how socialism works

[jverne]

A Quick Lesson in Economics...

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student,

but had once failed an entire class.



That class had insisted that socialism worked; that no one would be poor, and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.



The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged, and everyone would receive the same grade; so no one would fail, and no one would receive an A.



After the first test, the grades were averaged, and everyone got a B..



The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy.



As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.



The second test average was a D! No one was happy.



When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.



The scores never increased as bickering, blame, and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings,

and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.



All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great; but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Can it be any simpler than that?

brought to you by the average rabid conservative.

but still has a point...human nature (right now) is not socialist based and wond be for quite some time.
but like all, they fail to realize that some aspects of it can work. like social medicine but also with private clinics. everyone shares part of their income in one fond that gives everyone the basic medical care.
for example...when i dislocated my ankle i was given the option of normal gypsum cast or pay an additional fee to get the better plastic cast.

this is somewhat a good option that gives you appropriate medical care but you can pay for more comfort.
the problem here is where to set the standard. because for operations like heart surgery the line is not so well defined...at least not to us laymen.
but still i think this is the way to go.

 

[The Monkey]

The oldest and most common critique of communism, and still a valid one. Some inequalities must exist in society to encounrage productivity. That will increase the total economy of the society and can thus benefit even its poorest member. Sort of like John Rawl's vision.

 

[Insano]

That's not socialism, but communism. As far as I see it, communism means everyone is equal and thus only gets the same paycheck, no matter what they do. The argument the professor made stands then.

But socialism is the thought of no man left behind, that there should be help for those who are at the bottom of the society.

 

[PvtRyan]

I think the fatal, fundamental, flaw is that socialism assumes people need to be equal. Very, very wrong. They don't. People need equal rights. A CEO should have no more rights than a factory worker. That's very different from wanting people to be equal.

 

[Eejit]

You're talking about communism rather than socialism too Ryan.

 

[AJ Rimmer]

Yeah, communism is what that is, and doesn't work. Socialism on the other hand... *points to Scandinavia* has worked pretty okay.

 

[willis]

Has anyone of you actually read about these ideas on Wikipedia, a dictionary, or some other source, other than the news media? Have you then made any attempt at an analytical argument against socialism or communism? It's stunning to me, that we've progressed so far in our economy in the United States and we've done so well over the years, we now have proponents of our country that believe it's more than righteous to tear it all down now. To me, it's purely asinine to believe that socialism or communism (the final resting place of socialism) is a viable solution to pretty much anything. None of those anti-freedom ideas HAVE WORKED, WILL WORK, or even so much as aided our country's growth and expansion! Show me a socialist/communist (take your pick) country that has made the technological, intellectual, and moral strides that we have? That's right, you can't think of any.... DUH!

Final thought: “Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” ~ Winston Churchill

 

[Eejit]

You didn't read the post directly above your own?

Socialist policies have worked well in Europe on the whole.

 

[PvtRyan]

You're talking about communism rather than socialism too Ryan.

I don't think the distinction is meaningful here.

Also, countries like Sweden can't be called socialist in terms of economy by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Eejit]

Not entirely, no, but social democratic policies often result in 'mixed' economies. Capitalist free market mixed with areas such as socialised health care.

 

[Polaris]

You don't get it? In America these days socialism is the new word for communism.

 

[willis]

Ah man. I had something typed and then my cookie ran out of time! Sigh.. oh well. Anyways, the UK is not doing too well these days. What I've been reading from the liberall BBC, is that there are some problems with the way the labour party is ruling and that most people are sick of the last 30 years of a crappy economy. It takes a little while for people to wake up from stupid ideas but I trust that eventually that will happen even in America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PixlAX-ubvo&feature=related

 

[No Limit]

That must be some shitty local college if the economics professor doesn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. If I knew this story wasn't bullshit I'd ask for the name of the school.

 

[No Limit]

Ah man. I had something typed and then my cookie ran out of time! Sigh.. oh well. Anyways, the UK is not doing too well these days. What I've been reading from the liberall BBC, is that there are some problems with the way the labour party is ruling and that most people are sick of the last 30 years of a crappy economy. It takes a little while for people to wake up from stupid ideas but I trust that eventually that will happen even in America.

You do understand that socialism has been a part of this country for atleast a century? Just like the UK as a whole is still a capitalist economy?

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

The economy of the UK has not been crappy for the last 30 years at all. Recently it's had trouble like the entire world has, and there was difficulty in past decades, but it had many years of success. Whilst I'm in favour of outing labour, I'm not against socialism on principal. I just think the party has.... grown a bit sick in its time. We need something different. I'm not really convinced that New Labour is even socialist.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Even if Britain's economy had been crap for 30 years, the last 30 years have been an era of neo-liberalism, and, economically at least, a right-wing orthodoxy. Thatcher, Major, Blair... New Labour is not very socialist.

I don't think the distinction is meaningful here.

It is, because socialism - certainly in its generally-defined modern forms if not in the strictest Marxist sense - tends to rest on the claim that equal rights are not achieved without greater material equality. The example you gave was one open to socialist rhetoric. A CEO (the socialist would say) does have more rights than his workers, rights over the security of his job and the conduct of his company that the workers themselves have no say in, despite the fact that it probably affects their lives more than it does that of their boss.

 

[PvtRyan]

It is, because socialism - certainly in its generally-defined modern forms if not in the strictest Marxist sense - tends to rest on the claim that equal rights are not achieved without greater material equality. The example you gave was one open to socialist rhetoric. A CEO (the socialist would say) does have more rights than his workers, rights over the security of his job and the conduct of his company that the workers themselves have no say in, despite the fact that it probably affects their lives more than it does that of their boss.

Well, that sounds more like the rhetoric of an anarchist to me. Only in an anarchist society there would be no decisions that are made for you from the higher-up.

Besides, you're taking the broadest possible definition of 'rights'. I'm talking about human rights and other rights governed by current law, and the 'right for job security' and 'right to co-run the place where you work' isn't among those.

And a CEO doesn't hold absolute power over his job security, in fact, when he's not performing well enough, a CEO will probably get kicked out by the board more easily than a "proletarian" (lawd, how I hate that snobbish term) that's been with the factory for over 20 years.

 

[barbarbarbarbar]

Communism makes people lazy and capitalism makes people greedy.It's simple as that.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well, that sounds more like the rhetoric of an anarchist to me. Only in an anarchist society there would be no decisions that are made for you from the higher-up.

Besides, you're taking the broadest possible definition of 'rights'. I'm talking about human rights and other rights governed by current law, and the 'right for job security' and 'right to co-run the place where you work' isn't among those.

And a CEO doesn't hold absolute power over his job security, in fact, when he's not performing well enough, a CEO will probably get kicked out by the board more easily than a "proletarian" (lawd, how I hate that snobbish term) that's been with the factory for over 20 years.

Not necessarily, because the CEO must be kicked for bad performance, but the worker can be kicked if the economy goes bad, or the company decides to restructure, or if it becomes cheaper to outsource the labour...supposedly the people at the top of a company - whether or not they 'deserve' to be there - have more freedom of action, and, too often, less exposure to the consequences, than those at the bottom.

And you're right. Socialists in my experience (and this is all from my experience of popular socialism, their newspapers, Solaris, etc - not from theory books) tend not to talk about rights unless they are talking about 'civil rights'. Instead they would emphasise a broad concept of 'freedom'. That is, I imagine, the freedom to have control over one's own circumstances. A specific example: the freedom not to be plunged into fuel poverty by circumstances beyond your control. Not, however, circumstances under nobody's control: if a meteorite eradicates key markets, nobody is to blame, but all too often important decisions are placed in the hands of people who aren't affected. The economic crisis has made it difficult to argue otherwise. We see many people losing jobs and homes while bonuses continue. One may also look at the third world, where the lives of millions are adversely affected by decisions made elsewhere. This is certainly true of the International Monetary Fund - global finance wielded by the countries who stand to be least affected by the policies that they make.

This is not just reminiscent of the Marxist theory of 'alienation'. It is a classical argument for democracy - why should we not be consulted on decisions that could harm us? It is also the principle behind the UK expenses scandal - how dare you misuse our money without consulting us? A fundemantal difference between socialism and libertarianism is really that, in these concerns, socialism refuses to draw a distinction between a government and a corporation. It recognises that businesses have as much effect on people's lives as governments do, if not more. And then it demands those businesses act accordingly - or, if they won't (they won't), that they be made to.

My quarrel with socialists is partly that they are too unbending and too orthodox in this diagnosis. But it's one with which I'm broadly sympathetic. So generally I disagree with them on procedural grounds. They believe a top-down government would solve the problem by organising society. I don't think that's possible or desirable. That kind of government can easily breed new bureaucratic elites, while being ineffective in its stated goal of giving people liberty over their own circumstances. I don't know what my solution would be, but I don't believe theirs works.

 

[15357]

From what I've seen, socialism works by shooting a whole load of people and taking their money, while pretending to distribute it to the poor whilst actually whoarding it up for yourself.