Socialism

[Neferti]

Got this via email. Thought I would share.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that, until recently, he had never failed a single student before but, more recently, had failed an entire class.
That class had insisted that Obama's 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 based on Obama's plan". Substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by everyone here - all grades will be averaged, meaning everyone will receive the same grade. No one will fail, but no one will receive an A....

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little
had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

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 are 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.

[brian ross]

Based on a simplistic American idea of what socialism is. No wonder they all failed. Under real socialism rewards are handed out on the basis of effort, not lack there of. If you wish to succeed you still are required to strive. Rewards are commiserate of effort. Where the difference is, rewards are not necessarily monetary. Australia used to be in the early 1970s, one of the most "socialist" states in the world - after Israel which was considered the most. Socialism is not equatable to Communism. Under Hawke/Keating we turned our backs on Socialism unfortunately.

[Nom De Plume]

Based on a simplistic American idea of what socialism is. No wonder they all failed. Under real socialism rewards are handed out on the basis of effort, not lack there of. If you wish to succeed you still are required to strive. Rewards are commiserate of effort. Where the difference is, rewards are not necessarily monetary. Australia used to be in the early 1970s, one of the most "socialist" states in the world - after Israel which was considered the most. Socialism is not equatable to Communism. Under Hawke/Keating we turned our backs on Socialism unfortunately.

'The primary difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a political system and socialism is chiefly an economic system.'
http://www.reference.com/government-pol ... 8cb2d94246

[brian ross]

Based on a simplistic American idea of what socialism is. No wonder they all failed. Under real socialism rewards are handed out on the basis of effort, not lack there of. If you wish to succeed you still are required to strive. Rewards are commiserate of effort. Where the difference is, rewards are not necessarily monetary. Australia used to be in the early 1970s, one of the most "socialist" states in the world - after Israel which was considered the most. Socialism is not equatable to Communism. Under Hawke/Keating we turned our backs on Socialism unfortunately.

'The primary difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a political system and socialism is chiefly an economic system.'
http://www.reference.com/government-pol ... 8cb2d94246

There are more differences than that. Socialism is something people need to buy into. Communism is imposed on them.

[Rorschach]

I agree with brian, as much as he has said so far.

I wouldn't be confusing Communism, Socialism with Kibbutzim though or our Australian society. They aint the same.

A kibbutz is a collective community in Israel that was traditionally based on agriculture. The first kibbutz, established in 1909, was Degania. Today, farming has been partly supplanted by other economic branches, including industrial plants and high-tech enterprises. Kibbutzim began as utopian communities, a combination of socialism and Zionism. In recent decades, some kibbutzim have been privatized and changes have been made in the communal lifestyle. A member of a kibbutz is called a kibbutznik.

Socialism is a social and economic theory/system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system.

Communism is a theory/system of social organization in which all property is owned by the community and each person contributes and receives according to their ability and needs.

Both are idealistic theories that have largely failed in their practical application to nation states.

[Malcolm_hates_your_kids]

It's the peter princilple: it happens in ca;italism too!

YOU'RE ALL IDIOTS!

[Neferti]

How do you explain Socialism to a 10 year old in simple terms and how does it differ from communism?

Imagine a factory that makes shoes. There are 90 workers, 9 managers and 1 owner. Factory makes and sells, on average, $100,000 worth of shoes per week. It pays $40,000 as workers' salaries, $40,000 as managers' salaries, and $20,000 as dividends. Workers earn a bit above minimum wage, managers earn $200k/year, and the owner pockets $1M/year doing nothing at all. Workers do all the real work but they are paid peanuts and they have no voice in any matters. Managers are paid lots to keep workers in line. Market price of shoes jumps up and down randomly, and occasionally we have this thing called "recession" when the price of shoes falls for an extended period of time, and the factory saves money by firing some workers and cutting pay for others. Laid off workers end up homeless and unable to feed their children. That's capitalism.

We kick out the owner, nationalize the factory, cut salaries of managers and raise salaries of workers. Now workers earn $20/hour, managers earn $75k/year, and there's no owner. We then figure out how many shoes are needed in the country per year, and set the national price of shoes. The factory keeps on making $100,000 worth of shoes per week regardless of actual short-term demand. (Since all stores are also nationalized, we can make sure that the company is still paid, and excess shoes are simply going to sit in a warehouse somewhere.) We adjust prices and production levels every year. The money that went into the owner's pocket now goes to provide fat benefits for workers (free healthcare and pension). We put in extra effort to make sure that there is a paying job for anyone who wants to work. That's socialism.

Eventually the system works so well that everyone is adequately fed, clothed and shod and it becomes pointless even to set monetary value to shoes. We simply remove price tags and give shoes to anyone who wants a pair. (Obviously, subject to some reasonable constraints, e.g. no more than 100 pairs/year/person.) To prevent people from "mooching" (unlimited access to free goods is an incentive not to work), we require all able people to work and make voluntary joblessness a crime. That's communism. (For a good illustration, see Star Trek.)

There are two major obstacles that prevent the latter two systems from working correctly. One is that central planning in an economy as complex as what we have today is insanely difficult. Imagine that it's 2005 and you need to allocate engineering and manufacturing resources for the next five years, and you need to predict relative demand for Blackberry, Palm Pilot and iPhone. Soviet Union was failing miserably at far easier allocation tasks. The other is that removal of monetary aspects weakens workers' motivation (if you can't be fired and you're paid a fixed amount no matter how well you work, or if you're not paid at all, you may not work as hard as if your livelihood was on the line).

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explai ... -communism

[Malcolm_hates_your_kids]

How do you explain Socialism to a 10 year old in simple terms and how does it differ from communism?

Imagine a factory that makes shoes. There are 90 workers, 9 managers and 1 owner. Factory makes and sells, on average, $100,000 worth of shoes per week. It pays $40,000 as workers' salaries, $40,000 as managers' salaries, and $20,000 as dividends. Workers earn a bit above minimum wage, managers earn $200k/year, and the owner pockets $1M/year doing nothing at all. Workers do all the real work but they are paid peanuts and they have no voice in any matters. Managers are paid lots to keep workers in line. Market price of shoes jumps up and down randomly, and occasionally we have this thing called "recession" when the price of shoes falls for an extended period of time, and the factory saves money by firing some workers and cutting pay for others. Laid off workers end up homeless and unable to feed their children. That's capitalism.

We kick out the owner, nationalize the factory, cut salaries of managers and raise salaries of workers. Now workers earn $20/hour, managers earn $75k/year, and there's no owner. We then figure out how many shoes are needed in the country per year, and set the national price of shoes. The factory keeps on making $100,000 worth of shoes per week regardless of actual short-term demand. (Since all stores are also nationalized, we can make sure that the company is still paid, and excess shoes are simply going to sit in a warehouse somewhere.) We adjust prices and production levels every year. The money that went into the owner's pocket now goes to provide fat benefits for workers (free healthcare and pension). We put in extra effort to make sure that there is a paying job for anyone who wants to work. That's socialism.

Eventually the system works so well that everyone is adequately fed, clothed and shod and it becomes pointless even to set monetary value to shoes. We simply remove price tags and give shoes to anyone who wants a pair. (Obviously, subject to some reasonable constraints, e.g. no more than 100 pairs/year/person.) To prevent people from "mooching" (unlimited access to free goods is an incentive not to work), we require all able people to work and make voluntary joblessness a crime. That's communism. (For a good illustration, see Star Trek.)

There are two major obstacles that prevent the latter two systems from working correctly. One is that central planning in an economy as complex as what we have today is insanely difficult. Imagine that it's 2005 and you need to allocate engineering and manufacturing resources for the next five years, and you need to predict relative demand for Blackberry, Palm Pilot and iPhone. Soviet Union was failing miserably at far easier allocation tasks. The other is that removal of monetary aspects weakens workers' motivation (if you can't be fired and you're paid a fixed amount no matter how well you work, or if you're not paid at all, you may not work as hard as if your livelihood was on the line).

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explai ... -communism

Where was your comment?

[Neferti]

I started the thread and thus made a statement to encourage a heated discussion! Do you have a comment other than a troll?

[sprintcyclist]

How do you explain Socialism to a 10 year old in simple terms and how does it differ from communism?

Imagine a factory that makes shoes. There are 90 workers, 9 managers and 1 owner. Factory makes and sells, on average, $100,000 worth of shoes per week. It pays $40,000 as workers' salaries, $40,000 as managers' salaries, and $20,000 as dividends. Workers earn a bit above minimum wage, managers earn $200k/year, and the owner pockets $1M/year doing nothing at all. Workers do all the real work but they are paid peanuts and they have no voice in any matters. Managers are paid lots to keep workers in line. Market price of shoes jumps up and down randomly, and occasionally we have this thing called "recession" when the price of shoes falls for an extended period of time, and the factory saves money by firing some workers and cutting pay for others. Laid off workers end up homeless and unable to feed their children. That's capitalism.

We kick out the owner, nationalize the factory, cut salaries of managers and raise salaries of workers. Now workers earn $20/hour, managers earn $75k/year, and there's no owner. We then figure out how many shoes are needed in the country per year, and set the national price of shoes. The factory keeps on making $100,000 worth of shoes per week regardless of actual short-term demand. (Since all stores are also nationalized, we can make sure that the company is still paid, and excess shoes are simply going to sit in a warehouse somewhere.) We adjust prices and production levels every year. The money that went into the owner's pocket now goes to provide fat benefits for workers (free healthcare and pension). We put in extra effort to make sure that there is a paying job for anyone who wants to work. That's socialism.

Eventually the system works so well that everyone is adequately fed, clothed and shod and it becomes pointless even to set monetary value to shoes. We simply remove price tags and give shoes to anyone who wants a pair. (Obviously, subject to some reasonable constraints, e.g. no more than 100 pairs/year/person.) To prevent people from "mooching" (unlimited access to free goods is an incentive not to work), we require all able people to work and make voluntary joblessness a crime. That's communism. (For a good illustration, see Star Trek.)

There are two major obstacles that prevent the latter two systems from working correctly. One is that central planning in an economy as complex as what we have today is insanely difficult. Imagine that it's 2005 and you need to allocate engineering and manufacturing resources for the next five years, and you need to predict relative demand for Blackberry, Palm Pilot and iPhone. Soviet Union was failing miserably at far easier allocation tasks. The other is that removal of monetary aspects weakens workers' motivation (if you can't be fired and you're paid a fixed amount no matter how well you work, or if you're not paid at all, you may not work as hard as if your livelihood was on the line).

https://www.quora.com/How-do-you-explai ... -communism

Unfortunately in practice socialism functions badly