Socialism ?

[Grant85]

What a great illustration!

TEACHER FAILS ENTIRE CLASS: An economics professor at a local college made a statement that she had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that socialism worked and 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 this plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).

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.

As the tests proceeded, 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.

To their great surprise, ALL FAILED 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.

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.

2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.

3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!

5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

That's not socialism, it's communism.

Ultimately endeavour must lead to reward, or relative reward.

We have a progressive tax system in most of the developed world and the biggest issue is very well off and super rich finding loopholes to avoid paying proper rates of tax. And a lesser problem with a lot of cash businesses not declaring their full revenue and a great many paying nil or very little tax, and still accumulating benefits.

 

[backwoodsman]

It may or may not have happened but if you think that's the point of it you are hugely missing the point. Never mind

Ok, so I was merely trying to establish whether the original "illustration" was factual or fictional. If it was supposedly factual, I wanted to know where it happened (because it didn't seem to be based on fact to me). However, despite the context setting it up as a factual illustration, we seem to have established it is actually a fictional illustration. In which case, it is a pretty inept fictional illustration. Only someone who wants it to be indicative of the agument will find it to be so - and they will have missed the obvious flaws as an illustration. Never mind.

 

[Foxholer]

One thing that has twigged in me as a reason why pure Socialism is unrealistic (I've never believed it was/is/would be realistic in the first place!)....

From my post in another thread about new Warehouses 'popping up' as a response to (perceived) demand for quicker response time for (for example) motor parts. That would simply not happen in a pure Socialist environment! Pure Socialism simply goes against natural human instincts nullifying incentives to improve! Which is probably what the story was, particularly clumsily and unrealistic imo, attempting to 'demonstrate'.

 

[Foxholer]

That's not socialism, it's communism.
...

No! Communism is different again! See Wiki for the difference!

...Ultimately endeavour must lead to reward, or relative reward.
...

I totally agree!
Another (better?) expression of my view above.

...
We have a progressive tax system in most of the developed world and the biggest issue is very well off and super rich finding loopholes to avoid paying proper rates of tax. And a lesser problem with a lot of cash businesses not declaring their full revenue and a great many paying nil or very little tax, and still accumulating benefits.

That's only an issue for those that think it is really fair (oh dear.. getting socialistic here!) that 'high earners' pay 'exponentially more' tax than normal folk' yet get very little, if any, benefit from those payments? Wouldn't it be far better for everyone (oh dear.. another socialistic concept coming) to allow those folk to use that money wisely - providing investment and opportunity for employment - than to simply give it to the Government to 'waste'?

 

[Robster59]

I would imagine the original story is apocryphal by somebody who wanted to get their point across. To me it seems toO extreme in one direction. You could undoubtedly write a similar scenario supporting capitalism.
Socialism has done some great things for this country but, like any political system, it has to be managed correctly by responsible people and that's the issue with any government.
As to whether a country defines itself as socialist, communist, democratic or whatever. Those are just words and not deeds. You can call yourself whatever you want.

This from Yes Prime Minister:
Sir Humphrey Appleby : East Yemen, isn't that a democracy?
Sir Richard Wharton : Its full name is the Peoples' Democratic Republic of East Yemen.
Sir Humphrey Appleby : Ah I see, so it's a communist dictatorship.

 

[Grant85]

That's only an issue for those that think it is! Is it really fair (oh dear.. getting socialistic here!) that 'high earners' pay 'exponentially more' tax than normal folk' yet get very little, if any, benefit from those payments? Wouldn't it be far better for everyone (oh dear.. another socialistic concept coming) to allow those folk to use that money wisely - providing investment and opportunity for employment - than to simply give it to the Government to 'waste'?

So if you don't believe in socialism, you don't believe there should be a central and organised rubbish collection? Everyone should pay a commercial enterprise to collect or dispose of their waste? Or burn their own rubbish in their back garden?

You don't believe there should be a health system available at the point of need? People can pay up or be left to die on the street?

You don't believe central government should build roads? A business would build the road & (hopefully) maintain it and decide how much to charge people to use it?

Same with schools? Commercially viable schools only, pay up or try and teach your children a basic education on your own, or at least how to make living so they don't die of starvation.

And in the case of Coronavirus & the global financial crisis, you'd have been happy for viable or potentially viable businesses just to shut up shop on cash flow issues and not have the potential for a government bail out, grant, furlough scheme, bounce back loan etc. to have a chance of continuing and making a living for them and their staff?

High earners do pay more tax, but they have almost certainly 'utilised' a countries resources more heavily to make that money. They were given an education by the tax payer, in many cases a university education at nil or heavily subsidied cost. Their staff or business associates also used this tax payer funded service. Their businesses use the roads / infrastructure to allow their business to operate smoothly, their staff travel to work on public transport and the health system treats their staff when they are ill rather than bankrupting them or living with treatable illnesses that affect their work.

And of course they can retain that wealth due to the police force maintaining law and order and ensuring that their business and mansion isn't looted, rather than employing private security at huge cost.

 

[patricks148]

Quelle Surprise, right wing tory doesn't like or agree with Socialism

 

[Foxholer]

So if you don't believe in socialism, you don't believe there should be a central and organised rubbish collection? Everyone should pay a commercial enterprise to collect or dispose of their waste? Or burn their own rubbish in their back garden?

You don't believe there should be a health system available at the point of need? People can pay up or be left to die on the street?

You don't believe central government should build roads? A business would build the road & (hopefully) maintain it and decide how much to charge people to use it?

Same with schools? Commercially viable schools only, pay up or try and teach your children a basic education on your own, or at least how to make living so they don't die of starvation.

And in the case of Coronavirus & the global financial crisis, you'd have been happy for viable or potentially viable businesses just to shut up shop on cash flow issues and not have the potential for a government bail out, grant, furlough scheme, bounce back loan etc. to have a chance of continuing and making a living for them and their staff?
...

None of the 'examples' above define Socialism!
Lose your narrow-minded systemic envy of 'wealth producers'!

...
High earners do pay more tax, but they have almost certainly 'utilised' a countries resources more heavily to make that money. They were given an education by the tax payer, in many cases a university education at nil or heavily subsidied cost. Their staff or business associates also used this tax payer funded service. Their businesses use the roads / infrastructure to allow their business to operate smoothly, their staff travel to work on public transport and the health system treats their staff when they are ill rather than bankrupting them or living with treatable illnesses that affect their work.

Most of that applies to Low Earners also!
And no doubt they DO pay Road Tax for all their vehicles' use of the roads.
And they, arguably, pay 'more than their fair share' of tax/NI so that their (income earning, tax paying) staff CAN travel to work (however they prefer, including Public Transport) and be treated for illnesses etc in exactly same fashion by NHS as they are!
It's small and medium businesses that are the backbone of UK's wealth!

 

[SocketRocket]

Considering the NHS is one of the finest things about this country and is respected the world over one could easily make the case for the fact that socialism is one of the greatest things to have ever happened to this country.

Do you think the NHS is respected the World over and something that is way ahead of countries with similar economies.

 

[SocketRocket]

Problem with this as a defence is you stated, The Nazi party were socialist, when in fact they weren't, it was just name only. Bit like saying the North Korean Democratic People's Republic is an actual Democracy and not a dictatorship.

No one would want to defend their actions but they were a socialist party where the state controlled everything and just like other socialist countries they became more of a dictatorship, they also used brutal control of their population just like all socialist states do.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

No one would want to defend their actions but they were a socialist party where the state controlled everything and just like other socialist countries they became more of a dictatorship, they also used brutal control of their population just like all socialist states do.

On that basis I am wondering where on the socialist-capitalist spectrum we fit Trump's use of an unbadged and unidentifiable militia jumping out of unmarked vehicles in Portland to break up demonstrations, beat and arrest many protesters, and throw them into unmarked vans. Next up - Chicago.

 

[SocketRocket]

On that basis I am wondering where on the socialist-capitalist spectrum we fit Trump's use of an unbadged and unidentifiable militia jumping out of unmarked vehicles in Portland to break up demonstrations, beat and arrest many protesters, and throw them into unmarked vans. Next up - Chicago.

Did anyone suggest that would be OK? It's always wrong to brutalise a population.

 

[rudebhoy]

No one would want to defend their actions but they were a socialist party where the state controlled everything and just like other socialist countries they became more of a dictatorship, they also used brutal control of their population just like all socialist states do.

why are you still spouting this ridiculous lie?

if you really believe it to be true, I'd suggest you go off and read the articles below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

 

[Wolf]

No one would want to defend their actions but they were a socialist party where the state controlled everything and just like other socialist countries they became more of a dictatorship, they also used brutal control of their population just like all socialist states do.

No they weren't a socialist party at all. I revert back to the DRP, just because the word is in the name of the party it doesn't mean that's what it is or stands for. Nazi party was far right, not left leaning socialist. Perhaps more learning about their history and how they changed over the course of the late 20s and 30s will help you see they weren't socialist at all

 

[SocketRocket]

why are you still spouting this ridiculous lie?

if you really believe it to be true, I'd suggest you go off and read the articles below

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

https://fullfact.org/online/nazis-socialists/

You seem to have failed to read beyond the bit you highlighted in my post. My point being that many states that start off declaring themselves Socialist become brutal regimes that control their populations through state suppression of peoples freedoms and the use of concentration camps, we see it in China, The Russian Golags, The Khmer Rouge. Just like the National Socialists.

 

[SocketRocket]

No they weren't a socialist party at all. I revert back to the DRP, just because the word is in the name of the party it doesn't mean that's what it is or stands for. Nazi party was far right, not left leaning socialist. Perhaps more learning about their history and how they changed over the course of the late 20s and 30s will help you see they weren't socialist at all

They started off being The National Socialist Workers Party and mutated into what they became. The point being that it's a trend with what starts off as a Socialist State.

 

[Kellfire]

They started off being The National Socialist Workers Party and mutated into what they became. The point being that it's a trend with what starts off as a Socialist State.

Please. Just stop.

 

[triple_bogey]

You seem to have failed to read beyond the bit you highlighted in my post. My point being that many states that start off declaring themselves Socialist become brutal regimes that control their populations through state suppression of peoples freedoms and the use of concentration camps, we see it in China, The Russian Golags, The Khmer Rouge. Just like the National Socialists.

Is there evidence of this?

 

[SocketRocket]

Please. Just stop.

Stop yourself.

 

[Wolf]

They started off being The National Socialist Workers Party and mutated into what they became. The point being that it's a trend with what starts off as a Socialist State.

Seriously might be time to put the shovel down, stop digging and do a bit more research.

By the token of your post if labour got in within 20 years well be a dictatorship or communist country. Nazi party were not socialist no matter how many times you say it. Doesn't even matter who they evolved from they were not socialist, they were far right.

Khmer Rouge again not socialist but communist, DRP not socialist but communist either you can't differentiate between the 2 or you believe anyone wanting socialism wants to inevitably become communist.