Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Mo-

Illustration of why socialism doesn't work

Recommended Posts

 

Not a completely fair experiment because the professor didn't factor in sanctions for lazy workers. People that didn't work hard should face some retribution(while getting the same grade). But maybe that simply highlights another flaw.

 

Also the class should have had to do different tests, some easier, some harder, some more boring, some more exciting.

 

But as a basic illustration it is an interesting insight into human nature, or at least the current state of affairs. What would have happened if a charismatic leader arose in that group and led the group onto an A.

Having sanctions would make it communist and forcing someone to work is quite a bad thing don't you think?

The idea of different tests is interesting, however under socialism it is believed everyone has more or less equal opportunity and therefore the normalisation of work makes sense in this example.

 

And couldn't the same inspiring leader arise under circumstances where the test grades were not averaged?

 

 

Socialism =\= Communism

In communism you are forced to work. Communism tells you what to think, what to eat, what to wear, what to feel. In communism they set how much is supplied, how much is to be consumed and who is to do what job.

 

Socialists may not do that but they certainly take a huge chunk of wealth through taxes on both income and consumption (which do not apply the the welfare receiving class which is often unemployed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having sanctions would make it communist and forcing someone to work is quite a bad thing don't you think?

The idea of different tests is interesting, however under socialism it is believed everyone has more or less equal opportunity and therefore the normalisation of work makes sense in this example.

I don't think forcing people to work is bad, as long as they are able bodied and sound of mind. In fact I think people who have been on welfare for over 6 months should be made to work for local charities at least on a part time basis

 

Also everyone might have equal opportunity, but not equal skill. And in reality there isn't really anything like equal opportunity, Different groups of people need to do different things for even a basic society (let alone a large and complex one) to function.

And couldn't the same inspiring leader arise under circumstances where the test grades were not averaged?

It's less likely to happen in that situation, since there isn't really a selfish motivation for it in a situation where the grades are not averaged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to revisit my History 12 textbook before I have any chance at cluing in on whatevers going on in this thread. I don't know how I survived my first year in college (oh right, I didn't :cries:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to revisit my History 12 textbook before I have any chance at cluing in on whatevers going on in this thread. I don't know how I survived my first year in college (oh right, I didn't :cries:)

lol, MC. Don't worry man, School of Hard Knocks ftw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

You also make assumptions out of people who inherit and claim their ancestors exploited the poor. Just because an individual realises their own potential and uses an advantage they have over someone else to profit from, it simply means they are opportunistic. For example, I know a carpenter, and I know a man who needs a wooden chair. These men however do not know each other, and it is likely they will never meet. Also, the carpenter will make me a chair for $10, whilst the man is willing to pay $15 for a chair. Being aware of these two pieces of knowledge, should I a) Inform the carpenter somebody is willing to pay $15 for a chair? b_) inform the man that a carpenter is willing to make a chair for $10? or c) as both the carpenter and the man were satisfied paying the previous prices, take the $5 for myself and hook them up?

 

You have a standard of life where you have a roof on your head, food and a computer with internet connection, you have maintained this standard of life, that is what you have to show for your hard work. Perhaps it is inefficient use of your efforts which have led to your situation. And these statistics regarding 'upward mobility' and education otherwise disprove your point: http://web.archive.org/web/20060907174557/http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/histinc/p16.html

That is a very different scenario to what oppressed hard labourers experience. You are talking of someone who see's a gap and fits himself into a position where everyone benefits with no problems. What wth!'s was referring to was to the exploitation of the poor. Where you find a person working hard every day of their lives to reap little benefit from their work, while they are exploited by managers and directors for their time, hard labour and get paid a pittance for what they do. The managers and directors then earn a huge sum of money selling product off to someone else and get rich off the hard work of the labourer.

 

Take a look at what has been going on in the mining industry. While I know that working down a mine shaft doesn't take a degree, the conditions that these men work in are atrocious, they work for up to 18hours a day underground, in terrible conditions and when they come up they don't even get to to home to their families because they live on the mine compound and their families are too far away. They spend all their time there and down a mine shaft for a few thousand rand a month, not even hitting 100K a year while the fat cats at the top earn millions every year without even setting foot on the mine. Now I know this is very one-sided view because the rich do have other skills which they use in the marketing and production of the mined products but ultimately if were not for those breaking their backs and risking their lives on a daily basis they would not have the wealth that they do. But with all their wealth they don't see a problem with the way they treat those beneath them who work extremely hard to give it up to the fat cats at the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think forcing people to work is bad, as long as they are able bodied and sound of mind. In fact I think people who have been on welfare for over 6 months should be made to work for local charities at least on a part time basis

 

Also everyone might have equal opportunity, but not equal skill. And in reality there isn't really anything like equal opportunity, Different groups of people need to do different things for even a basic society (let alone a large and complex one) to function.

 

It's less likely to happen in that situation, since there isn't really a selfish motivation for it in a situation where the grades are not averaged.

 

I personally think unemployment welfare should be replaced by insurance. There are folks in the UK that have been on unemployment benefits since World War II.

 

And yes that is certainly true, some people are just not as able as others are. This is reflective of applying Ricardos competitive advantage to labour.

 

So in the end, the leader only wanted whats best for society to better themselves, which is essentially a capitalist notion.

 

What a hell it is over there in New Zealand...

 

New Zealand isn't socialist. Their PM is a conservative and a neoliberal. New Zealand is also apart of numerous FTAs and trade agreements. The government they had prior to this one was third-way, who I admit are good at spending money on social services, but in the long term (like in the UK we had them for 12 years) it causes many many problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a very different scenario to what oppressed hard labourers experience. You are talking of someone who see's a gap and fits himself into a position where everyone benefits with no problems. What wth!'s was referring to was to the exploitation of the poor. Where you find a person working hard every day of their lives to reap little benefit from their work, while they are exploited by managers and directors for their time, hard labour and get paid a pittance for what they do. The managers and directors then earn a huge sum of money selling product off to someone else and get rich off the hard work of the labourer.

 

Take a look at what has been going on in the mining industry. While I know that working down a mine shaft doesn't take a degree, the conditions that these men work in are atrocious, they work for up to 18hours a day underground, in terrible conditions and when they come up they don't even get to to home to their families because they live on the mine compound and their families are too far away. They spend all their time there and down a mine shaft for a few thousand rand a month, not even hitting 100K a year while the fat cats at the top earn millions every year without even setting foot on the mine. Now I know this is very one-sided view because the rich do have other skills which they use in the marketing and production of the mined products but ultimately if were not for those breaking their backs and risking their lives on a daily basis they would not have the wealth that they do. But with all their wealth they don't see a problem with the way they treat those beneath them who work extremely hard to give it up to the fat cats at the top.

 

Sister, but without the 'fat cats', these men would not be able to provide for their family. Their industry would not exist. Are you telling me that miners have the time to mine and then sell the ore? The fact of the matter is that miners accept these wages, they were not forced into the job they have. I personally believe that if someone chooses to work, it is their responsibility to ensure that this work is cost efficient to them (i'm not just talking about monetary costs).

 

I would also like to point out sister, even if you divided the millions earned by executives, it would only result in a marginal increase of pay for lower scale workers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister, but without the 'fat cats', these men would not be able to provide for their family. Their industry would not exist. Are you telling me that miners have the time to mine and then sell the ore? The fact of the matter is that miners accept these wages, they were not forced into the job they have. I personally believe that if someone chooses to work, it is their responsibility to ensure that this work is cost efficient to them (i'm not just talking about monetary costs).

 

I would also like to point out sister, even if you divided the millions earned by executives, it would only result in a marginal increase of pay for lower scale workers.

if there is nothing else going and you have a family to provide for, you are forced. if the wages are fair though i don't see a problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if there is nothing else going and you have a family to provide for, you are forced. if the wages are fair though i don't see a problem.

 

There is NEVER only one choice. If somebody accepts a wage, then the wage is fair imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There is NEVER only one choice. If somebody accepts a wage, then the wage is fair imo.

How deluded are you? Seriously? InshaAllah you will never be in a position to accept any form of minimum wage to support yourself or your family.

That is a really naive thing to say Mo. I'm actually shocked that you can have that kind of mentality.

 

I'll respond to your previous post tomorrow inshaAllah. I don't have the time to do it now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×