A Lesson on Socialism

Yurt said:
you're confused, your main point earlier was that the state owns and controls the means of production in this example....

further, nothing in socialism says you cannot redistribute wealth evenly as in the example....and just because you read das kapital doesn't mean you're right, your lame appeal to authority is yet another example of your failure to the facts of the OP to the definitions of socialism or communism....additionally, das kapital is not the last or only word on what socialism is....

i seriously can't believe you're denying that socialism is about the equal distribution of wealth or grades here....or that communism is not about shared effort....

from wiki:



the OP is not about shared labor, it is about the prof or state unilaterally redistributing wealth or grades regardless of labor input
Click to expand...

I am not confused in the least, yurtie. my point was ALWAYS that the parable of the professor and the grades was an example of communism. It is.

State ownership and control of the means of production is the definition of socialsim. It does NOT include any absolute leveling of rewards. Nothing in socialism precludes someone working harder and getting more reward for it. Communism, on the other hand, in its pure form, does preclude that and thus, the parable of the professor falls under the definition of communism and not socialism.

and Das Kapital is a treatise on communism, not socialism
 
maineman said:
because it doesn't specifically EXCLUDE equal distribution, your argument is that equal distribution therefore FITS the definition?

It doesn't specifically EXCLUDE requiring families from having to sacrifice their first born children either.

get real.
Click to expand...

MM, you are a lawyer, correct? or at least you know some law. So you should know that with laws and/or definitions, anything that isn't prohibited, is therefore legal. Same goes with this. If something isn't specifically excluded, it is therefore included. It may not be utilized, but it is available.
 
maineman said:
I am not confused in the least, yurtie. my point was ALWAYS that the parable of the professor and the grades was an example of communism. It is.

State ownership and control of the means of production is the definition of socialsim. It does NOT include any absolute leveling of rewards. Nothing in socialism precludes someone working harder and getting more reward for it. Communism, on the other hand, in its pure form, does preclude that and thus, the parable of the professor falls under the definition of communism and not socialism.

and Das Kapital is a treatise on communism, not socialism
Click to expand...

once again you refuse to explain facts to your definition....you fail to realize that socialism can in fact distribute equally and this in fact is the goal of socialims and you continue to ignore marx on his "shared word" or workers contribution theory of communism and the OP is the exact opposite....no wonder you are incapable of explaining the facts of the OP and how they fit communism....you obviously have very little grasp of the two idealogies and instead relying of das kapital over 30 years ago as your "authority".....weak if you ask me

the argument could be made that the prof does own the means of production, though i argued earlier against that, however, after reading more about socialism, the prof is indeed on full control of the production of grades and the test, the students are merely the workers producing results....

so this OP is in fact an example of socialism....
 
Yurt said:
the argument could be made that the prof does own the means of production, though i argued earlier against that, however, after reading more about socialism, the prof is indeed on full control of the production of grades and the test, the students are merely the workers producing results....

so this OP is in fact an example of socialism....
Click to expand...

except, in socialism, if one worker works longer or harder or better than another worker, he is not punished for that success by being paid the same.


And please show me one example of socialism , not communism, on the planet where everyone is paid the same regardless of their output.

every student gets the same grade regardless of their performance?? not socialism, certainly.

and you folks claim that Obama's public option is "socialism".... how so? will all heart surgeons get paid the same regardless of how many patients they see or how many bypass operations they perform? Of course not. your criticism of Obama's health care plan is just as flawed as your idiotic professor parable.
 
Last edited:
OTE=maineman;519296]except, in socialism, if one worker works longer or harder or better than another worker, he is not punished for that success by being paid the same.
Click to expand...

yes he can be. are you actually claiming that under socialism he CANNOT be paid the same? and are you futher claiming that everyone under communism is paid exactly the same no matter the input....as your red herring asked...give one example of that.....

And please show me one example of socialism , not communism, on the planet where everyone is paid the same regardless of their output.

every student gets the same grade regardless of their performance?? not socialism, certainly.
Click to expand...

then point out one perfect communist system on this planet :rolleyes: complete red herring....

you're flailing around like a fish out of water....and once again, you cannot argue the facts of the OP to communism....you once again ignore the point about shared work or effort....you've also now run away from the state ownership argument....this is great....soon you will finally admit you're wrong.....
 
let me help you out....

3 The Principles of Distribution

The socialist community is characterized by the fact that in it there is no connection between production and distribution. The magnitude of the share which is assigned for the use of each citizen is quite independent of the value of the service he renders. It would be fundamentally impossible to base distribution on the imputation of value because it is an essential feature of socialistic methods of production that the shares of the different factors of production in the result cannot be ascertained; and any arithmetical test of the relations between effort and result is impossible.
Click to expand...

There are four different principles upon which socialistic distribution can conceivably be based: equal distribution per head, distribution according to service rendered to the community, distribution according to needs, and distribution according to merit. These principles can be combined in different ways.
Click to expand...

http://mises.org/books/socialism/part2_ch7.aspx

notice that one of them is in fact equal distribution.....

my hunch is you probably read wikipedia and thought yourself an expert
 
Yurt said:
yes he can be. are you actually claiming that under socialism he CANNOT be paid the same? and are you futher claiming that everyone under communism is paid exactly the same no matter the input....as your red herring asked...give one example of that.....



then point out one perfect communist system on this planet :rolleyes: complete red herring....

you're flailing around like a fish out of water....and once again, you cannot argue the facts of the OP to communism....you once again ignore the point about shared work or effort....you've also now run away from the state ownership argument....this is great....soon you will finally admit you're wrong.....
Click to expand...

yurt. quit with the insults, OK. I am not flailing around at all. I am simply stating that under socialism, people are not paid the same for different degrees of effort. socialism has to do, primarily, with government control over the MEANS of production. The parable about the professor is not an example of socialism.

Can you show my one socialist nation in the world where people are paid the same regardless of variation in output? yes or no?

and can you explain how Obamacare is socialist, or better yet, how Obamacare has any similarity to the professor parable?
 
maineman said:
yurt. quit with the insults, OK. I am not flailing around at all. I am simply stating that under socialism, people are not paid the same for different degrees of effort. socialism has to do, primarily, with government control over the MEANS of production. The parable about the professor is not an example of socialism.

Can you show my one socialist nation in the world where people are paid the same regardless of variation in output? yes or no?

and can you explain how Obamacare is socialist, or better yet, how Obamacare has any similarity to the professor parable?
Click to expand...

you crybaby....flailing around is not an insult, it is what you are doing....additionally, you're the last person who shoudl whine about insults mr. call people pedophile.....

you refuse to answer specifics, you refuse to give apply the facts of the OP to actual communism, you continue to display logical fallacies by resorting to the red herring of asking me to point out one socialist nation that exhibits the PRINCIPLE....despite that fact you failed to give me one example where communism is perfectly practiced.....youre thus also being a hypocrite

would you prefer "dodging" or "tapdancing".....because that is exactly what you're doing....i refer to you post 46 which you missed and which proves you're wrong....i suggest you stop relying on wikipedia and stop passing yourself off as an expert because you've read das kapital before i was born.....
 
maineman said:
socialism has nothing to do with distributing the fruits of society equally. It has to do with the government owning and controlling the means of production.

you remain an obtuse idiot who knows little to nothing about either socialism OR communism.
Click to expand...

maineman said:
yurt. quit with the insults, OK. I am not flailing around at all. I am simply stating that under socialism, people are not paid the same for different degrees of effort. socialism has to do, primarily, with government control over the MEANS of production. The parable about the professor is not an example of socialism.

Can you show my one socialist nation in the world where people are paid the same regardless of variation in output? yes or no?

and can you explain how Obamacare is socialist, or better yet, how Obamacare has any similarity to the professor parable?
Click to expand...

lol.....the crybaby caught in another moment of hypocrisy.....calling me an obtuse idiot yet asking me to stop the insults.....

let's see if can actually address post 48 and 46....
 
maineman said:
yurt. quit with the insults, OK. I am not flailing around at all. I am simply stating that under socialism, people are not paid the same for different degrees of effort. socialism has to do, primarily, with government control over the MEANS of production. The parable about the professor is not an example of socialism.

Can you show my one socialist nation in the world where people are paid the same regardless of variation in output? yes or no?

and can you explain how Obamacare is socialist, or better yet, how Obamacare has any similarity to the professor parable?
Click to expand...

Are you now arguing for socialism? Not to say I'm surprised, just want to know where you are transparently going.
 
Annie said:
Are you now arguing for socialism? Not to say I'm surprised, just want to know where you are transparently going.
Click to expand...

I am only arguing that the ridiculous parable about the professor is NOT an example of socialism. Do you have a problem with that position?
 
Yurt said:
let me help you out....





http://mises.org/books/socialism/part2_ch7.aspx

notice that one of them is in fact equal distribution.....

my hunch is you probably read wikipedia and thought yourself an expert
Click to expand...

It is interesting that you stopped your quote from Ludwig right before THIS paragragh:

"The principle of equal distribution derives from the old doctrine of natural law of the equality of all human beings. Rigidly applied [as in the parable of the professor] it would prove absurd. It would permit no distinction between adults and children, between the sick and the healthy, between the industrious and the lazy, or between good and bad. It could be applied only in combination with the other three principles of distribution. It would at least be necessary to take into account the principle of distribution according to needs, so that shares might be graded according to age, sex, health and special occupational needs; it would be necessary to take into account the principle of distribution according to services rendered, so that distinction could be made between industrious and less industrious, and between good and bad workers; and finally, some account would have to be taken of merit, so as to make reward or punishment effective."

also... quoting a noted libertarian on the virtues of socialism is tantamount to quoting a Red Sox fan on the virtues of the Yankees.
 
maineman said:
It is interesting that you stopped your quote from Ludwig right before THIS paragragh:

"The principle of equal distribution derives from the old doctrine of natural law of the equality of all human beings. Rigidly applied [as in the parable of the professor] it would prove absurd. It would permit no distinction between adults and children, between the sick and the healthy, between the industrious and the lazy, or between good and bad. It could be applied only in combination with the other three principles of distribution. It would at least be necessary to take into account the principle of distribution according to needs, so that shares might be graded according to age, sex, health and special occupational needs; it would be necessary to take into account the principle of distribution according to services rendered, so that distinction could be made between industrious and less industrious, and between good and bad workers; and finally, some account would have to be taken of merit, so as to make reward or punishment effective."

also... quoting a noted libertarian on the virtues of socialism is tantamount to quoting a Red Sox fan on the virtues of the Yankees.
Click to expand...

so using your wikipedia source is better :rolleyes: and don't deny it...some of what you said is what you gleaned from wikipedia....

further, what you fail to acknowledge in your weak attempt to wipe out that the reality is.....socialism can in fact contain equal distribution. i did not give the full link as my point was that it could contain it, and as YOU point out, his opinion on whether it could work is tantamount to quoting the red sox on the virtues of the Yankees....so you have shot your argument in the foot..... you offer nothing in contrast except to ad hom the author....i didn't think you could actually debate this....

further, you convienently missed this again:

you refuse to answer specifics, you refuse to give apply the facts of the OP to actual communism, you continue to display logical fallacies by resorting to the red herring of asking me to point out one socialist nation that exhibits the PRINCIPLE....despite that fact you failed to give me one example where communism is perfectly practiced.....youre thus also being a hypocrite
Click to expand...

you've been shown that the OP meets the principle's of socialism.....all your tapdancing around it will not change that....
 
Yurt said:
so using your wikipedia source is better :rolleyes: and don't deny it...some of what you said is what you gleaned from wikipedia....

further, what you fail to acknowledge in your weak attempt to wipe out that the reality is.....socialism can in fact contain equal distribution. i did not give the full link as my point was that it could contain it, and as YOU point out, his opinion on whether it could work is tantamount to quoting the red sox on the virtues of the Yankees....so you have shot your argument in the foot..... you offer nothing in contrast except to ad hom the author....i didn't think you could actually debate this....

further, you convienently missed this again:



you've been shown that the OP meets the principle's of socialism.....all your tapdancing around it will not change that....
Click to expand...

again... quoting a libertarian on the elements of socialism is ridiculous.

And I NEVER used wikipedia to tell me what socialism was or was not. I studied it extensively in school and am fairly well read on it. I relied on my memory. I know of no serious socialist who would suggest that everyone be paid the same amount regardless of their output. The professor in the parable pays everyone equally regardless of their output. that is not socialism.
 
maineman said:
again... quoting a libertarian on the elements of socialism is ridiculous.

And I NEVER used wikipedia to tell me what socialism was or was not. I studied it extensively in school and am fairly well read on it. I relied on my memory. I know of no serious socialist who would suggest that everyone be paid the same amount regardless of their output. The professor in the parable pays everyone equally regardless of their output. that is not socialism.
Click to expand...

yes you have....and funny that you're the ONLY person saying the OP is not socialism....might want to get that memory looked at
 
additionally....his work appears to be very authoritative in this area....as to his opinion on whether something would work, that is his opinion, however, to say that socialism has FOUR theories is fact, which you cannot dispute with anything other than your "memory"....so once again, you're failing to make your argument....
 
Yurt said:
yes you have....and funny that you're the ONLY person saying the OP is not socialism....might want to get that memory looked at
Click to expand...

so what is or is not socialism is decided by a popularity contest on a chat site? I see. :pke:

and no... I haven't used wiki to tell me what socialism is... and if I need any advice on my memory, the LAST person in the world I'll go to for it will be a lousy excuse for a lawyer like you. I can still remember what a good lawyer sounds like... and it ain't you.

got it? good.
 
Yurt said:
lol.....i told you that you have no argument here and that you're nothing but a lying hypocrite....

thanks for playing, maybe next time you'll bring better game
Click to expand...

regarding insults, you enlightened me on the GOP history thread, so I won't bother expecting civility from you, nor will I feel compelled to offer it.

and again... a poll of chat site members is not a truly scientific method for determining the definition of anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top