A Lesson on Socialism

U

USFREEDOM911

MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked - and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

He said that 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 was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they 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, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.

Does anyone care to support or attempt to refute this??
 
OK, if socialism doesn't work then should we disband our governments largest socialist institution and replace them with free market contractors?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK, if socialism doesn't work then should we disband our governments largest socialist institution and replace them with free market contractors?
Click to expand...
Tell me which of these socialistic institutions we'd be changing are the "means of production." The military is not a "Means of Production" so that wouldn't be the one you were talking about. Nor is even "Social Security." You must be talking about the recent ones like the government ownership of AIG and GM... Yeah. I'd support that.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
An economics professor said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked - and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.

He said that 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 was given a B. The students who studied hard were upset, and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they 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, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.

Does anyone care to support or attempt to refute this??
Click to expand...

that is an example of communism, not socialism. There IS a difference.
 
Damocles said:
Tell me which of these socialistic institutions we'd be changing are the "means of production." The military is not a "Means of Production" so that wouldn't be the one you were talking about. Nor is even "Social Security." You must be talking about the recent ones like the government ownership of AIG and GM... Yeah. I'd support that.
Click to expand...
Yes they are. That's just silly to argue that they are not a socialist institution. They sure as hell aren't a capitalist one. You're making an incomplete argument. Socialsm isn't "The means of production". Socialism is "When the government controls the means of production." Socialism also means that the rights and the good if the individual are outweighed by the needs of the many. That is absolutely the case with the US military. The US Military is in no sense either operates on either a capitalist or free market economy.
 
maineman said:
that is an example of communism, not socialism. There IS a difference.
Click to expand...

as much as I consider your constitutional intellect astute, i have to disagree here. communism would have only the smartest people taking the test while the less smart would be providing pencils and collecting papers afterwards.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Yes they are. That's just silly to argue that they are not a socialist institution. They sure as hell aren't a capitalist one. You're making an incomplete argument. Socialsm isn't "The means of production". Socialism is "When the government controls the means of production." Socialism also means that the rights and the good if the individual are outweighed by the needs of the many. That is absolutely the case with the US military. The US Military is in no sense either operates on either a capitalist or free market economy.
Click to expand...
They are a government institution, a bureaucracy, but they are not a means of production, nor are they honestly considered part of a market. We aren't in medieval times where mercenary soldiers were the only way to gather an army (still paid for by the government). There has been argument about whether we need a standing army in the past, but not whether we need mercenaries (well, except in the most radical corners of the libertarians).

Even the large portion of libertarians do not make such a silly argument, this is a poor straw man argument dressed in the Emperor's best robes.

When the left brings up this silly straw man it is because they think that roads are "socialist". Not all things bureaucratic are "socialist"...

The government doesn't own the companies that make the roads, or the equipment used by the bureaucratic and politic entity that is the military. It isn't socialist....
 
It might save some time if you all remember what you posted last time.

[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showthread.php?t=18603"]A Lesson on Socialism - Just Plain Politics![/ame]
 
Mott the Hoople said:
OK, if socialism doesn't work then should we disband our governments largest socialist institution and replace them with free market contractors?
Click to expand...

Don't waste your time responding.

USF has posted this before, over on the AOL board.

His point is to keep baiting you while at the same time never giving you a straight answer.

That's what he does...that's all he does.
 
Yurt said:
you're wrong....ths is exactly socialism...the sharing of grades regardless if you deserve the grade....

there IS a difference :pke:
Click to expand...

com·mu·nism
Pronunciation: \ˈkäm-yə-ˌni-zəm, -yü-\
Function: noun
Etymology: French communisme, from commun common
Date: 1840
1 a : a theory advocating elimination of private property b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2 capitalized a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d : communist systems collectively


versus


so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

there IS a difference
 
great, you gave definitions....you did not make any argument as to why you are right....i already gave you a brief reason why you are wrong and so did STY.....

got anything more than definitions? or do you need me to do your homework for you....
 
Yurt said:
great, you gave definitions....you did not make any argument as to why you are right....i already gave you a brief reason why you are wrong and so did STY.....

got anything more than definitions? or do you need me to do your homework for you....
Click to expand...

"government ownership and control of the means of production" is nowhere NEAR synonymous with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I suggest you do some reading on communism and socialism, counselor.

start with Marx. Engels, Hegel and Lenin... and then move on to Leroux, Reybaud, and Owen.

Get back to me if you need more guidance.
 
maineman said:
"government ownership and control of the means of production" is nowhere NEAR synonymous with "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

I suggest you do some reading on communism and socialism, counselor.

start with Marx. Engels, Hegel and Lenin... and then move on to Leroux, Reybaud, and Owen.

Get back to me if you need more guidance.
Click to expand...

Fascism too. Because that's what it really is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top