Lots of people who work very hard are very poor.

Define what makes work "hard" or "easy"

How do you compare if a dishwasher's work is harder or easier than a bank CFO?

Gary, that is a fundamental question in micro economics. Each person has their own set of marginal utilities.

---

All work is hard, that is why they have to pay you to work.

---

Lots of people who work very hard are very poor.

Define what makes work "hard" or "easy"

How do you compare if a dishwasher's work is harder or easier than a bank CFO?

---

Instilling the ethic of community that you describe has never been done on a large scale. The kind of widespread change in commonly held short term values required would probably require something like a new religion.

---

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp.

Somebody got it right. Anyone that has actually read Marx would know this.
Hint: you do not need to be socialist to read Marx. And for those 100% opposed to it, shouldn't you actually read his work, instead of taking someone else's definition, so that you really "know your enemy"?

Many critics have maintained that if anyone in the original scenario were to receive a failing grade, it should have been the economics professor who clearly didn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a system that advocates social ownership of production and distribution, not an equal distribution of resources. (The socialist motto "To each according to his contribution" reflects the principle that members of a socialist society are still rewarded based on how much they contribute to society, not on some more egalitarian basis.) Communism, not socialism, advocates the principle of distributing resources based on an individual's needs rather than the level of his contribution to society ... ."

This is directly the opposite of IDs claim in the opening post.
Now, why in the WORLD would Marx have EVER suggested this. Hmmm?
We like to think in our society that we'll be rewarded for our hard work and good contributions, right? Well, how well have you REALLY contributed? Do your rewards REALLY match YOUR contributions?

Thanks for posting that here, Sarge. When I saw that going around facebook my first thought was "well that's a load of bollox", just from my own experience of how a class of pupils actually behave. You've pointed out that the allegory doesn't represent socialism or even Communism and shows a basic lack of understanding of those ideologies.

I would however love to perform this "experiment" myself, however it would be unethical (something that clearly didn't cross the mind of the original "Professor.")

I suspect the actual results would show an over improvement on the average grade for several reasons. Firstly those students who wanted a higher grade would have to help those who were underperforming. This might take the form of collaborative study sessions which would actually help the top students as well as lower achieving students. Also, there are plenty of students who don't try because there is no accountability. The enormous peer pressure would ensure that those students who couldn't be bothered to hand in assignments or turn up to class would have to alter their behaviour or face the wrath of the other students. So that is why it was obvious to me that this wasn't a real experiment, because it predicted an overall lowering of achievement rather than an average improvement in grades over the whole class. Not fair on the highest achievers, but an improvement for everyone else, including the middle achievers.

However, the premise of socialism is that there is a collaborative effort to improve access for everyone of the basic necessities of life. Food, shelter and healthcare. The comparison and worth of a pass grade or an A grade simply do not apply in this context. If a person gets a fail grade in life they end up starving and homeless and in real life this is not based on merit or hard work. Lots of people who work very hard are very poor.

A closer comparison of Communism would be that instead of there being a lecturer who controls the grades and bestows them as he or she sees fit, the whole class would be responsible for assigning grades. They would come to an agreement as a collective about how grades should be assigned.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]



so there is not just one kind of socialism

i have yet to see anyone here in america advocating socialism as your definition states it to be.

You are using someone else's definition (perhaps some UK website), not looking at Marx's original writings.
What I quoted squares with what I remember reading, from his original, while an undergrad.
Many people I have met from various walks of life who know what Marx said state it is a "good idea that will never work" because of human nature.
Marx was responding to abuses of capitalism. Ever since, his ideas have been vilified by those who stand to lose something. What do they stand to lose? Ill-gotten gains; rewards that do match their contributions. Twist the story, and those who stand to lose something can make it sound even worse and convince much larger amounts of people that they, too, stand to lose something.

Socialism refers to an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy.[1] "Social ownership" may refer to cooperative enterprises, common ownership, state ownership, or citizen ownership of equity.[2] There are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them.[3] They differ in the type of social ownership they advocate, the degree to which they rely on markets or planning, how management is to be organised within productive institutions, and the role of the state in constructing socialism.[4]



so there is not just one kind of socialism

i have yet to see anyone here in america advocating socialism as your definition states it to be.

---

http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp.

Somebody got it right. Anyone that has actually read Marx would know this.
Hint: you do not need to be socialist to read Marx. And for those 100% opposed to it, shouldn't you actually read his work, instead of taking someone else's definition, so that you really "know your enemy"?

Many critics have maintained that if anyone in the original scenario were to receive a failing grade, it should have been the economics professor who clearly didn't understand the difference between socialism and communism. Socialism is a system that advocates social ownership of production and distribution, not an equal distribution of resources. (The socialist motto "To each according to his contribution" reflects the principle that members of a socialist society are still rewarded based on how much they contribute to society, not on some more egalitarian basis.) Communism, not socialism, advocates the principle of distributing resources based on an individual's needs rather than the level of his contribution to society ... ."

This is directly the opposite of IDs claim in the opening post.
Now, why in the WORLD would Marx have EVER suggested this. Hmmm?
We like to think in our society that we'll be rewarded for our hard work and good contributions, right? Well, how well have you REALLY contributed? Do your rewards REALLY match YOUR contributions?

The fruit,
present and absent,
both bittersweet.

Probably not, just watch in awe.

---

The low hanging fruit was picked and tossed into the Mariana Trench.

Self-picking fruit?

I missed the harvest, should I be giving thanks?

---

Reality Internet Personality

Your'e on topic.

---

Oh, snooping around using Google Earth, at least I know that most Americans own a car and a home.

So who then built the cities? Most everything that shows up are roads and buildings. The rest of the wealth is supposed to be found in everyones homes.

The United States is neither socialist or communist, but still most of it (as usual) is owned, handled and administered by the state (or really, the Federal Government).

Your way of becoming rich, I guess. Still I reckon there are many others which choose to be doing these things in the same way as you.

The low hanging fruit was picked and tossed into the Mariana Trench.

Self-picking fruit?

Astute observation.

---

The low hanging fruit was picked and tossed into the Mariana Trench.

Self-picking fruit?

The low hanging fruit was picked and tossed into the Mariana Trench.

---

put money on it

Place your bets, ladies and gents.

But it is such low hanging fruit.

Huh, I thought it was lower than a bottom feeder in the Mariana Trench.

---

1 in 7 on foodstamps. Socialist.

---

Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...

put money on it

Place your bets, ladies and gents.

But it is such low hanging fruit.

---