Socialism Vs. Capitalism

[marxist]

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.

yes, you are right.

we have more and more economic freedom but the political liberty is still weak!

[fatdogs12]

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.

Why not go with capitalism then. Mostly everyone can make way more than thier needs and have plenty of money left over to work on thier abilities.

[marxist]

Why not go with capitalism then. Mostly everyone can make way more than thier needs and have plenty of money left over to work on thier abilities.

the boss fired me several days ago without the decent reason.

now i have to look for another job. but it seems to be difficulty to find a job asap. in china, there are more and more people graduated from the university now but the capitalism human resouce market show us there are little job to match the supply of labour.the reality will not cheat us.

now i can't offen browse webnet because i have no Computor and i have to spend 0.3USD per hour to do so at the net bar.

Edited July 7, 2006 by marxist

[softwareNerd]

Marxist,

Sorry to hear you lost your job.

At some point, I will try to post on the topic of job-shortages and firing under Capitalism. This is probably not the time for it.

I hope your search for a new job goes well. Focus everything on that, for now.

[Sherry]

Sorry to hear about your job loss as well. That is never easy, no matter what country you are in.

Get in contact with the people you were translating for and start working your networks.

Let us know how you make out when you can.

[fatdogs12]

the boss fired me several days ago without the decent reason.

now i have to look for another job. but it seems to be difficulty to find a job asap. in china, there are more and more people graduated from the university now but the capitalism human resouce market show us there are little job to match the supply of labour.the reality will not cheat us.

now i can't offen browse webnet because i have no Computor and i have to spend 0.3USD per hour to do so at the net bar.

I too am sad to hear you lost your job. I most certainly wish you the best in finding a new one. As far as a capitalist society and the lack of jobs however I think your statement is a bit inaccurate as far as employment goes. In a completely capitalist society people are constantly trying to increase how productive they are (companies I mean). To do this they need people, especially skilled and hard working people.

As long as people need other productive people there will be jobs. In the United States Unemployment is pretty low at 5% and a lot of those people are in transition to getting another job. The only way for a country to have wealth is to produce a lot of goods. The only way to produce a lot of goods is to be efficient. This requires many technologies for each field of work. To accomplish this people need to be free to create new technologies all the time. That cannot be accomplished under Communism or Socialism simply because the government is for the most part the only innovator.

The only people who are poor in the United States (other than rare exceptions) are those who don't want to put in the work required to be wealthy.

[LaszloWalrus]

Also, the "poor" in the US live far better than the middle class in most parts of the world.

[softwareNerd]

Yes American "poor" are nothing like the poor in places like China. Check the link in post #8.

As a country moves away from socialism, individuals have to take more responsibility for themselves. Choice and opportunities expand tremendously, but there's less of a "big brother" looking over one's shoulder trying to make sure you continue to have a poor existence without actually starving. It's not too difficult a transition, because the new system is much better than the old. Also, everyone is in the same boat to start with; success goes to those who adjust to the new realities of the market and do not look to the government for help.

One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. economy is a legal system that allows employees to be fired "at will'. No, it is not an ideal system yet; many laws constrain an employer's freedom to fire employees. However, relative to most other places in the world, U.S. employers have much more freedom to fire. The key outcome of such a legal system is that workers move more easily from one company to another and from one industry to another.

I do not have the exact numbers, but Tom Peters (management lecturer) quotes some statistics of job creation in the US and in Europe over a period of years. If one looks at the number of LOST jobs, due to firing or downsizing and so on, the U.S. is much ahead of Europe (EU). However, if one looks at the number of new hires, the U.S. leads by an even bigger margin. The net result is that the U.S. economy creates far more net jobs than the EU.

Even within the U.S. one can consider old-time industries where the law has given special rights to unions and made it costly for companies to deploy their employees at will, leave alone firing them. many of these companies (e.g., auto, airlines) are struggling. In some industries union and non-union companies exist side by side (e.g. steel, airlines, auto and retailing). The non-unionized companies almost always do better.

The staganation imposed by union rules, or socialist worker-protections feels good in the short term for those who are already employed. However, what is rreally happening is that such laws are causing resources to be frittered away; in the end it is a disaster for all involved.

For the individual, a good perspective to take is to view oneself as a one-person company, not a worker for a particular firm. View employment as a long-term contract where your one-person company is helping a big company acheive its ends. As such, the individual must think about "investing" in his own training and skill-improvement; he must consider how he is going to advertise and market himself, and so on.

[Sherry]

For the individual, a good perspective to take is to view oneself as a one-person company, not a worker for a particular firm. View employment as a long-term contract where your one-person company is helping a big company acheive its ends. As such, the individual must think about "investing" in his own training and skill-improvement; he must consider how he is going to advertise and market himself, and so on.

That is a great attitude to have to have about job hunting and employment in general. That's basically how I feel, although I have not been able to put it so well. I may have to quote you in the future.

[softwareNerd]

I may have to quote you in the future.

Actually, it's an idea from Tom Peters's "Re-Imagine". Already, people (in the US) change employers more frequently than their parent's generation, aren't interested in pensions that they "can't take with them", work increasingly as "contractors", increasingly start their own small businesses. Peters actually goes further and advises individuals to think of themselves not just as a business, but also as a clear brand -- with all that entails in terms of building reputation etc.

[Sherry]

Actually, it's an idea from Tom Peters's "Re-Imagine". Already, people (in the US) change employers more frequently than their parent's generation, aren't interested in pensions that they "can't take with them", work increasingly as "contractors", increasingly start their own small businesses. Peters actually goes further and advises individuals to think of themselves not just as a business, but also as a clear brand -- with all that entails in terms of building reputation etc.

I spent the first 5 years of my recruiting career placing only contractors. It is amazing how many people have been able to make a career of it and built up good reputations.

I will have to check out his book thanks for the link.

[marxist]

I too am sad to hear you lost your job. I most certainly wish you the best in finding a new one. As far as a capitalist society and the lack of jobs however I think your statement is a bit inaccurate as far as employment goes. In a completely capitalist society people are constantly trying to increase how productive they are (companies I mean). To do this they need people, especially skilled and hard working people.

As long as people need other productive people there will be jobs. In the United States Unemployment is pretty low at 5% and a lot of those people are in transition to getting another job. The only way for a country to have wealth is to produce a lot of goods. The only way to produce a lot of goods is to be efficient. This requires many technologies for each field of work. To accomplish this people need to be free to create new technologies all the time. That cannot be accomplished under Communism or Socialism simply because the government is for the most part the only innovator.

The only people who are poor in the United States (other than rare exceptions) are those who don't want to put in the work required to be wealthy.

yes, actually,i know what the capitalism means in objectivism and in marxism. they are different. when i use the word capitalsm, i usually refer to it in marxism. in socialism, you do according to your ability, it maybe

is same as the capitalism but in socialism, the company belong to all of us, no one can fire us. if we don't work hard or our ablity is weak, we would get a less money as well but no one can fire you without arranging you another job according to your ability. in capitalism, the boss fire us according to his willing and we have to be unemployed man and maybe this sitiuation will continue for a long time. can you understand me here.

Edited July 10, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Marxist,

Sorry to hear you lost your job.

At some point, I will try to post on the topic of job-shortages and firing under Capitalism. This is probably not the time for it.

I hope your search for a new job goes well. Focus everything on that, for now.

thank you.

i gratuated from universtiy 4 years ago and i never have had

a steady job since i gratuated from universtiy. in China, there is a "law of labour", but many companys don't abide by it and the government doesn't enforce the law strictly.severy months ago ,many young people in france went against their "capitalism" government for denying or refuing the law of employing for the first time

in china, i think we should fight for our rights of labour as well like the france young people, or we will have no feeling of safety in our working.

Edited July 10, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Yes American "poor" are nothing like the poor in places like China. Check the link in post #8.

As a country moves away from socialism, individuals have to take more responsibility for themselves. Choice and opportunities expand tremendously, but there's less of a "big brother" looking over one's shoulder trying to make sure you continue to have a poor existence without actually starving. It's not too difficult a transition, because the new system is much better than the old. Also, everyone is in the same boat to start with; success goes to those who adjust to the new realities of the market and do not look to the government for help.

One of the greatest strengths of the U.S. economy is a legal system that allows employees to be fired "at will'. No, it is not an ideal system yet; many laws constrain an employer's freedom to fire employees. However, relative to most other places in the world, U.S. employers have much more freedom to fire. The key outcome of such a legal system is that workers move more easily from one company to another and from one industry to another.

I do not have the exact numbers, but Tom Peters (management lecturer) quotes some statistics of job creation in the US and in Europe over a period of years. If one looks at the number of LOST jobs, due to firing or downsizing and so on, the U.S. is much ahead of Europe (EU). However, if one looks at the number of new hires, the U.S. leads by an even bigger margin. The net result is that the U.S. economy creates far more net jobs than the EU.

Even within the U.S. one can consider old-time industries where the law has given special rights to unions and made it costly for companies to deploy their employees at will, leave alone firing them. many of these companies (e.g., auto, airlines) are struggling. In some industries union and non-union companies exist side by side (e.g. steel, airlines, auto and retailing). The non-unionized companies almost always do better.

The staganation imposed by union rules, or socialist worker-protections feels good in the short term for those who are already employed. However, what is rreally happening is that such laws are causing resources to be frittered away; in the end it is a disaster for all involved.

For the individual, a good perspective to take is to view oneself as a one-person company, not a worker for a particular firm. View employment as a long-term contract where your one-person company is helping a big company acheive its ends. As such, the individual must think about "investing" in his own training and skill-improvement; he must consider how he is going to advertise and market himself, and so on.

yes, you are right. 'The key outcome of such a legal system is that workers move more easily from one company to another and from one industry to another" should be the basis of the allowing employees to be fired "at will'.or you lost your job and you can't get another job in another company according to your ability and you will be a very poor person not because you are lazy just because no job in this society can provide you with.

Edited July 10, 2006 by marxist

[Lathanar]

in China, there is a "law of labour", but many companys don't abide by it and the government doesn't enforce the law strictly.severy months ago ,many young people in france went against their "capitalism" government for denying or refuing the law of employing for the first time

in china, i think we should fight for our rights of labour as well like the france young people, or we will have no feeling of safety in our working.

France is far from a "capitalism" government. The issue in France is because of the socialist labor laws in place which create a huge unemployment rate in the younger workforce. Don't confuse that with capitalism. Their idea that they have a right to a job is what is causing their problems.

[softwareNerd]

...in socialism, the company belong to all of us, no one can fire us. if we don't work hard or our ablity is weak, we would get a less money as well but no one can fire you without arranging you another job according to your ability.

What socialism does result in is shared misery. Perhaps everyone has a job; but, what is the point when these employed people are still much, much poorer than the poor person who lives under relatively capitalist systems.

...in capitalism, the boss fire us according to his willing and we have to be unemployed man and maybe this sitiuation will continue for a long time. can you understand me here.

Bosses who want to make money do not fire people for no reason at all. If bosses are irrational under Capitalism, they lose money and end up being fired themselves or (if they are owners) reducing the size of thier business.

An economy does not have a fixed number of jobs. A job is merely the fact of a person making himself or herself productive. Therefore, everyone can have a job if they are productive and free.

France is a good example. You praise those students who are protesting. However, their protests are causing the government to retain some socialist labor laws. One important such law is the inability of employers to fire workers. This law, in turn, causes employers to hesitate to employ workers. There are many situations where an employer might want to hire a worker for a while, but is not sure if business will require his services for a long duration. In the U.S., an employer could go ahead and hire, knowing he can fire. In France, the law prevents this, because he would be prevented from firing. The protests, thus, are the cause of the high un-employment.

A common "labor law" is a "minimum wage law". Even the U.S. has such laws. Here too, such laws cause employers to hire less workers. One can make a list of all sorts of labor laws from all over the world. Paradoxically, one will find that each of these laws does at least one of the following: reduces employment or reduces average wage rates.

If your labor laws in China were enforced better, your situation would be worse. Labor laws are anti-labor.

...you can't get another job in another company according to your ability and you will be a very poor person not because you are lazy just because no job in this society can provide you with.

Once again, you have to consider where jobs come from. They come from the fact that an individual can be productive. If an individual can be productive, he can produce things that someone wants. So, he produces and trades.

If there is a job that you can do and that other people want done, there is no reason to be unemployed under Capitalism (except for short durations).

[marxist]

hi everyone!

i found my new job a week ago but the stability is still a problem.

in China, there are more than 4 million students graduated from the college in 2006 and it is said more than 2 in 3 would not have a job. how can you imagine that! what make it so bad for them to find a decent job.

accoding to opinion of Objectivism, they should accept the result without any complain, because it is caused by the environment of society. i.e. you can't compain the earthquike when it caused calamity.when the Soviet Union caused the calamity, who can be condemned.what is the relationship between the socity and the individual? they are one thing like two sides of the coin! so individualism is right and the collectivism is right as well.

[LaszloWalrus]

Congratulations on finding a new job.

You are justified in complaining about the difficulty of finding a job in China, as it is not the result of "environment" but rather the result of a socialistic economy which tries to control the individual in favor of "society."

[softwareNerd]

Congratulations on the new job.

As for the rest, Objectivism does not say: accept society without complaint! Just the opposite. Society is man-made. So, it is different from an earthquake in a very fundamental sense. You can't "blame" the earth for shaking, but you surely can blame the people who led China into Communism and who keep it in the partly-free, partly-controlled state in which it is today.

More importantly, if we assume that only 1 in 3 will have a job, your personal focus must be on how you can be that 1 of 3.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to really teach Objectivism via a forum. Access to various books by Ayn Rand is critical for that. However, since you do not have ready access to the books, I would suggest the following: read whatever Objectivist material is available to you, and ask very specific questions about that specific material.

[Bold Standard]

hi everyone!

i found my new job a week ago but the stability is still a problem.

in China, there are more than 4 million students graduated from the college in 2006 and it is said more than 2 in 3 would not have a job. how can you imagine that! what make it so bad for them to find a decent job.

accoding to opinion of Objectivism, they should accept the result without any complain, because it is caused by the environment of society. i.e. you can't compain the earthquike when it caused calamity.when the Soviet Union caused the calamity, who can be condemned.what is the relationship between the socity and the individual? they are one thing like two sides of the coin! so individualism is right and the collectivism is right as well.

Hello. Congrats on the job! Here is an inspiring (to me, anyway) quote from Ayn Rand, expressing her views on not merely accepting the culture. Of course, economics and politics are specific products of the culture, which she deals with more specifically in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and Atlas Shrugged, but this is from a book she did on art:

It has been said and written by many commentators that the atmosphere of the Western world before World War I is incommunicable to those who have not lived in that period. I used to wonder how men could say it, know it, yet give it up—until I observed more closely the men of my own and the preceding generations. They had given it up and, along with it, they had given up everything that makes life worth living: conviction, purpose, values, future. They were drained, embittered hulks whimpering occasionally about the hopelessness of life.

Whatever spiritual treason they had committed, they could not accept the cultural sewer of the present, they could not forget that they had once seen a higher, nobler possibility. Unable or unwilling to grasp what had destroyed it, they kept cursing the world, or kept calling men to return to meaningless dogmas, such as religion and tradition, or kept silent. Unable to stifle their vision or to fight for it, they took the "easy" way out: they renounced valuing. To fight, in this context, means: to think. Today, I wonder at how stubbornly men cling to their vices and how easily they give up whatever they regard as the good.

Renunciation is not one of my premises. If I see that the good is possible to men, yet it vanishes, I do not take "Such is the trend of the world" as a sufficient explanation. I ask such questions as: Why?—What caused it?—What or who determines the trends of the world? (The answer is: philosophy.)

[marxist]

what would come of the many actions of the individuals?

what does the "fallacy of composition" tell us?

according to individulism principle, if a person(the part) want to make more money by any ways (except forcing other individual to do anything by Gun) without taking any results to the society caused by his action to account, it may bring the bad things to the society(the whole).

if you put the collectivism high on the list, the individual rights may be infringed.

if you put the individualism high on the list, the social right(all men's right) may also be infringed.

Now what caused the problem of the environment and the problem of the security of the world.

can you tell me who bring about the World War 2, Hitler?

no, it is the many individuals in German or in the world!

Edited September 25, 2006 by marxist

[marxist]

Congratulations on the new job.

As for the rest, Objectivism does not say: accept society without complaint! Just the opposite. Society is man-made. So, it is different from an earthquake in a very fundamental sense. You can't "blame" the earth for shaking, but you surely can blame the people who led China into Communism and who keep it in the partly-free, partly-controlled state in which it is today.

More importantly, if we assume that only 1 in 3 will have a job, your personal focus must be on how you can be that 1 of 3.

Unfortunately, it's impossible to really teach Objectivism via a forum. Access to various books by Ayn Rand is critical for that. However, since you do not have ready access to the books, I would suggest the following: read whatever Objectivist material is available to you, and ask very specific questions about that specific material.

who can lead us? the individual or the society?

now many company from Japan invested in my Hometown Suzhou. i try to be 1of 3, so i learn Japanese Now.

pleased be advised that i can buy the book named <For the NewIntellectual> in chinese now in China. the price of it is about 1.5 USD. the <Voice of Reason> is available now in CHina. the price of it is about 2.3 USD. and the< The Fountainhead >is also available at about 3USD.

actually, Now in China, some persons are advocating the opinoin of objectivism, but more people are going against it. i also think the full objectism would bring about some problem like the full marxism now.

Edited September 25, 2006 by marxist

[softwareNerd]

It's good to hear that some of Ayn Rand's books are now available. I hope that "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" gets published too. Of the non-fiction, those two are the ones I'd recommend to get a good idea about Objectivism.

[marxist]

”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

Edited September 25, 2006 by marxist

[hunterrose]

according to individulism principle, if a person(the part) want to make more money by any ways (except forcing other individual to do anything by Gun) without taking any results to the society caused by his action to account, it may bring the bad things to the society(the whole).

Such as?