
English: 
Welcome, friends, to another addition of Economic
Update, a weekly program devoted to the economic
dimensions of our lives—jobs, incomes, debts—our
own, those of our children.
I’m your host, Richard Wolff.
Today I’m going to devote the program to
another one of those topics you have been
writing to me about that you wanted a comment
about.
And I respect your taking the time and trouble
to tell me what you want me to deal with.

Chinese: 
欢迎朋友们来到新一期的
Economic update周更，探讨我们生活中的经济问题
工作，收入，我们自己 与子女的 债务
我是主持人理查德·沃尔夫
今天，节目的主题将从 你们给我的书信
和 评论中提取，你们在这些问题上
花了时间和精力

English: 
And so, I’ve devoted this program and planning
it to the topic of libertarianism.
A growing number of people seem to be persuaded
or interested, at least, in the libertarian
approach.
It has some currency in our political dialogues.
And so it’s appropriate for you to be asking
me and, likewise, appropriate for me to respond.
So I entitled this talk “Libertarianism,
Capitalism & Socialism”.
And I’ll try to show you why I chose that
title as we go along.
Let’s begin with capitalism’s history.
It’s roughly 300 years old now.
It started about 300 years ago in England—modern
capitalism did—spread from there to Western
Europe, from there to North America, Japan.
And by now it is the world’s dominant system.

Chinese: 
所以我也专门整理了这个话题——
自由主义。
越来越多的人似乎对
自由主义方式感兴趣
它在我们的政治对话中，已经存在了一段时间了，所以这也是一个
我适宜回答的问题
所以我给这次演讲定了名
自由主义，资本主义 和 社会主义，我之后将展示为什么我选择这个标题
让我们从 资本主义的 历史开始
现在大约300年了
它始于大约300年前的英国，现代资本主义从那里传播到了西欧
到北美，日本，到现在为止，它已成为世界主导系统
抱歉

English: 
So we’ve had 300 years to look at the different
forms it takes, its tendencies, what lasted
a short time and what is really part of this
system and has a duration that is as old as
the system itself.
Indeed recently, I did a program about competition
and monopoly, in which I spoke about how those
have been phases moving from one to the other
and back and forth throughout the history
of capitalism.
So I’d like to summarize what we had learned.
And I’d like to do it by saying, “What
are the strengths that capitalism has shown
and what are its weaknesses?”
Like every system, it has both.
Here are the strengths.
It produces rapid economic growth—no question
about it.
It is an explosive system for producing goods
and services.
It is technologically dynamic.

Chinese: 
所以我们有300年的时间来研究它的各种形态
它的趋势，哪些是瞬息万变的部分，哪些是真正成为了系统的一部分，
与这个系统共同存在
之前，我做了一个有关《竞争和垄断》的节目，其中谈到了这两个其实是
一个事物的不同阶段。在整个资本主义历史中，相互转换
因此，我想总结一下我们所学到的知识，并想说一下资本主义的优点是什么？又有什么弱点？
像每个系统一样，它两者兼有。
它的优点是
产生了高速的经济增长，当之无愧
它爆炸一般的生产商品和服务

Chinese: 
它技术变革，换句话说，资本主义中的某一部分会改变我们使用的技术
比以前的系统快得多
它也是使世界凝聚在一起的系统，在经济学中我们称之为全球化
与之前的相比，全球化通过资本主义得到了进一步的发展。
它的主要缺点如何？ 据我们所知
这是一个趋向增加贫富差距的系统
有时人们会反抗来减少差距，现状有所好转
但是一段时间后，这种不平等还是会回归
而我们得到的是1％与99％
一直存在于几代人的资本主义生活之中

English: 
In other words, there’s something going
on in capitalism that makes us change the
technologies we use much more rapidly than
systems before had done.
It’s also been a system that has brought
the world together, what we call in economics
“a global system” or “globalization”
has been furthered by capitalism compared
to the systems that preceded it.
What about its major weaknesses?
Well, here’s what we know.
It’s a system that tends towards pretty
extreme inequality.
Occasionally, there’s a rebellion against
the inequality.
We get less inequality for a while, but then
the basic system movement towards inequality
reasserts itself and we get the kind of 1%–99%
that generations of people living in capitalism
have lived through and noticed.
The system is also highly unstable.

Chinese: 
人人都看得到。
这个系统也非常不稳定，平均每四到七年
爆发一次经济萧条，或是衰退，危机，周期等等，各种各样的名词
但这是该系统的一部分
对于谁该遭受萧条之苦也无公正可言
正如涉及到收入和财富分配时，分配也很不公正
我们还知道，它的民主并不完善。 我们有形式上的民主
我们可以投票，但如果说大家都可以平等的
对社会上发生的事情作出影响。这种说法可站不住脚。
还有一个并不常见的缺点
资本主义从来都需要依靠一个强大的政府机制

English: 
On the average, every 4–7 years it has an
economic downturn, a recession or depression,
or crisis, or cycle—lots of words for it—but
it’s a part of this system.
And there’s a lot of injustice in who suffers
the worst of these downturns.
Just as there is a lot of injustice in who
gets the short end of the stick when it comes
to the distribution of income and wealth.
We also know that there’s a little real
democracy.
We have the forms of democracy—we vote.
But to suggest that we all have an equal influence
on what happens to us in this society is an
argument few would be able to sustain without
a smile, at best.
And he is another one that hasn’t been so
often recognized.
Capitalism has always relied on a big strong
state apparatus.

English: 
Now, what do capitalism’s defenders do with
the flaws I listed: the inequality, the injustice,
the instability, the lack of real democracy,
the big strong state?
Some of the defenders of capitalism use what
I call “advertising logic”.
They simply ignore the flaws, they act as
if they aren’t there, they celebrate the
plus side, and imagine there is no a negative
side.
I’m not going to take time to criticize
that.
I don’t think you need it.
I want to turn to the much more sophisticated
defense of capitalism.
And that one focuses on one of those qualities
that I said were flaws—the big strong state.
There’s a line of defense of capitalism
that picks out that quality of capitalism—the
big strong state—and attacks it, attacks
it as though it were some outside influence

Chinese: 
资本主义捍卫者怎么处理这些缺陷呢？不平等，不公
不稳定，缺乏民主，大政府
一些资本主义的捍卫者
会使用一种我称之为
广告的逻辑，忽视这些缺陷，视而不见
他们吹捧它的正面形象，意淫它没有负面
我不会花时间批评他们，我认为你们也不需要这么做。 我想转向更复杂的
资本主义捍卫方式，而那一派着重于抨击一点
也是我说的那个缺点：强而有力的大政府
这种资本捍卫法专挑那一个资本主义的特点——
大政府，并对其进行抨击
就好像政府是一种资本之外的力量一样

English: 
coming in to our world, to our capitalism,
and distorting it, changing it, weakening
it, damaging it.
You can see in the history of the United States,
particularly, that there is a strong strain
of argument that says capitalism is not the
problem, it’s the big strong state, that
we don’t need it, we don’t want it, we’d
like to get it out of our hair, out of our
society, out of our economy for sure.
And if only we could do that, if we could
get rid of the big powerful state, why, then
we would have a much better society, we would
have a much better capitalism.
The state messes up the beauty, the efficiency
of the capitalist economic systems.

Chinese: 
来到资本主义世界，扭曲资本主义
改变它
削弱它
损坏它
在美国历史上可以注意到
有一种特别强势的观点：
资本主义不是主要问题， 大政府才是
我们不需要它。
我们想要把它从我们的社会，经济中撵出去
如果我们能够摆脱大政府，事情就完美了
我们就会有个更好的社会
我们就会有个更好的资本主义
国家弄乱了资本主义的经济效率。
这群人一直在这个系统中

English: 
These folks have always been around.
They were once called liberals as in England
or neo-liberals, more recently, or laissez-faire,
the French phrase that says, “Leave the
economy alone.
The government should not mess with it.”
There are lots of ways of saying it, because
this idea, the capitalism and societies—where
capitalism is dominant—would do better if
the state were not there or much weaker.
This a very old idea.
It is summarized in the famous phrase, “That
government governs best, which governs least.”
That is the best thing you can have is a government
that’s not there.
The modern group that embraces this idea or
variations on it are libertarians.
They like the word “liberty”, which they
understand as being free from, unencumbered

Chinese: 
曾经，在大英帝国他们被称为自由主义者，
而现在被称为新自由主义者。
在法国被称之为，自由放任主义。 政府不应该动经济
它有很多名字，因为这种观念，认为资本主义和
在资本主义占主导地位的社会，如果没有政府社会会更好
或是弱小的政府，这是一个非常古老的想法
用名言概括说：无为而无所不为
意思是，最好的政府就是一个不存在的政府
在现代，
有这个想法或
它的变体的，叫做自由主义者
他们喜欢这个词
自由。
他们理解为摆脱的自由，

English: 
by a state of government telling us what to
do, shaping our lives, limiting our options
and so on.
So I want to talk about that defense of modern
capitalism’s flaws.
The notion that the government is somehow
responsible and that removing the government
would be some sort of solution.
So let’s begin.
That’s the argument libertarians offer us.
They basically say, “Yes, modern capitalism
has all kinds of flaws.”
They accept that.
I’ve noticed when I have had debates with
libertarians, they accept many of the critiques
I offer of capitalism.
They tend to prefer the language they like
to the one I use.

Chinese: 
不受国家政府的束缚
不要国家来改变生活
限制我们的选择等等
所以我想谈谈这种，
为资本主义缺点辩护的论点
认为全是政府的错
而罢免政府将是某种解药
我们开始吧
基本上，这就是自由主义者的观点
他们承认现代资本主义存在各种缺陷
我与自由主义者进行辩论时就发现，
他们愿意接受我给出的批评。
但他们倾向用自己的一套语言改变我的说辞，喜欢使用类似

English: 
So they like to use phrases like “crony
capitalism” or “unfair capitalism” or
“a capitalism that is distorted in some
way”, because they want us to think in terms
of a capitalism that isn’t as good as it
could be, as it should be, because of the
baleful influence of the government in stepping
in.
So they like—the libertarians do—ideas
like deregulation: The government should step
back from regulating the economy.
Let it be, laissez-faire, as the old folks
used to say.
They like what they call privatization: Take
activities run by the government and stop
the government from doing it, because that’s
always bad for libertarians and turn it over
instead to the private sector, to people who
are not in the government, who are not government
officials.

Chinese: 
裙带资本主义，不公平资本主义或是
被搅乱的资本主义
因为他们希望我们认为资本主义的初衷是美好的
但残暴政府介入后它们才受到了影响
有些想法自由主义者很喜欢
放松管制，政府应从经济管理中退缩。 随它去
或是老一代的说法，自由放任。
他们喜欢
私有化
卸下政府的管理活动，禁止他们这么做。
因为这总是不利于
自由主义者，
并将其移交给非政府部门的，非政府官员

Chinese: 
交给私人部门管理，所以不应该有公共邮局
而是私人邮件服务，因为它更有竞争力
资本家会主动竞争邮件服务
政府不应该建立社会保障体系
它应该由银行和股票经纪人经营管理，
让他们开个社保账户
相互竞争
他们想要一个
不受政府影响的资本主义，他们相信这将使
资本主义更好发挥效果，基于资本主义的社会
比我们现在拥有的要好得多。 
因此，自由主义者所面临的问题不是
资本主义，
而是政府入侵资本主义的结果

English: 
So there shouldn’t be a public post office,
there should be a private mail service, better
yet competing capitalists offering to move
the mail around.
There shouldn’t be a social security system
run by the government, it should be run by
banks and stock brokerages, giving us little
accounts that they would manage in some competitive
a way.
They want a capitalism, free of the government’s
influence and they believe that will make
capitalism work better and a society based
on capitalism much better than what we have.
So the problems of what we have for libertarians
are not the result of capitalism, they are
the result of the government’s intrusion
into capitalism, and so the solution is to
get the government out.

English: 
And there shouldn’t be much difficulty in
understanding why libertarians are particularly
hostile to socialists, because of how they
understand what socialism is.
For them, socialism gives the government even
more power, more power to intrude on the economy
than capitalism, even at its worst, ever did.
So since they’re critical of capitalism
to the degree that the government is powerful,
there are even more critical of socialists,
because for the libertarian, the socialist
is even worse, when it comes to justifying
or rationalizing the intrusion of government
onto the economy.
So that’s the libertarian position.
They tend to be aligned with a Republican
Party here in the United States, which is
why the Republicans have traditionally argued
against government intervention, against the

Chinese: 
因此解决方案是使政府退出，所以就不难理解
为什么自由主义者
对社会主义者特别有敌意，
因为他们脑中的社会主义
社会主义赋予政府更大的权力
介入经济领域时甚至比资本主义最糟糕的时候还糟糕
因此，由于它们对资本主义的大政府持批评态度
他们对社会主义者更加严厉，因为对于
自由主义者，社会主义政府对经济的干预甚至更糟
这就是自由主义者的立场。 他们倾向于与美国的共和党结盟
这就是共和党传统上为什么
反对政府干预，反对政府向人民征税

English: 
government taxing people, all the ways that
the government steps in.
It’s a little hard to keep that in your
mind when you have a president like Trump,
since he roaringly intrudes the government
into the economy, levying tariffs the way
he asks is a governmental intrusion.
Telling us that the Huawei corporation is
a bad corporation, banning Americans from
dealing with it is a massive government intrusion.
These are intrusions that this Republican
president is undertaking.
And it’s interesting to see the Republican
Party that used to be against such intrusions
being remarkably silent in the face of Mr.
Trump’s violating what they have espoused
for so long.
We’ve come to the end of the first half
of today’s program.
Stay with me for the second half when we will
do a critique of libertarians and then end

Chinese: 
但当特朗普这样的总统上台后，要想牢记这一点有点困难
他上台后政府暴力介入经济
征收关税是一种政府的介入
宣告华为公司是坏公司
对其禁运也是政府的介入
这些都是这位共和党总统实施过的措施
有趣的是，曾经反对这种介入的共和党
面对特朗普先生，显得非常沉默。
他们这么长时间信奉的信条，就不要了。
我们已经结束了今天节目的前半部分
不要走开，下半部，我们将对

Chinese: 
自由主义者做个评论，然后向他们发出一个很有趣的邀请
我想提醒您，请订阅我们的YouTube频道
点击即可轻松完成，您无需花费任何金钱，并且对我们这是一个巨大的支持
利用我们的网站
您可以通过电子邮件与我们联系
您可以在Facebook Twitter和Instagram上关注我们，一如既往的
要感谢我们的patreon社区的热情关注
他们的鼓励，对我们这些都很重要
它们协助我们完成了这一切
但是，我们在中间节目休息之前还有一件事
我们最近制作了一本书，我们谈论过这本书，称为
Understanding Marxism 《了解马克思主义》 它受到的反应是如此积极
随后

English: 
with an invitation to them, which I think
will be of interest.
I do want to remind you, please, to subscribe
to our YouTube channel—very easy to do with
a click, cost you no money and is an enormous
source of support for everything we are trying
to do.
Make use of our websites.
And there you can communicate to us through
email, you can follow us on Facebook, Twitter,
and Instagram.
And as always, I want to thank our Patren
community for their enthusiasm, for their
support, for their encouragement all of which
are major assists to everything that we do.
But one more item before we take our mid-program
break.
We recently produced a book that you know
about, because we’ve talked about, it’s
called “Understanding Marxism”.
The reaction to that was so positive and was
followed up by suggestions for something else

English: 
that we have now produced our second book
called “Understanding Socialism”.
Once again, it is a response to the questions,
comments that you have sent into us over the
last year and a half.
It’s an attempt to give an overview of what
socialism has meant, it’s different definitions,
how it has changed over time, and particularly
in the last 20 years, how to make sense of
the efforts in places like Russia and China
to institutionalize a socialist system, what
was successful, what was not in their efforts,
what the meaning of socialism has now become,
the new directions it’s taking.
Please, if you’re interested, follow us.
Go to lulu.com, where you can find out more
about this new book, “Understanding Socialism”.

Chinese: 
我们听从建议，现在已经制作了第二本书
Understanding Socialism 《了解社会主义》
这是对您在过去一年半中发送给我们的问题评论的回应
试图概述社会主义的含义
它的定义总是随着时间的推移不停的变化，尤其是最近20年的变化
如何理解像俄罗斯和中国这样的地方将社会主义制度制度化的努力
那些成功了？那些还不足？
社会主义的含义现在也有了新的趋势。 如果您有兴趣请关注我们
去lulu.com
您可以了解有关此新书的更多信息，Understanding Socialism
我们将马上回来

Chinese: 
欢迎回到今天 Economic Update的后半部分。 该节目专门讨论
自由主义者及资本主义
和社会主义之间的关系。
上半段，我们主要谈论了资本主义及其问题
引起了一种新的思维，
这种思维承认了资本主义存在问题
却把问题导向为政府外来介入，
认为政府用各种方式来破坏经济体系的后果
自由主义者认为这既不需要的也是不必要的，
并且解决资本主义问题的方法

English: 
We will be right back.
Welcome back to the second half of today’s
Economic Update.
This program is devoted to a discussion of
libertarianism and its relationship to capitalism
and socialism.
In the first half, we talked mostly about
how capitalism and its problems gave rise
to a strain of thought that identified the
problems capitalism has, the criticisms it
deserves.
As being the result of the intrusion of an
outside force—the government—mocking up
the economic system with all sorts of consequences
that libertarians believe are both unwanted

Chinese: 
应该是消除政府的残酷影响
在这里我想对自由主义提出一个批评
但这是一种友好的批评，
从某种意义上讲它将结束纷争
如果你们愿意的话，
提出建议就可以邀请到各种资本主义批评家一起
左派和自由派一起
在某些方面，我们可以解决分歧并找到需要解决的问题
因此，让我们从坏的一方面开始，批评，然后是邀请
首先是我所说的批评
认为
政府对经济的介入是某种外部影响，

English: 
and unnecessary, and that the solution to
the problems capitalism has should be the
removal of the baleful influence of the government.
Here I would like to offer a critique of libertarianism,
but it is a friendly critique in the sense
that it will end up with a proposal, an invitation,
if you like, that there are ways in which
the various critics of capitalism, those who
come at it from the left, and those who come
at it from the libertarian side.
There are ways in which we might work out
our differences and find areas of useful agreement.
So let’s begin with the bad news, if you
like—the criticism—and then the good news—the
invitation.
First to criticism, as I say.
The notion that the government’s intrusion
into the economy is some sort of external

Chinese: 
没有这种介入会更好
根据我一生在经济历史上的研究，
我的论点是：这是完全的错觉
大政府，在整个历史上一直是
资本主义的一部分
它既被资本家谴责，又被资本家热切接受。
一般两者都发生在同一时间内，这并不是那么不同寻常
我们经常对我们最需要的东西感到生气，
我们当然可以忍受之间的矛盾
同时需要它并为此感到生气。 我认为这也不例外
让我给你一些具体的例子

English: 
influence, some sort of outside intrusion
on what would be better left without such
intrusions.
I would argue, based on a lifetime of work
in the field we call economic history, that
this is a complete illusion.
Strong government has been part of capitalism
throughout its history.
It has been something both denounced by capitalists,
and yet eagerly embraced by them usually at
the same time.
Nor is that all that unusual.
We are often angry at the things we are most
in need of.
And we can leave the contradiction between
needing it, and being angry about it all at
the same time.
And I think this is no exception.
Let me give you some concrete examples.

English: 
Nothing is more important to the modern functioning
of a capitalist economy than money.
But to whom do we entrust the production,
distribution, and control of the money we
use every day, all the time?
The government.
We give the government an extraordinary power
by being the only one allowed to print the
money, to mint the coins, to set the interest
rates, to determine how much money is in the
economy.
And we do that because capitalism needs it.
In every capitalist country, there were times
when lots of people were allowed to produce
money, and that produced a level of chaos
that led in every country for one authority—the
government—to be given that job and for
everybody else to be told if you print money

Chinese: 
对现代资本主义经济的运作而言，没有什么比金钱更重要
但是我们将生产，发行 和 控制 金钱的权利 委托给谁？
政府，是唯一被允许这么做的机构，它赋予政府非凡的权力
印钱，铸造硬币
设定利率，以确定经济中有多少钱，我们这样做是因为
资本主义需要它
在每个资本主义国家，曾经
许多人被允许生产货币，并造成了国家的混乱
导致我们授权

English: 
yourself, we’re going to put you in jail.
So the government is awfully important—isn’t
it?—by having been given the control, the
origination power for money.
But let me give you some others.
Here in the United States, the government
took the land from the Native Americans and
distributed it to other people.
The economic effect of that staggering, staggering.
The government controls the water ways.
The government controls traffic into and out
of the country.
The government controls the movement of people
into and out of the country.
The government sets limits on weights and
measures and makes sure the scale in the butcher
shop is accurate and not swindling us.
We’ve brought the government in to check
on food and drug to make sure it’s pure.
You know why?

Chinese: 
政府做这份工作，其他人如果自己印钞，就会被判入狱
所以政府非常重要，不是吗？给予控制
金钱的原始力量
但让我给你一些其他的东西，
美国政府从印第安人那里夺走了土地，
分发给其他人
这种经济影响十分惊人
政府控制水路
政府控制海关，政府控制进出国外人员的流动
政府设置度量衡，并确保肉店的秤准确无误
保障没有欺诈。 
我们已经请政府检查食物和药品，以确保我们知道它是干净的，
为什么？

English: 
Because capitalists adulterated it on and
on.
Capitalism has always needed a powerful government.
We need an apparatus to prevent us from killing
one another and stealing from one another
and, likewise, from having folks outside come
in and steal our stuff etc.
So the notion of a Capitalism without a government
has only one adjective that really applies.
It is a utopian fantasy.
Beautiful in a certain way.
It would be wonderful if we didn’t have
a government, but capitalism has not ever
proven the way to get beyond a government.
Capitalists like to denounce the government,
but they do denounce what they also embrace
and what they have had to turn to over and
over again.

Chinese: 
因为资本家掺假
资本主义一直需要大政府
我们需要一种措施来防止我们相互残杀和相互偷窃，
同样，有外面的人进来偷我们的东西
因此，一个没有政府的资本主义
只有一个词可以形容它
这是一个乌托邦式幻想
想法很美。
如果没有政府，一切都会变好
但是资本主义从来没有过超越政府的时候
资本家喜欢谴责政府
但是他们一边谴责，也在一边拥抱政府，同时他们也需要
一遍又一遍地求政府。 记得么，

Chinese: 
2008经济危机，全球资本主义在每个国家瓦解。
领头的私人企业，
领头的私人银行们派出了他们的最高职位
高管到首都乞求政府纾困
政府也这么做了
你不是不想要大政府吗？ 那就没有任何东西可以拯救你
所以我对自由主义者的批评是，这是一个好点子
但我们从未见过它起作用，
而且只要我们有资本主义，我很难想象它会怎样发生
特别是它本身就显示出哪里有资本主义，哪里就有大政府的。
让我把道理说明白
我们一直在节目中定义过，资本主义是一种生产关系

English: 
Just remember the crisis of 2008, when global
capitalism collapsed.
In every country, the leading private bankers,
the leading private corporations sent their
top executives to the capital city to beg
the government to bail them out, which the
government did.
You don’t want a strong government.
There would have been none there to save you.
So my critique of the libertarians is, it’s
a beautiful idea.
We’ve never seen it work.
And it’s hard for me to imagine so long
as we have capitalism that we will not see
the strong state that that system has always
exhibited wherever it has existed.
And let me be real clear, if capitalism is
defined, as we do on this program, as an organization

Chinese: 
顶部有少数人，我们称他们为雇主，底部有大量人。
资本主义中，我们称他们为雇员
由雇主和雇员组成的生产组织，这是与封建制度不同的地方
封建制度有领主和农奴，或奴隶制，那里有主人和奴隶
资本主义关心你如何组织生产
我需要你们自由主义者理解
苏联的社会主义和中华人民共和国的社会主义并没有完全消除
资本主义中的生产关系。他们也是雇主同
雇员的关系。 
他们在雇主的角色上有不同的人
官僚管理而不是公民
所以这是国家形式的资本主义
与私人形式有区别
但是他们并没有放弃雇主雇员结构

English: 
of production with a small number of people
at the top—we call them employers—and
a large number of people at the bottom—we
call them employees—if capitalism is the
organization of production with employers
and employees, and if that’s what distinguishes
it from feudalism, where you have lords and
serfs, or slavery, where you have masters
in slaves, if capitalism is about how you
organize production, then here’s what I
need to say to you, libertarians: The socialism
of the Soviet Union and the socialism of the
People’s Republic of China did not do away
with capitalism.
They organized their industries with employers
and employees, same system.
They had different people in the role of employers,
state officials rather than private citizens.
So it’s a state form of capitalism versus
a private form, but they did not do away with

Chinese: 
所以那些大政府
同样，也是一种资本主义
为了超越私人资本主义
国家必须在下一步采取措施，
在俄罗斯和中国所做的就是如此，
顺便说一下，
印度和日本也这么做了，比俄罗斯和中国程度小一点，
但是从历史运动上讲，基本相同
所以，让我现在来看一下
自由主义与社会主义的关系，我要向我的自由主义者朋友解释： 你们对社会主义的定义是
奇怪的
不达要领。 
有热爱国家和国家权力的社会主义者吗？当然
当然有
但是一直有
反对这一观点的社会主义者，
你似乎要么不知道，要么将其搁置一旁。

English: 
the employer–employee structure.
So those powerful states are, again, a kind
of capitalism to go beyond private capitalism.
The state was necessary to take the next step,
which it did in Russia, it did in China, and,
by the way, it did elsewhere in India and
Japan to lesser degrees than Russia in China.
But it’s the same basic historical movement.
So let me take it now to the relationship
of libertarianism to socialism.
I would argue to my libertarian friends.
Your definition of socialism is strange and
not quite on target.
Are there some socialists, who are in love
with the state and the power of the state?
You bet.
You get that.
But there have always been socialists, who
are dead against that, and you seem either
not to know it or to brush it decide.

Chinese: 
社会主义的历史一直是
与无政府主义的历史融合交错的
马克思多年来最亲密的同伴之一是米哈伊尔·巴库宁（Mikhail Bakunin）
无政府主义的伟大的领袖，理论家之一
他们有分歧，当然，但也有团结，这就是为什么他们一起工作
社会主义者一直与无政府主义者有着复杂的关系
列宁在俄罗斯大革命后不久发表的最著名言论之一
他的承诺，
也是布尔什维克领导层的承诺
就是为了实现“国家自行消亡”——（国家与革命，1917）
从社会主义 马克思主义者 的嘴里说出来是不是很有意思， 
他不想要国家
他致力于使国家自行消亡

English: 
The history of socialism is intimately wrapped
up with the history of anarchism.
One of Marx’s closest associates for years
was Mikhail Bakunin—one of the great leaders
of anarchism and one of the great theoreticians
of it.
They had their differences to be sure.
But they also had their solidarity, which
is why they worked together.
Socialists have always included complicated
relationships with anarchists.
One of the most famous remarks by the Lenin
shortly after the revolution in Russia was
that his commitment, and that of the Bolshevik
leadership, was to accomplish, I quote, “The
withering away of the state.”
Interesting remark for a socialist Marxist.
He didn’t want the state.
He was committed to its withering away.

English: 
He was the kind of socialist, who looked to
the removal of the power of the state as part
of the objectives of socialism.
In fact, socialism, he thought, had a better
shot at achieving that goal than capitalism
throughout its history had shown itself to
be able to do.
You might put it this way: Lenin was less
utopian in his hostility to the state then
libertarians are today.
Modern socialism—I would ask my libertarian
friends to think about—is all about democratizing
the workplace, getting rid of the employer–employee
relationship, and substituting a democratically

Chinese: 
他是那种社会主义者
为了消除国家权力而努力的社会主义者
而且，他认为，社会主义比资本主义更有可能实现这一目标
在整个历史上，
资本主义已经证明了，它自己没有能力做到这一点。
可以这样说
列宁对比现在的自由主义者，对政府的敌意更现实
我想请我的自由主义者朋友考虑一下，现代社会主义
致力于使工作场所民主化
摆脱用雇佣关系
并镶入民主方式运行的企业，每个人
一人一票

Chinese: 
一起决定生产什么，如何生产
在哪里生产，以及如何分配集体劳动的成果
你可以这么理解现代社会主义
使工作场所民主化，也可以理解为，听清楚了——
摆脱在工作场所内部的“政府”！
这一小撮人是董事会的最高负责人
他们的作用就如
大政府一样
他们决定谁有工作，谁没有收入，
他们可以威胁其他人，让别人失去工作，失去安全感
失去晋升机会
实现人上人的权利关系
摆脱企业内部的“政府”
与在社会中摆脱大政府一样重要，甚至更重要。
所以，也许

English: 
run enterprise where everybody together—one
person, one vote—makes the decisions of
what to produce, how to produce, where to
produce, and what to do with the fruits of
the collective labor.
You might think of modern socialism focus
on democratizing the workplace as getting
rid of—here we go now—the state inside
the workplace.
This tiny group of people at the top: the
board of directors, the owner, who functions
like a powerful state, who decides who works
and who doesn’t, who has an income and who
does it; who can threaten people with loss
of job, loss of security, loss of promotion,
and to achieve a power that no people should
have over other people.
To get rid of the state inside the enterprise
is just as important—if not more so—than
to get rid of it outside in the larger society.
So maybe socialists, at least those, who see
what I’ve just said that the future of socialism

English: 
is the transformation of the workplace, have
something to share with libertarians.
They all want in some way to get rid of the
baleful influence of the state.
For socialists, who are interested in democratizing
the workplace, the way forward is to get rid
of capitalism, by which is meant the relationship
of employer-to-employee.
I’ve noticed in my debates with libertarians
that, when I talk about democratizing the
enterprise, they are in agreement.
They say, “We want that too.”
Good.
That is something we then have in common.
We don’t like the state and we do want to
democratize enterprises.
Might that be the basis—I would like to
leave you with this thought—might that be

Chinese: 
社会主义者，
至少是那些，把工作场所的转变当作未来目标的社会主义者
有东西要与你们自由主义者分享
他们都希望以某种方式摆脱这种残酷政府的影响
对民主化工作场所的感兴趣的社会主义者
前进的道路是摆脱资本主义，这意味着雇主与雇员之间的关系
我在与自由主义者的辩论中注意到，
当我谈论企业民主化时，他们同意我的观点
他们说，我们也希望这样，很好！这样我们就有了共同点
我们不喜欢政府，我们确实希望民主化企业
是否可以以此为基础，考虑一下
也许这是大家走到一起的基础
自由主义者和

Chinese: 
社会主义者，具有共同的目标，将旧意识形态放一边
使企业民主化，摆脱企业内部的政府
将大家融合在一起，使其不再需要政府
有一个社会主义者的
旧观念，同样的意思
他们说，最终，政府的作用是保证社会中阶级的分裂
奴隶社会，
封建社会和
资本主义社会， 保持大政府的原因是
因为它们是一种不对等的经济体系。雇主是一小部分人
为了掌权，和剥削人民。为了安全地做到这一点，
需要有一个强大而垄断的物理力量，也就是政府

English: 
the basis for some coming together of libertarians
and socialists with a shared agenda—put
the old jogging aside—of democratizing the
enterprise, getting rid of the state inside
the enterprise, blend it together with making
it no longer necessary to embrace the state
in the larger society?
There’s an old argument socialist make that
reaches the same point.
They say that in the end the role of the state
is to enforce the class divisions inside society,
that the reason slave societies, feudal societies,
and capitalist societies hold on to a strong
state is because they are economic systems
in which a small group of people—the employers—seek
to keep control and to exploit the mass.
And to do that safely, you need a monopoly
of physical force in something called the

Chinese: 
能够进入并阻止该系统
自我崩溃。
如果是真的，那么社会主义者就可以把民主化企业
与迈向新经济体系的这一步当作与
自由主义者共同奋斗的一步，
一起摆脱对资本主义大政府的依赖
希望你对这次自由主义的演讲感兴趣
我们已经的节目已经结束，我期待下周与您再次交谈

English: 
government to be able to come in and keep
that system from self-destruction.
If that’s true, then socialists see the
democratization of enterprises as a step towards
a new economic system that can realize the
shared goal of both the new socialists and
the libertarians, who can wean themselves
off of their dependence on capitalism.
I hope you have found this discussion of libertarianism
interesting.
We’ve come to the end of the program, and
I look forward to talking with you again next
week.
