Unknown source and subject. Possibly a stock photo of a random college professor.
According to several online blogs, posts, and emails circulating on the Internet, there was supposedly a relatively new classroom experiment that was conducted by an economics professor in an attempt to prove to his students that socialism doesn’t work. But it’s highly suspicious whether or not this classroom experiment ever actually took place, because I can’t seem to find the name of the professor or the name of the college the experiment took place in or the name of the original author who posted this story, anywhere, nor can I find any documentation or references that could lead to such information, which is usually a tell-tale sign that a story is complete fiction. However, a description of this classroom experiment, along with the results, have been circulating the Internet for awhile now. Many, for and against socialism, have responded to it by posting their own reactions, analyses, critiques, and opinions. As someone who believes in a careful balance between capitalism and socialism, I had to post my own response. Below is a copy of the email I received, with no known author.
“CLASSROOM SOCIALISM
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he 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 using the socialist 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. (By substituting grades for dollars the kids would understand first hand how socialism would affect them in real time.).
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 new 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. Human nature will always cause socialism’s style of government to fail, because the world has producers and non-producers (makers and takers). It could not be any simpler than that.”
Every now and then, I come across an experiment like this one. These type of experiments always include the most inaccurate descriptions of what socialism actually is and are usually circulated by hard right-winged Republicans and/or hard-core capitalists. The professor in this story sadly gave his students the erroneous impression that socialism is all about averaging everyone’s rewards. That’s not what socialism is. Some of the most common misconceptions about socialism is that everything is always perfectly shared, everybody is exactly equal, and everyone’s salary always gets averaged out regardless of how hard someone works or contributes. This is a very superficial, narrow view of socialism and is usually promoted by those who either don’t know any better or by those who wish to completely discredit socialism. The best way to accurately convey socialism is to compare it with a capitalistic business model. Instead of all the powers and rewards going to one individual or a select privileged few at the top of any given business or company, as the case would be within a capitalistic system, imagine that every employee gets a share of the business, a percentage of the rewards, and a say in how the business is operated–not necessarily equal but, none the less, a shared return and a partial say that fairly corresponds with their position and efforts. Allow me to briefly describe how most reputable sources accurately define socialism.
Socialism is an economic and political system (based on group-interest and cooperation) in which all the means of production and distribution are collectively owned and operated by all members of a society, rather than completely divided up to be privately owned amongst individuals or a select few. In other words, instead of one person or a few receiving all the profits and having all the control, everyone gets their fair share for their labors and has some sway. It’s not about a free ride, a handout, or any form of social loafing. Though, those things will and do occur within any system, such as in a capitalistic system whereby an elite few unjustly receive at the expense of the hard labor of the majority. Socialism is all about cooperation, equal opportunities, shared sacrifice, and fair compensation.
Even though this experiment may have never really taken place, and even though the professor’s model of socialism is shamefully incorrect, and even though he was the only one allowed to hand out these grades which could have been negatively affected and skewed by his own biases in regards to socialism, the idea of the experiment can still be carefully analyzed. If this experiment really did take place, I have to assume that this ‘phantom’ professor did not have many more grading sessions after the first three tests and likely ended the experiment shortly after the class overcompensated–a natural response–to fit his preconceived view of socialism; because I find it very hard to believe that all the good students, who have already proven to be very capable of making good grades, would have allowed themselves to continuously fail, over and over, even given the fact that they would be forced to pick up the slack where others would be slacking off. Their desire to pass would certainly outweigh any contempt they held towards any slackers or the redistribution process. That’s the law of self-preservation found everywhere in nature. It’s really the main reason I believe this experiment was completely fabricated by an anti-socialist and propagandist. College students would have been smart enough to kick it into high gear as soon as they saw that their ship was sinking, so-to-speak. So, if the professor had allowed the experiment to run its full course, I believe the whole class, as a team, would have self-corrected. The only other possibility I can think of is that the disincentive not to fail was not strong enough nor equal to the real world. Place a live chicken on a hot-plate and it will jump out! If failing meant real pain and suffering or even dying, then students would have definitely adjusted their attitudes. If they truly feared the consequences, I believe the class, as a whole, would have found an appropriate range of equilibrium, especially with the aid of some form of leadership which is always present within any group, including a socialized group.
Several studies have already been done, involving students of all ages, when it comes to working in groups, and the results always show an overall improvement in grades and productivity. Poor students do better and good students continue to do well. It has also been shown that students who worked in groups improved their test scores, indicating that they were more motivated and actually learned more. If the success of the class as a whole truly mattered, reflecting a real socialistic system and the real world, then they would all work together to ensure its success. In fact, this social teamwork tends to naturally show itself, sooner or later, within any failing economic system. People always eventually pool their resources in an attempt to save their dying world, because they know that if they don’t, all is truly lost. For example, let’s say the professor told his class that if they were all to make above a C minus, then the entire class would get to take a trip to Hawaii or be the lead actors in a new Star Wars film. But, if they failed, they would all be publicly whipped, beaten, and spat on. You can bet your entire annual salary they would all make above a C minus! If it were ever proven to me that such an experiment was ever honestly carried out and that an entire class actually failed under such conditions, it would shock the hell out of me!
Now if this professor had designed a more accurate model of socialism, whereby students get fairly rewarded for their efforts and jointly share the classroom, chalkboard, bathrooms, and water fountains, and where there’s an endless supply of grades (currency), and the power to grant upward curves on all grades, then I have no doubts that the students would have all passed. For the most part, most classrooms across the world are already set up this way, only eliminate much of the power each teacher has, who currently serve as a single dictator over their class with all the power to award grades and, instead, allow the students to evaluate and grade each other, unbiasedly.
In a socialized society, there are safety nets. No one would ever be allowed to fall so far below the poverty line. Every citizen would always have access to the bare necessities of life. To achieve this support system, money would either be simply given to those in need by the government, which ideally is controlled by the people, or money would be taken from well-to-do citizens and redistributed to those in need through taxation. In the original experiment, the professor chose the second option to illustrate the widely debated concept of wealth redistribution, whereby rewards are taken from some and given to others in order to stabilize the overall system–kind of like moving a bunch of passengers from one side of a boat to the other to even the distribution of weight, so the boat doesn’t tip over. But I still believe that if the students agreed to have a small percentage taken from their grades, if they did well, to be redistributed to students who truly struggled or had some sick days, as a safety net and as a form of universal insurance, the entire class would all pass and be better off.
I would also like to address the use of grades in exchange for currency. Interestingly, I have often used the analogy of a classroom and its grading system to convey the way I think we should all get paid–an idea I shared with my college professor back in 2001. The reason is because grades are not a resource that could ever be in danger of running out. Notice how there is never a shortage of grades to go around. There are never any students who are not doing their work or not taking exams as a result of a shortage of good grades like in a capitalistic system. Also notice how grades are not backed up by anything tangible like precious metals or rare gems which could become scarce. Instead, they are backed up by the integrity of the school system. They are recognized by teachers, students, parents, and employers as valid indicator’s of one’s efforts. Similarly, in a socialized society, grades could be used to determine and issue spending credits–which would be backed up by the mutual agreement of the citizens–and, therefore, used to purchase goods and services like food, clothing, and room and board. The one main thing that worries capitalists and gold standard supporters is the idea that government would control the value and distribution of their currency. Don’t worry; there will always be gold around, along with similar precious metals, gems, and other rare commodities that would be in place as a backup. After reviewing all the popular monetary systems, I’ve come to realize that there is no one perfect single solution that will solve all monetary problems. It takes a combination of systems–at least a binary one.
Now suppose another classroom experiment were conducted, only this time using a capitalistic model, which uses a sink or swim ideology. Normally, in such a system, there would be problems like unemployment, because the top wealthy would be free to massively store up all the wealth, kinking the circulation of money and overall prosperity. Therefore, in a capitalistic classroom experiment, you would eventually have many students sitting around who are not even given an opportunity to take a test because many would not be willing to give up a percentage of their own grade-wealth to pay another student to take a test, or many would not be able to afford to give them a grade, not even a D minus. So in order to hold all else equal, so as to focus primarily on how the students perform under the pressure of capitalism and not how well the system performs as a whole, the professor would obviously have to create the conditions of a perfect economy. He would need to simulate the conditions where there is always an available source of employment and reward, a system with the power to always grant a good grade to anyone willing to earn it. In other words, we will simply have to pretend that all the good grades that are, in reality, granted by the professor are, instead, coming from well-to-do citizens in a booming economy. It’s also important to point out that in a capitalistic-type system it’s not necessarily how hard one works that matters but rather how successful one is, because in such a system people aren’t always rewarded for their hard work. They are usually only rewarded for their success. The same would be the case for these hypothetical students in this new hypothetical experiment. They may struggle and strain to study and pass the exams but still fail.
The results would be what we already see in most classrooms all over the world, and that is an unacceptable number of failing students and students with very low test scores, even in places where the instructors and school books are of high quality. We have to imagine that those who make failing grades would either resort to begging other students, who would be free to “donate” a portion of their grades to them, or resort to crime in order to survive. If a passing grade meant survival and great pleasure and a failing grade meant great humiliation and suffering, or even death, and if a student could steal grades from other students or steal the things they purchased with those grades, then there would clearly be students who would have to resort to begging and stealing from other students and possibly even killing them in order to survive. In a socialized system none of these things would ever happen for survival reasons. Any system that allows continuous, prolonged, intolerable failure is, in of itself, a failure.
Overall, the professor’s experimental design reveals that he thinks that the condition of the economy all boils down to everyone’s willingness to work hard. The experiment is clearly designed to measure students who don’t want to work hard (do their homework) and students who can’t do the work (don’t know the answers on the tests). He obviously feels that capitalism encourages people to do their best and to work hard and that socialism encourages laziness and social loafing. You can tell he mainly set out to demonstrate that many hate to be forced to make sacrifices to aid those in need, as well as the overall system, and will begin to slack off in defiance or out of a lack of motivation and that the needy are merely lazy people who will always take advantage of the system. I can’t express to you enough how wrong and damaging this view is. In the real world, the condition of our economy is affected by many other more serious factors. Poverty is not primarily the result of laziness or people’s inability to do their jobs as most anti-socialists falsely believe. Poverty and a poor economy are mainly due to a lack of jobs and low wages. The reason why there are usually not enough jobs or higher wages is because the top wealthy few selfishly refuse to spread the wealth. All the wealth is being stored up like the blood in ticks who inflate themselves from all the relentless blood-sucking. The only way to prevent this is to limit the size of their purses and the volumes of their hidden safes. Citizens cannot be allowed to become ridiculously rich, nor can citizens be allowed to become ridiculously poor. We have to maintain a healthy midrange level of individual wealth and prosperity; though some stratification should always be allowed, for we should never allow ourselves to become completely equal and homogenized. The answer, once again, is a balance between the extremes. Capitalism has it’s good sides, but it definitely has its dark sides too. A successful economic system must incorporate at least some compassion and a little bit of safety. Economic systems that show both a little tough love and at least a little compassion will rise above all others.
I have commented on each of the five statements made by the anonymous author, down below:
1. “You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.”
Actually, you can. Franklin D. Roosevelt did it during The Great Depression and saved America from a complete collapse. Statistics show that the top wealthy tend to sit on their money instead of putting it back into circulation. They often don’t hire more people or spread the wealth to those who have helped them build their business. They often do the opposite by sending American jobs to other poorer countries who will work for far less, so they can hold on to even more money. When the government raises their taxes and forces them to add to the communal pot, every one does better, including the rich, because the economy improves. The main reason for the recent fall of the economy is because taxes and regulations went way down during Bush’s presidency. Though, wasteful government spending didn’t help either.
2. “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”
In its simplest form, that is true. However, it’s a necessary evil in life that we have to make sacrifices for the overall good. When a mother sacrifices her time and energy to help her sick child they are both rewarded in the end. Most capitalists don’t realize that what they’re getting for their forced “donations” is a better system. Remember, if someone needs to eat but doesn’t have the money to buy food, they will rob a store and possibly shoot a rich man in the process. The more spending power the poor has the more they can buy products and services from the rich. The more that happens the more businesses can afford to hire more people and, thus, the better off the economy. It is said that people are far more confident to start up a business or invest their money when there are proper safety nets in place, much the way a trapeze artist is more confident to jump, swing, and twirl high into the air. So all those who give will and do receive something wonderful in return, and that is a better nation.
3. “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”
True, but again, we have to make sacrifices in life for our fellow man or we will all eventually fall. Socialists are always trying to carefully explain that concept to hard-core capitalists, but unfortunately it usually falls on deaf ears. Hard-core capitalists can’t seem to step back and see the bigger picture, so I always try to explain it to them in a language they would understand. I tell them to think of it in terms of self-interest. The more they help their fellow man the more they are helping themselves and their nation.
4. “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!”
Actually, yes you can. It’s done every day and has been done throughout history. Although, there’s a right way and a wrong way to divide 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[ed] for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.”
That is all true. However, that is the grossest misrepresentation of what socialism is, and that short-sighted view, unfortunately, continues to spread like wildfire. Socialism is not about giving half the people the idea that they don’t have to work or that one half has to completely take care of the other half. The reason hard-core capitalists and far right-winged Republicans are always pushing this idea is because they genuinely feel they are being robbed by the government, and they hate self-sacrifice. They can’t stand the idea of paying taxes towards a support system which they truly believe yields no return. If only they could realize that what affects others, ultimately, affects themselves and that their contributions are for the overall good of the group which stabilizes the stage they stand upon. They can’t see that doing the wrong thing is easy and doing the right thing costs. That’s just how life works and always will. A great spiritual leader once said, “He who will be great must be a servant,” and “He who lowers himself will be exalted.” Of course, at first glance, we all want absolute freedom to do whatever we want, whenever we want, just as a child wants to eat his or her dessert first before the main course, but sometimes we have to endure and do the things we’d rather not in order to truly succeed.
We have to move beyond the mode of absolute self-interest, which is killing some of our greatest nations, unless that self-interest means helping all others as much as possible. Overall, we have to care about one another and we have to make sacrifices! Only when we give and make sacrifices do we truly profit!
Guyus Seralius–Jan 28, 2013 (Re-Edited on March 19-29, 2013)
Thanks for this blog. I always see this floating around facebook. Your views are very well written here.
Thank you for saying so! I can always use the encouragement.
I am an entrepreneur and a moderate – I began reading your argument, but found myself firmly disagreeing early on. As someone who finished school within the last 10 years I can’t seem to agree on how you feel a classroom would actually respond. Myself as well as other students seemed to share the fact that we were competing for a job, a grad school spot, etc. I would sooner walk out of a class then revert back to carrying the entire class. Contrary to how you see it, I think the law of self-preservation would drive me to find another avenue completely. Reverting back to my usual study habits would not help me survive at all, in fact it would make it HARDER to succeed down the road because I’m bringing those below me to my level.
I appreciate the read.
Remember, socialism, as the term is traditionally and properly used, is not about averaging everyone’s grades, regardless of their efforts. That’s one of the main misconceptions of what socialism actually is and that view is often promoted and circulated by very far right-winged, hard core capitalists (though such a system of averaging could be described as a very, very extreme version of socialism). True socialism, as defined by most reputable sources, is a system where the means of production and distribution are primarily owned and operated by the people and for the people—not necessarily perfectly, equally owned and operated. In the type of classroom experiment that I described as one that should be conducted, you wouldn’t be carrying the entire class or bringing those below you to your level. You, along with many other students, would use only a small percentage of your grade value and/or efforts to collectively pull only a few students above failing. Therefore, for the most part, a tier system or hierarchy of accomplishment and rewards would still be in place. I can’t remember if I discussed it in this essay, but I have expressed, in other essays, a strong appreciation for competition and believe a nation must allow it to some degree, as long as it is not in the extreme, if it is to be functional and successful. I discuss the importance of balancing competition and cooperation in my essay titled, “Capitalism vs Socialism,” which you may enjoy reading.
Also, in terms of this hypothetical study, the classroom is meant to represent an entire national system, in this case a socialistic one. One of the main, unwritten, conditions of the study is to remain within the study. In other words, you are meant to be hypothetically placed within a system which you are not free to leave but must be forced to deal with. So you shouldn’t think of it as a situation that you could simply walk out of to search for a completely different avenue. This quite often parallels with real life. We are too often not in a position to avoid undesirable situations or have the ability to walk around certain obstacles. We are, however, given more freedom to choose other avenues in a more capitalistic system in real life, which in my opinion is one of the best features of capitalism. Keep in mind, though, freedom costs. It always has a price. Too much of a good thing can turn bad and ugly. But, whenever there are other options, such as other classrooms, other cities, other states, and even other nations that you could move to that would improve not just your situation but the overall situation of the system that, ultimately, feeds you, then yes, that would be a good thing. But I strongly believe you will never find a better system of checks and balances and of overall national or classroom success than a system that properly balances out competition and cooperation, independence and dependence, and therefore, finds a healthy balance between capitalism and socialism.
But go ahead and imagine that the classroom experiment was designed to average out everyone’s grades, regardless of individual efforts, as described in the original hypothetical experiment, which, again, I believe never actually took place. I still think everyone would eventually perform in such a way as to strive to succeed, if failing meant major suffering or even death, as I mentioned in my essay. I also believe such a class could succeed, especially with a little leadership which is to be found in almost all societies. This averaging method, of course, is not an ideal system, which is why I always advocate a balance between capitalism and socialism. I believe both approaches, in the extreme, are not entirely effective. Both have their pros and cons. I believe in taking the best attributes of both and minimizing the worst attributes as much as possible.
What I would really like to see happen is for people all over the world to come together to create real-life experimental communities to truly test what does and doesn’t work. These communities would not be completely isolated or segregated from the current system, such as within the United States and other countries that would legally allow such communities. They would merely serve as a more communal alternative that would allow many to find the optimal way of life, where they could work together, grow their own foods, make their own products, and provide their own services as much as possible, instead of focusing on profiting off the naive, the desperate, the imprisoned, the sick, and the dying for excessive profits. It would help citizens band together all over the world to influence their own local governments, to pool their own resources, to collectively start their own businesses, to set up their own insurance systems, to provide their own healthcare and legal services, to form their own schools and community shopping centers, and so on. No one would be forced to join. If one agrees with the idea of incorporating some socialistic mechanisms, along with the idea of a semi-free market system, then he or she should volunteer to join and give it a try. If not, he or she would be free to remain within the more raw but freer system that can too often be too unforgiving. It would definitely make a great reality-TV show.
In any decent society, we need to care at least somewhat about each other, for our fellow classmates and for our fellow citizens. If we have a completely dog-eat-dog world, we will all end up paying for it, eventually. I hope you agree. Another essay I wrote, which you may be interested in, is titled “The Ideal Society,” under the menu link “My Political Views.” Just as the title indicates, it describes my view of the ideal society. If you think you might enjoy it, please give it a read.
Thanks for taking the time to post a comment!
Guyus
In point 1 you make three common but critic oversight. You assume that raising taxes will take wealth away from the very wealthy. This is categorically false. Raising taxes does not take money away from the wealthy as currently the wealthy do not pay taxes, in fact raising taxes tends to only increase wealth inequality by squeezing out the middle and upper middle class the later being employers.
Secondly you also referenced FDR’s new deal tax legislation. Most economist and political scientist attribute the success of the new deal to the banking regulations and public works projects that put money into the hands of the consumers by giving them jobs, not the tax bills.
And finally your argument about people sitting on the wealth is based upon data from the pre investment era. Since 1980 the wealthiest people keep their money in the stock market via mutual funds, not in banks. The growth of money in the stock market directly relates to the increase in profitably of the companies that those stocks belong too and thus creates more jobs.
While it is not perfect and there is waste, there is significantly less waste in the private sector than there is in government. The greatest problems behind our current wealth inequality actual stem from an overly involved and complicated government, the tax code and financial regulations are perfect examples of this. Contrary to what they say the smartest people do not work for the government which means that those people will always find loop holes and ways around new government regulation and taxes. The perfect example of this is borrowing against wealth. The richest people do not pay taxes because they technically in the governments eyes make no money. They invest all their money and then they take out loans against their investments as collateral. Whats more they use a socialist based policy intended to help the poor with their loans to deduct the taxes on the money they pull out of their investments to pay the interest on their loans.
When the government tries to legislate to redistribute wealth all they do is take money from the class that actually employs people not the super wealthy. This causes those people to cut jobs and salaries of their employs thus making people poorer not richer. The only way to do what you are talking about is to completely reform the tax code to more closely represent European countries. If you do so the average quality of life in this country will drop as did in Europe.
I completely agree with alot of your points about how socialism is about sacrifice. If we as a country decide that we are ok with less than we currently have so that every body can be equal than that is a respectable opinion. But the idea that we can raise the average quality of life is preposterous. I personally have become well-off but not rich person through countless 12 hour days 6-7 days a week. Consequently the people around me have prospered with jobs and incomes. It may make me a bad person to say this but if I did not stand to gain what I have gained from that work I wouldn’t do it for the sake of general prosperity. With our current tax structure its almost not worth the effort already and increasing those rates would reduce my willingness to compete, and whats more most people in my position feel the same way. I know this because it is a common topic among young entrepreneur’s with our current political climate, thus reinforcing the idea that socialism can only work by everyone accepting less. If it is your opinion that we do not all need big flat screen tv’s and xbox’s, that as long people have the average person only has the most basic comforts then you have an argument. That would however require a significant re-engineering of the expectations of most Americans.
I first want to say that I really appreciate your civil tone, which is rare, and your in-depth comment. I agree with some of the points you’ve made, but strongly disagree with others. Let me first address the ones where we disagree, so as to end on a positive note where we are in complete agreement.
I don’t agree that “the wealthy pay no taxes.” The top wealthy cannot completely avoid paying taxes, though as I have written many times in the past, they are quite proficient at finding ways to circumvent the tax laws and wealthy enough to hire experts to find loop holes or to create them, which needs to stop! Thankfully, new regulations are beginning to crack down on the tax dodgers. But the main point of the essay I have written is to discuss the experiment that was reportedly conducted in a classroom, whereby earnings were indeed taken from those who can afford it to help those who are truly in need to rise just above a failing grade (the poverty level). Also, in very recent times, statistics have once again shown that in states, where the minimum wage was raised, there was a positive effect on the work force and the economy, not a negative effect. Employers did not fire workers. For years and years, I’ve heard the old argument that if you raise taxes on big business owners (not referring to small mom and pop businesses) or raise the minimum wage it will have a negative impact on employment and the economy. It doesn’t. What it does is momentarily reduce the excessive wealth of the employers and provide spending money for laborers, which in turn raises demand and productivity and the economy–I promise! The super wealthy are NOT the great job creators as predicted for decades. The myth of trickle-down economics (wealth trickling down to the lower classes) is just that, a myth. It has been tried, over and over, again and again, several times from the 1980’s til now. It simply doesn’t work. One of the main reasons is because the top wealthy do not put enough of their money back into circulation, though they do put some of it into the stock market, as you mentioned, but at low risk and not nearly in full. They are known to hide too much of their wealth in offshore accounts and to outsource jobs to poorer country to again circumvent minimum wage laws and taxes.
You claimed that I “referenced FDR’s new deal tax legislation,” then wrote that “Most economist[s] and political scientist[s] attribute the success of the new deal to the banking regulations and public works projects that put money into the hands of the consumers by giving them jobs, not the tax bills.” I never specifically referenced his tax legislation, nor strictly focused on it. I merely stated that “Franklin D. Roosevelt did it [used legislation] during The Great Depression and saved America from a complete collapse. I completely agree with you that FDR’s bank regulations and Public Works program did a great deal for the economy. Taxes were used to supply the billions of dollars for the Public Works program, to build all those roads, dams, bridges, etc. I then said “When the government raises their taxes [the wealthy, not necessarily the top few, those who can afford it] and forces them to add to the communal pot, every one does better, including the rich, because the economy improves.” I still stand by those statements.
You then wrote, “While it is not perfect and there is waste, there is significantly less waste in the private sector than there is in government.” I agree with you there is a lot of waste in the public sector, possibly more than the private sector, but hard to say for sure. There are a lot of variables in that equation. But, regardless, I do agree there is too much waste in the public sector, mainly at the federal and state level. I’m always advocating that power should be redistributed from the federal level down to the state level and from the state to the municipal level. I believe local governments are better at knowing their own needs than some over-bloated central government. But I can’t agree that “The greatest problems behind our current wealth inequality actual stem from an overly involved and complicated government, the tax code and financial regulations.” I strongly believe inequality is profoundly the direct cause of money not being put back into circulation. If wages and jobs went up, all else would rise. Of course this means that the wealthiest must lose a lot of their leverage and power over the middle class which they hate!
You expressed, “Contrary to what they say the smartest people do not work for the government.” I agree that can often be the case, but not always. You can also quite often find unqualified workers in the private sector as well. People who get hired based on good looks and charisma instead of skill. You also get people who earn enormous wealth based on a recording of a song they didn’t even write, such as young pop stars who’ve never mowed a lawn in their life. But, still, I agree with your sentiment regarding the unqualified. I believe both public and private sectors could do a better job filtering out the less skilled workers and thinkers.
Lastly, you wrote, “socialism can only work by everyone accepting less. If it is your opinion that we do not all need big flat screen tv’s and xbox’s, that as long people have the average person only has the most basic comforts then you have an argument. That would however require a significant re-engineering of the expectations of most Americans.”
To quickly respond to that last statement, yes, it would definitely require a significant re-engineering of expectations. I don’t advocate pure socialism. I advocate a balance between capitalism and socialism, between competition and cooperation, between public and private, between independence and dependence, between regulation and freedom. It’s also important to remind you that socialism is not about everyone being perfectly equal. I will paste below the first paragraph of a previous reply I had left on a previous comment, above:
‘Remember, socialism, as the term is traditionally and properly used, is not about averaging everyone’s grades, regardless of their efforts. That’s one of the main misconceptions of what socialism actually is and that view is often promoted and circulated by very far right-winged, hard core capitalists (though such a system of averaging could be described as a very, very extreme version of socialism). True socialism, as defined by most reputable sources, is a system where the means of production and distribution are primarily owned and operated by the people and for the people—not necessarily perfectly, equally owned and operated. In the type of classroom experiment that I described as one that should be conducted, you wouldn’t be carrying the entire class or bringing those below you to your level. You, along with many other students, would use only a small percentage of your grade value and/or efforts to collectively pull only a few students above failing. Therefore, for the most part, a tier system or hierarchy of accomplishment and rewards would still be in place. I can’t remember if I discussed it in this essay, but I have expressed, in other essays, a strong appreciation for competition and believe a nation must allow it to some degree, as long as it is not in the extreme, if it is to be functional and successful. I discuss the importance of balancing competition and cooperation in my essay titled, “Capitalism vs Socialism,” which you may enjoy reading.’
The system I have often described in my writings can be achieved if the wealthy, especially the top elite who have not truly earned such massive wealth and never could in a single lifetime relative to how hard the average man works per dollar, can pay their employees what they have truly earned and pay their taxes, and if they can let go of their egos and excessive power that should never be in the hands of any one individual, and be willing to provide aid to those who are truly in need and willing to earn it if able bodied. We can all live happy lives. Many of us can have flat screen TVs, Xbox’s, the latest iPads, and a very hard working few can even own expensive yachts, as long as it is truly earned. But what we cannot have is people who are willing to work hard and do work hard (have two to three jobs), yet are still starving and struggling. Currently, the system we are in is very out of balance. We need to balance it. I hope you agree. 🙂
Good read. Agree.
History has shown that socialism DOES NOT WORK. The most RECENT examples as of today February 2016 are GREECE and Venezuela. End of story.
Exactly. USA has elements of socialism, even tho its considered a capitalist economy. But the difference is that Venezuela is VERY socialist, and that’s a problem. Communism and heavy socialism you may as well throw in the garbage. Anyone that ascribes to these is an idiot.
What Americans call Socialism is Communism. What the rest of the world calls Socialism is social welfare in democratic developed nations.
Social responsibility in developed democracies is what Americans reject and because of it they have the worst quality of life on average of any developed nation and almost Third World conditions for many of their people and particularly their workers.
The nations today which offer the best quality of life to their citizens are those with comprehensive social welfare programmes, what Americans call Socialism, because the powers that be who run the US, want Americans to confuse Socialism with Communism and because educational standards are so poor in the US, because their education system is also crap, many believe what they are being told.
The worst country in the developed world in which a child can born today is the US and that is because the society runs on Capitalism and has no social welfare systems in place which function as they should.
I know what you mean. I believe there is much truth in what you wrote.
Isn’t it amazing that the US with its “crap” education system remains the leader of the world in economics and standard of living. The Scandinavian countries have remained democratic socialists because they indeed swing away from the socialists toward more market centered economics from time to time. This swing keeps democracy alive as neither socialist nor more conservative parties can dominate enough to prevent their opposition from being elected. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that the citizens do from time to time VOTE THE SOCIALISTS OUT. As James Madison said, if men (including socialists and conservatives) were angels there would be no need for government. We learned that well from the Soviet and other communist countries. Venezuela and Cuba remain current examples.
I just came back to the usa from living abroad in Europe for a year. I travelled to many of countries that have extensive social welfare programs and most of the people I met or spoke with wanted to move to the usa. I could be wrong but you sound like someone that lives in Seattle or San Fran and dreams one day we will all see the light and be more like Europe. We have our problems here but I can tell you they have much more. Even well educated people from the wealthiest countries in Europe want into the usa because they believe they could better utilize their talents and pay less taxes. It’s the truth.
Yeah, the grass always looks greener on the other side of the road. Americans want to go to other countries to get away from both government and market corruption and others want to come here to the United States to flee their countries’ problems. Everyone is always in search of the promised land, a utopia. Truth is, there is no perfect system. Each will always have it’s flaws. There’s always a compensation or a price to pay for freedom or for regulations. I agree that there are many European nations that are over taxed. I even believe taxes are too high in the US and far too much wasteful spending. However, I still hold the view that a ‘healthy balance’ between socialism and capitalism is the best approach there ever will be that will allow humans to best govern themselves.
I am an Australian who has lived in Europe, UK, Canada and spent a lot of time in the US because I have family there. I know plenty of people who would like to work in the US for a bit but no-one who wants to live there unless they marry an American girl who live anywhere else.
The US offers the poorest qualify of life in the developed world. Sure it attracts Third Worlders’ but few First Worlder’s would want an American life. Crappy food and coffee, expensive, crowded and violent.
It is a fantasy that Americans pay less taxes. You pay more. Add them all up. And you don’t get free quality education or healthcare.
Only in the US can getting sick bankrupt you.
So true! Once you add the sky rocketing prices of going to college and all the healthcare bills, Americans pay way more than European countries by far.
Your article only reinforced my belief that socialism does not and will not work. Especially when you talk about how students do better in group projects. Group projects suck, especially for the people who do all the work. As a teacher — students would not have “adjusted their attitude”. They would complain and cry that it’s not fair and still expect it to be given to them. I see it everyday.
Forgive me, but I find it very difficult to believe that you are truly a teacher, due to all your grammar errors! First, you need a comma between the words ‘work’ and ‘especially’ (your sentence starting with “Especially” is not a complete sentence). You need a comma between the words teacher and students, not two dashes. And your period after the word ‘attitude’ should go inside the quotation marks, unless you teach outside the United States. Also, I would expect a teacher, with any appreciable teaching degree, to use a more sophisticated adjective other than “suck” to describe group projects. Putting all that aside, I will go ahead and take your word that you have been allowed to teach young, impressionable minds.
My discussion on students working in groups is based on real-life statistical facts. Classrooms have been surveyed and it was determined that students, overall, do better both on assignments and later on when being individually tested. Students who beforehand, for whatever reason, were not performing well, were encourage by the group atmosphere to do far better–not by others doing the work for them as you have erroneously interpreted (from this essay and/or from your classroom experiences). You also need to realize that I, myself, have had firsthand experience, both as a student and as a teacher, when it comes to working in groups, and they do in fact help students. But let us get to the heart of the matter. You’re one of those who incorrectly thinks socialism is all about taking from those who work hard and giving to those who don’t. Please re-read this article more carefully. That naive view of socialism is simply not an accurate one. However, in any functional civilized system, there will need to be insurance mechanisms in place, whereby citizens are forced to contribute to a communal pot, so-to-speak, as a form of insurance. I’m sorry you, along with many of your young students, have not yet learned that sacrifices must be made for the betterment of the overall group. Many, especially children, may want to cry and pout and even throw a tantrum, because they lack the ability to see the overall picture, that they are getting value returned for their forced donations, and that is a better system that succeeds. You and others must come to realize that we must all think of the survival of the overall national group or face the risk that EVERYONE loses in the end once such a poor system of selfish individuality runs its full course! Making sacrifices for your fellow man helps you in the end, not doing so will eventually harm you and the system. It is a simple but harsh reality about life.
You also did not carefully read my article in terms of my personal position on socialism. If you had, you would realize that I do not support extreme versions of socialism. I am already aware that extreme versions of socialism does have its drawbacks, which is why I always advocate a delicate balance between socialism and capitalism. In this article, I set out to merely express that I don’t believe this classroom experiment ever actually took place (as it was described), and that an entire class could in fact pass and do better, overall, as a group. I believe I demonstrated that quite well.
I’m sure you will be compelled to provide some sort of rebuttal, but I will unfortunately not have the free time to provide any additional responses. I’ve also learned the sad truth that most humans will never change their position on anything, even in the face of new information, so it would likely be pointless and a waste of time for both of us. I think of it in terms of “show and tell.” Showing has a much stronger effect compared to telling, so I just hope the day will come when we (supporters of some socialized mechanisms and shared sacrifice) can simply ‘show’ all the doubters that it can and does work. I’m very confident that day is drawing near.
Pingback: A Classroom Experiment In Socialism – sandyzombie
I agree that the ‘experiment’ is unlikely to have happened. It certainly wouldn’t be allowed to happen where students are paying tuition fees. But I only read your response to the assumed experiment to here:
“I find it very hard to believe that all the good students, who have already proven to be very capable of making good grades, would have allowed themselves to continuously fail, over and over, even given the fact that they would be forced to pick up the slack where others would be slacking off. Their desire to pass would certainly outweigh any contempt they held towards any slackers or the redistribution process. That’s the law of self-preservation found everywhere in nature. It’s really the main reason I believe this experiment was completely fabricated by an anti-socialist and propagandist.”
You are correct about ‘self-preservation’ but you are wrong that the good students would have picked up the slack to carry the poor students. They would have simply switched classes, and they would have had a very valid reason to do so. So the fictional professor would be left with all the poor students, meanwhile the good students would have gone elsewhere.
Guess what, that is what happens in the real world. Socialist countries suffer a ‘brain drain’ because their best people will not stay to be poorly rewarded for their efforts. That is why Venezuela has lost many of it’s professionals since Hugo Chavez was elected. Worst of all is the exodus of medical professionals leaving the health care system failing, but professionals in all walks of life have fled.
http://www.panamericanworld.com/en/article/emigration-professionals-increases-venezuela
Your assumption that the hard working students may be prepared to continue to pitch in, and that the class “as a team” would eventually come together may well work but ONLY if there was no other alternative for all the students but to stay with the class under the system dictated. But in the REAL world there are multiple options, take it to the head of the college and get the stupid system thrown out, change class, or even change college.
Socialism only ever works in a THEORETICAL way, it fails every test of the REAL world.
I don’t know what made you did your toe into economic waters, but clearly you can’t swim. I only came across yuor log because I was trying to track down the origin of the alleged experiment.
I did have a quick scan of your other material on politics and economics and see you aren’t totally lost. You stated for instance that “I believe that pure capitalism and pure socialism, on there own, are doomed to fail.” What you should acknowledge is that while there have been plenty of attempts at pure socialism, there has NEVER been a pure capitalist system attempted because NO ONE has ever advocated such a system. Every so-called capitalist country, has always had a significant social welfare component where taxes have been raised to be spent by governments for the benefit of all. Those who were unable to contribute towards taxes, still benefited from a range of public goods and services provided by those who could afford to contribute.
Every now and then, I get those who try to suggest that the students would have the option to simply leave the classroom experiment or that they would simply “switch classes.” You, and others like you, are missing the whole point of the experiment. Experiments are designed to hold all other variables equal or constant in order to study certain human behavior. The option to ‘escape’ the situation is not provided in this experiment and for good reason. The experimenter is trying to force certain conditions to observe possible reactions. In other words, there is no escaping the petri dish on this issue. This is actually fitting for this particular experiment, because most people in real life can’t afford to pick up and move to another country and would struggle to leave family and friends behind even if they could. No, we must face the music on this, because we are trying to discover how people would respond if they had no other options. I also have to point out that in reality there is no perfect ideal place to run to as a safe haven, even though at times, on the surface, at first glance, it seems like there are such places. One will pay the consequences one way or the other, sooner or later, like when a rich man is held at gunpoint by a poor man who is robbing a convenient store in order to survive (crime goes up and society is negatively affected). Even if students were allowed to leave, such as within a new experiment involving a fully capitalistic system (which I also described in my article), too many students would fail, which correlates to too much suffering and death in the real world. You’re basically advocating for a system that cruelly allows citizens to fall behind and suffer or die, even if it’s beyond their control. But to get back to the experiment on socialism, you, yourself, have already admitted that the hard working students WOULD pitch in and that the class WOULD effectively work together as a team under the conditions I described “if there was no other alternative for all the students but to stay with the class under the system dictated.” That’s a very important reality which is completely contrary to what was originally claimed in this so called fictional experiment. That was the main point of my article; to dismiss that false conclusion that the entire class, which was forced to remain under such conditions, would all fail. My overall point was, no they would not!
You then went on to say, “But in the REAL world there are multiple options, take it to the head of the college and get the stupid system thrown out, change class, or even change college.” This is not realistic. As I mentioned above, too often people do not have “multiple options” in real life. In the real world people rarely have better options or the power or the know-how or the time or the energy to change college policies in a timely manner or leave their country. Most colleges will not allow you to drop or change a class after a few weeks have passed, and changing colleges is a lot easier said than done and certainly a lot harder than simply picking up the slack for others to do slightly better so they can make a passing grade. Notice in the Venezuela example that you provided, most of those leaving were well to do professionals like doctors who could afford to leave. Also, I would have to study Venezuela’s political and socioeconomic history in more detail to determine whether or not it is even a good example to support your argument. It is virtually impossible to use any real life country to support any economic theory because such national systems involve a huge array of complex variables. You’re assuming that all of Venezuela’s economic problems and downfall hinges on too much socialism, which may or may not be true. However, it is very possible that Venezuela over taxed those who couldn’t afford it and over spent towards welfare programs. It’s possible they were out of balance. If you read my article more closely, you will learn that I support a delicate balance between extreme versions of socialism and extreme versions of capitalism. Had you provided at least three good clear-cut examples of countries that implemented a truly BALANCED system but which failed, then you would have had a potentially good argument.
I often have to remind hardcore capitalists like you that I do not support nor advocate extreme versions of socialism, whereby all rewards are perfectly equalized regardless of efforts, and I never have. The extreme version of socialism that you’re thinking of (where all is shared equally) would indeed fail as I have already expressed and so will extreme versions of capitalism, where there are no market regulations or social safety nets. Most reputable, intelligent economists agree with me that pure capitalism would fail in the REAL world. This is based on statistical facts collected down through the ages.
And you’re wrong to say that pure capitalism hasn’t been tried. Pure capitalism is the law of the jungle, where the big guy can unjustly take advantage of the little guy. All you have to do is go way back in human history when it was truly survival of the fittest, which means survival of the physically strongest (whether he or she ethically deserves to win or not), survival of the most corrupt, survival of the most shallow, survival of the best liar, survival of the most murderous, and so on, when there were no governing man-made laws, no regulations, no insurance systems, just raw brute force and the freedom to try to be a complete individual and to have complete ownership of what one produces; but such rawness never lasts, because it’s too cruel, too unfair, and in the long run isn’t as functional or effective as a balanced approach. Allow a beautiful tilled garden to grow completely free and natural without the intervention of a gardener and it will soon be filled and choked with natural free-growing weeds and harmful insects that will feed off it in a harmful, non-sustaining way. Pure capitalism leads to a raw, unforgiving, ugly world.
You, and others like you, focus on this false idea that all those who are poor are simply lazy and deserve all the negative consequences of their inability to succeed (justly or unjustly). Most of them ironically work far harder than the wealthy, yet get paid the least. Those at the top are simply not the great job creators which is the real problem. The reason people are usually poor is because those at the top kink the circulation of money and find ways to hire as few people as possible to do more and more work for less and less money (in order to remain competitive and to selfishly maximize profits that they truly haven’t earned). You’re naïve to believe that every dollar is justifiably earned by the wealthy and that every empty pocket of the poor is deserved. Please change your thinking on these views. They are incredibly outdated, narrow, and far from the truth!
I’m not sure why you wonder what made me “dip my toe into economic waters” as though I’m relatively new to this subject or why you felt it was necessary to make the smart-ass remark that I “clearly can’t swim,” but I’ve been studying socioeconomic theories for over twenty years. I made A’s in all my college political science courses that I took years ago. Professors who actually teach economics at the university level have been impressed with my balanced views and the United Nations statistically confirmed the effectiveness of my theories in 2013 based on real world results.
Putting all that aside, you’re still not getting the overall principle. The overall system of any nation will fail if too many citizens are allowed to fall behind. It sets into motion a chain reaction that will eventually catch up with those few who were fortunate enough to succeed. A nation is like a canoe of rowers that is always faced with the prospect of going over the waterfalls. There will always be those rowers who can’t paddle as fast and so other stronger rowers will at times need to compensate or EVERYONE loses in the end! Every strong rower will have his or her moment of weakness and will be the weak link in the chain and will be glad the system works under a mechanism of communal insurance.
I can’t wait until more socioeconomic experiments are conducted that will reveal what I already believe to be the reality, and that is any decent, civil, functional society of men must have some rules and regulations along with some level of insurance that all those who can afford to do so fairly pay into and that any may use if truly in need. Think of it in a selfish, self-centered way as a hardcore capitalist often is; the more you help struggling citizens who are truly in need, the more you help the health of YOUR overall national system, and the more you actually end up helping YOURSELF. The less you help those who are truly in need the opposite happens. It reminds me of those Chinese finger-locking toys, whereby the more you try to pull out the more it tightens its grip and keeps you a prisoner. As soon as you learn to give in a little the sooner it will loosen its firm grip over you. It’s just the way nature seems to work. A mother makes sacrifices for her child that is ill equipped and not capable of making it on its own, but it usually pays off in the long run. It’s a give and take process. In most cases, the child will grow up and repay the favor. What goes around comes around. Ultimately, we are all a part of the same team whether we like it or not. What affects one, ultimately affects all others—eventually. A balanced approach is the future of successful socioeconomic systems.
You are right on! No socialist program could survive without strong capitalism to fund it.
What a trivial semantic distinction. Typical of liberal hair splitting. Every socialist experiment has failed or has been redefined as “not socialism”. I laughed my way through this.
Hi! This is actually a professor at my school, and this is not a stock photo. I am unsure of when or how the photo originated, but please be aware that the professor did not consent to his photo on the internet
Yeah, I think I simply googled ‘professor’ in an image search and that was one of the pics that popped up in the results. I did explain in the caption of that picture that it’s not the alleged professor in the alleged experiment discussed in the article. I hope he doesn’t mind, because I really like that picture. It’s a good one.
Guyus, I’m going to venture a guess here that you don’t have a backround/degree in economics or finance. So many things .. but here’s one .. rising tax rates good for the economy??? haha.
I agree that the experiment probably never actually happened, but I think the point that it makes is common sense. If you take from those who are industrious and capable and give it to those who are not, eventually the hard workers lose the motivation to work and create.
Under a capitalist model, America became possibly the most innovative and wealthy country in history. When people can work and keep what they create, it sparks greater innovation and industry.
As America has become more and more socialist we are now $20 trillion in debt (which we cannot possible ever pay back), we have record numbers of people on food stamps and government disability, and many other countries in the world have surpassed us in education and technology.
Socialism doesn’t work. Thatcher’s quote says it all, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” I think we are approaching that point in America.
Your comments give me the strong impression that you didn’t carefully read my entire essay, which I wouldn’t hold against you–it is quite long. But in a nutshell, I somewhat agree with you that, “If you take from those who are industrious and capable and give it to those who are not, eventually the hard workers lose the motivation to work and create.” I would have strongly agreed with you had you worded it like so, ‘If you take too much from those who are industrious and capable and give too much to those who are not, eventually the hard workers lose motivation to work and create.’ That would be absolutely true! However, I went into much detail in this article explaining how many falsely view socialism as a system that holds all rewards as equal regardless of one’s production or contribution level. Socialism is not about a free ride as many would have you believe, thanks to all the misinformation and disinformation spread by the far right to discredit socialism. Simply put, socialism is a system that is owned and operated, collectively, by the people and for the people–not by any form of government as some sources incorrectly define it, such as a communistic government or dictatorship. But to get to the heart of the issue that you are truly concerned with–and that is insurance systems like welfare and healthcare that the government forces citizens to pay into–we have to have them. History and statistics show that we have to have some financial safety nets in place. When we don’t, the whole system can collapse. Every citizen should be expected to pay into that insurance either before they lose their job or become too sick to work or afterwards (when they get back on their feet again and start contributing). Think of society like a boat full of people on a turbulent sea. Ultimately, we’re all in this boat together. If there is a major imbalance or distribution of wealth (for whatever reason, right or wrong) the boat will tip over and EVERYONE will drown!
As I have expressed in this article and in several of my other essays, extreme versions of socialism, whereby all is held equal and laziness is rewarded doesn’t work. I have also expressed that I am not entirely against capitalism. I am fully aware of the good that comes from it. We should always maintain a healthy degree of competition, along side healthy levels of cooperation, and should always preserve as much market freedom as possible. This is why I advocate a healthy BALANCE between socialism and capitalism. All I’m saying in this article and others like it, such as my essay titled, “Capitalism vs Socialism” is that we should never have completely unbridled capitalism or completely free markets with absolutely no regulations, nor should we over-nurture those in need who are NOT willing to work before, during, or after they receive justified aid from their government (from we the people). They should repay the help they received if they are able-bodied. Economists will tell you that either extreme (completely free markets and complete government aid) will harm the economy, but having some sensible market regulations in the right places and ‘temporarily’ helping your fellow man, while he is down actually is best for production and the economy. I’m not saying we should take from hard working people and give to those who continuously choose not to work and buy them expensive homes and Mercedes. Only that we the people should routinely add to the communal pot to help those who are truly in need and deserving of temporary aid that they have either already paid into or will as soon as they can afford to.
Oh, and our nation becoming more socialistic did not cause our $20 trillion dollar debt! I don’t have the time and energy to go into that whole topic, but in a nutshell, it was Bush’s very expensive wars and all the economic damage that his administration caused, mainly by all the bank deregulations, that created that debt. And don’t worry too much, we can pay it off. People often don’t realize just how quickly such high debt can be paid off. We’ve done it before in history like during Andrew Jackson’s administration or Bill Clinton’s presidency. In fact, not only did we pay off huge debts, we ended up with a huge surplus. It’s not just about how much we owe, it’s about how much we owe relative to how much the nation makes. It’s a ratio. Our nation actually makes a shit-load in very little time, but the Republicans on the far right never explain it that way because they want to use scare tactics to scare the crap out of their constituents to gain their support for elections. Trust me, when we the people boost the economy we can pay off that debt real quick and have money left over.
And the main reason more and more people are on food stamps is because the top wealthy are sending American jobs over seas and not paying their employees what they deserve to be paid like Walmart, because minimum wage needs to be raised to a ‘fair’ level. The top wealthy are not the great job creators, trickle-down economics and unbridled capitalism doesn’t work. Overall, it takes a balance between capitalism and socialism (the Goldilocks Zone).
And Thatcher’s quote, “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money” is incorrect. She is falsely viewing socialism as a system whereby all the hard workers pay for an increasing number of people who can’t work without receiving any return in a failing economy. That is a narrow and false view of socialism! In a healthy, democratic form of socialism, where the economy is stabilized, the well-to-do citizens, who can afford to pay into a welfare system, can continuously provide aid to those who are truly in need, indefinitely. Money is just an expression of one’s labor or contribution, which doesn’t have to ever run out. Moral citizens can continue to lend a helping hand until the day they die–I promise! I hope you agree with at least some of the things I have said, if not all of it. I swear, it requires a delicate, healthy balance between both systems.
Only those who have never lived under socialism, defend socialism.
I don’t defend socialism. I advocate for a healthy balance between socialistic and capitalistic mechanisms.
I love how you say every one shares in the profit of a company, yet you never mention sharing in the risks or expenses. My father lost $60,000 on one job because of an employees carelessness, guess who lost the money? Not the employees? Guess who saved and put his savings into a business and equipment? Not the employees.
Everyone wants the benefits of business but no one’s willing to take the risks involved to get there. Socialism also favors government who produce nothing but live lavish lifestyles at the expense of everyone else’s efforts. It’s a wonderful thought, but it can’t really work in real terms. But I say hey! To each their own. Utah is the land of the Mormons, you don’t move to Utah as an atheist and ask them to move or change their ways, you move to a state that caters to your belief structure.
Why can’t socialist let capitalist have the country they created and over 46 million people moving into every year want? You want socialism move to a socialist country and enjoy the commerodery of like minded people and let the capitalist enjoy the same freedom you want for yourself.
In my essays and videos, I always express that I think everyone should share in both the profits and in their efforts, contributions, and in the risks. I have never said otherwise. It’s also important to point out that I don’t believe this sharing should always be perfectly equal. Workers should be free to volunteer how much risk and effort they want to provide. I’m constantly saying that I simply want workers to be fairly compensated for their contributions and risks to society and to the company they work for. You are under the false impression that I want workers to receive what they have not truly earned. On the contrary. I want those at the top, who usually receive what they have not truly earned, to start paying their workers their fair share, what they truly deserve. I also believe and advocate that all employees and owners should share in the loss. Currently, in our dominately capitalistic system, it doesn’t work that way–unfortunately.
I have to respectfully disagree with you when you say, “Everyone wants the benefits of business but no one’s willing to take the risks involved to get there.” That is simply not true at all. Most people work very hard (ironically the poor are usually the hardest working people you’ll ever meet) and are willing to take risks. The problem is that those at the top hoard all the returns on any business venture, which is not right in my book. I also disagree with how you characterize socialism and government. Government has been shown to produce a great deal such as the highway system, Hoover Damn, launching men to the moon, which private business still hasn’t accomplished for whatever reason. And people who receive government aid do not live lavish lives, quite the opposite. However, I would agree with you that big government too often is ineffective and that government assistance is abused, which we need to find ways to minimize (no system will ever be perfect) I also have to remind you that I am not a socialist and don’t advocate pure socialism. I express in my essays and videos that I believe some capitalism is a good thing, that we need some free market mechanisms, that we need a healthy balance between socialism and capitalism, that both have their pros and cons as all things do in life, even baby kittens.
Last but not least, I completely agree with your sentiments regarding the idea of letting the capitalists do it their way and let socialists do it their way. I have been expressing that very idea for a good while now. I’m always telling people, let the hardcore capitalists live in their unregulated, no safety-net, wild frontier to fend for themselves in a sink or swim world, and let those of us who prefer more cooperation and a sense of collectiveness, voluntarily come together to pool our resources and to work together in a more humane, fair way. Thankfully, our American constitution allows us the freedom to voluntarily come together to try such socioeconomic experiments, legally. If such communities ever start cropping up throughout America and the world, and when such societies begin to flourish and succeed (financially and ethically), we will let in those capitalists who come knocking on our doors to be let in as soon as they admit that it shouldn’t be every man for himself but all for one and one for all in a communal way with fair and just efforts and rewards.
I can’t wait for the economics professor’s experiment with “Classroom Capitalism”.
The course materials & time with the professor are limited & expensive but a couple of people are given full access by their parents. The rest in order to get access to the materials & teacher, have to sell their future marks.
When the scores are in, despite working very hard & getting 100% in the test, some only get an C. Others not as clever or perhaps they didn’t work as hard or were sick & missed some of the course were a mix of E’s & F’s.
The people that bought the marks were the only ones to get an A. The A’s then spend the next semester lecturing the rest on how they should work harder if they want to get an A.
When it is suggested that the system should be reformed, the A’s convince the C’s that the E’s & F’s are after their marks and the C’s will have to work just as hard to get D’s in the future.
Reform fails.
I live in a socialist country. My parents work hard, I barelt get to see them. I see people getting shit for free, and their parents are home a lot. And my parents end up paying big taxes. Tell me what is fair in this system, which robs my parents of their time and money they could have given theif children, and give good-for-nothing nobodies everything outta their hard work.
Very well written post but seems to base a lot of information on false assumptions, starting with the very first assumption when you state what socialism is: “Socialism is an economic and political system (based on group-interest and cooperation) in which all the means of production and distribution are collectively owned and operated by all members of a society, rather than completely divided up to be privately owned amongst individuals or a select few.” this tends to leave out the fact that the real definition is: Definition of socialism. 1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. This is contrary to your statements that property is distributed by the people, it is in fact distributed by a government, in United states that would be the people (actually who we elect). But why is it that the people that are advocating for socialism are the richest politicians in our society, do you really believe they are going to give up their wealth. Obama Took a paycheck, even though before he was in office he was worth millions, but he was all for socialism.
As for Roosevelt’s “New Deal” successes, most of the success seen there was through work programs, not welfare, in fact Roosevelt advocated for more work programs and less “welfare” he did not advocate to make people wealthy or even equal, but put people to work at very low wage jobs on highway infrastructures. What you have not considered in this is that was great back then, but how much would it take to put the same number of people to work in the modern world? back then the average salary was 29 dollars a week, now with minimum wage the government would be paying $400 a week at minimum wage per worker, and the big question there is who is going to work on the highway for minimum wage? Other things atributed to the New Deal that were falsely attributed to it’s success, farm earnings went up 50%, well the New Deal was that farmers should not farm all their crops, which means fewer people working, less food production, yet earnings went up 50%, and on top of that, most of that increase was due to the drought, not farmers only using part of their crops.
Roosevelt also created a Social Security, which is a new tax on workers and employers to pay people who were beyond retirement age or could not longer work. The original system was designed to provide income for people who could no longer work, but it is being abused, people are on social security now that could still work and are not at retirement age because as with all social based beliefs, if a person can take advantage of a system they will.
Finally, all you assumptions ignore the base of human nature itself. The reason Socialism with Always fail in all forms in all countries in all societies, and please, several countries have tired it but find a country that socialism has actually worked to benefit the people and people have been happy with it, just one please. The basic need of humans to succeed and have their needs and some of their desires met. With all forms of socialism, the majority of needs are met, but only the elite (decision makers about who gets what) will get their desires met. I am sorry, their is an assumption that we only have to meet the “needs” of the people, but even our welfare system is based on the needs, and allows for some form of desires to be met. Socialism also does little if anything at all to promote success or strive to be the best. Reality is that few people rely on “intrinsic” rewards to motivate them, most people are looking for “extrinsic” rewards, in other words we need someone telling us that we have done a good job.
People should be “fairly” compensated for their labors, but WHO defines what is “fair” and HOW is it determined? Should Big Brother government determine what is “fair” compensation for goods and services, or should the free market (freely made decisions by sellers and consumers in the marketplace) determine what is “fair” compensation?
You are so wrong it hurts. And your definition of socialism would actually be what we have in America today. Everyone has the opportunity to own the means of production just to varying degrees. Anyone with a 401k or equity investment owns and most likely depending on class of shares is able to vote. If someone wants to drive a brand new car and spend their money unwisely instead of buying shares in the car company they have that choice. It’s called freedom. Also wealthy people don’t hoarde money they either invest in business to make more or put it in the bank where it can be loaned out to others. Unless it’s a fictional character like scrooge mcduck I’ve never heard of anyone with a billion dollars under their mattress unless we are talking about corrupt politicians that you would have redistribute wealth. Also FDR was a great man but the economists I talk to believe he contributed to the great depression and they have models to prove it. Economics is a very new science and like all science you can skew the facts.
I am pretty sure this will get no response but here it goes:
Look at:
“Several studies have already been done, involving students of all ages, when it comes to working in groups, and the results always show an overall improvement in grades and productivity.”
This is the key:
“… when it comes to working in groups…” the verb “WORKING”
The students in need put work into improving, probably harder work than others.
Yes, sadly there are those who do have to work harder to process and learn what may come more easily to others. I’ve noticed that each has their weaknesses as well as their areas of strength, aptitude, and talent.