chinese people have that kind of freedom of mobility? I know in lots of communist countries, you have to get official permission from the State just to go out of town for a day, let alone leaving the country.

in china,we can move to anywhere without any restrictions but it is difficulty for us to go abroad! of course, if you have enough money, you can freely go abroad as well!

Edited July 4, 2006 by marxist