Experiment in Socialism

[glockmail]

Good lesson for these dummies!


An economics professor at Texas Tech said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism."

All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would 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. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided that since they could not make an A, they studied less. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder people try to succeed the greater their reward but when a government takes all the reward away; no one will try or succeed.http://www.theospark.net/2009/03/experiment-in-socialism.html

[Binky]

All I can say to that is that poop rolls downhill.

[Agnapostate]

That's a cute little tale. How bout' something with some relevance to socialism?

[glockmail]

That's a cute little tale. How bout' something with some relevance to socialism?

How isn't it?

[Agnapostate]

How isn't it?

For one thing, the "experiment" is based on the fallacious premise that socialism is intended to guarantee equality of outcome. That's not the case except in the deluded conceptions of misinformed anti-socialists (such as this alleged professor, incidentally). For another, it's based on the equally fallacious premise that differentiations in compensation in response to differentiations in labor input cease to exist in a socialist economy, thereby undermining "incentive." This is similarly inaccurate; incentive problems exist only for economic systems inaccurately identified as "socialism," such as the state capitalist Soviet Union. Perhaps most importantly, it has no basis in voluntary association, inasmuch as the establishment of such a skewed and idiotic system appeared to be the sole decision of the professor, thereby rendering such an economic framework dictatorial. While that does have relation to state capitalism (and therefore "socialism" as conceived by the misinformed anti-socialist), it has no legitimate relation to socialism.

In short, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to a legitimate socialist economy, merely a crude anti-socialist depiction of one.

[AlbumAddict]

For one thing, the "experiment" is based on the fallacious premise that socialism is intended to guarantee equality of outcome. That's not the case except in the deluded conceptions of misinformed anti-socialists (such as this alleged professor, incidentally). For another, it's based on the equally fallacious premise that differentiations in compensation in response to differentiations in labor input cease to exist in a socialist economy, thereby undermining "incentive." This is similarly inaccurate; incentive problems exist only for economic systems inaccurately identified as "socialism," such as the state capitalist Soviet Union. Perhaps most importantly, it has no basis in voluntary association, inasmuch as the establishment of such a skewed and idiotic system appeared to be the sole decision of the professor, thereby rendering such an economic framework dictatorial. While that does have relation to state capitalism (and therefore "socialism" as conceived by the misinformed anti-socialist), it has no legitimate relation to socialism.

In short, it bears no resemblance whatsoever to a legitimate socialist economy, merely a crude anti-socialist depiction of one.

Perhaps you could provide us with an allegory of your own that better shows your view of socialism?

[Agnapostate]

Perhaps you could provide us with an allegory of your own that better shows your view of socialism?

I'd refer to broadly participatory economic structure as embodied through implementations of anarchism and related forms of libertarian socialism. Examples would include the anarchist collectives of the Spanish Revolution, the Makhnovist "Black Army" and the Free Territory of Ukraine, the Paris Commune, the Israeli kibbutzim, etc., as well as related forms of democratic socialism, which would include the socialist Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela and workers' self-management in Titoist Yugoslavia.

I'd also mention empirical data regarding the superior efficiency levels of worker-owned and managed enterprises in a capitalist economy (American ESOPs might be a limited example), and the nature of the extrapolation of that empirical evidence into a framework of a socialist economy.

[glockmail]

I prefer the dictionary definition:


so·cial·ism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

m-w.com

What the professor did appears to have fit all three.

[Agnapostate]

I prefer the dictionary definition:

m-w.com

What the professor did appears to have fit all three.

Nothing I've specified is inconsistent with the "dictionary definition," which is itself a gross oversimplification. However, your account evidently violated several tenets in that legitimate collective managerial control was not implemented in the professor's model, that entry into such an economic system was not based on libertarian tenets of voluntary association, and most importantly, that the crude economic depiction offered has no relation to socialism as practically applied.

[glockmail]

Nothing I've specified is inconsistent with the "dictionary definition," which is itself a gross oversimplification. However, your account evidently violated several tenets in that legitimate collective managerial control was not implemented in the professor's model, that entry into such an economic system was not based on libertarian tenets of voluntary association, and most importantly, that the crude economic depiction offered has no relation to socialism as practically applied. Simple is the best way to boil down the argument.

You don't know that the tenets were violated. Per each definition:

1. The prof is the government and administered the distribution according to a set formula.
2. a. No private property. b. The prof is that state and controlled the production.
3. The students received unequal distribution according to their work; ie, the students who produced got less than they deserved, and the students who did’t got more.

[Agnapostate]

Simple is the best way to boil down the argument.

You don't know that the tenets were violated. Per each definition:

1. The prof is the government and administered the distribution according to a set formula.

And thus, such a model would have greater relation to state capitalism (or even market capitalism), than socialism. Socialist economic policy revolves around the democratic and participatory management of the means of production.


2. a. No private property.

The nature of "private property" that a socialist economy seeks to eliminate is limited to the means of production and related resources and assets, not personal possessions, which are the effective equivalent of the "collectivized grades." You'll get to keep your favorite vase! :beer:


b. The prof is that state and controlled the production.

And that solidifies my point that this is a (still inaccurate) conception of state capitalism rather than socialism. No legitimate socialist economic model involves the state dictating terms of participation and activity to individuals. Such a framework is a greater element of a capitalist economy, considering the role of the state in the creation and maintenance of classes, and the protection of private ownership of the means of production and therefore the perpetuation of wage labor.


3. The students received unequal distribution according to their work; ie, the students who produced got less than they deserved, and the students who did’t got more.

And this is based on a fallacy that socialism seeks to achieve equality of opportunity. If anything, wage norms and related compensational factors are simply adjusted to accurately measure ability and effort.

[glockmail]

And thus, such a model would have greater relation to state capitalism (or even market capitalism), than socialism. Socialist economic policy revolves around the democratic and participatory management of the means of production.



The nature of "private property" that a socialist economy seeks to eliminate is limited to the means of production and related resources and assets, not personal possessions, which are the effective equivalent of the "collectivized grades." You'll get to keep your favorite vase! :beer:



And that solidifies my point that this is a (still inaccurate) conception of state capitalism rather than socialism. No legitimate socialist economic model involves the state dictating terms of participation and activity to individuals. Such a framework is a greater element of a capitalist economy, considering the role of the state in the creation and maintenance of classes, and the protection of private ownership of the means of production and therefore the perpetuation of wage labor.



And this is based on a fallacy that socialism seeks to achieve equality of opportunity. If anything, wage norms and related compensational factors are simply adjusted to accurately measure ability and effort.
Again, this is all based on your definition. Unfortunately for debate, we must rely on a third party definition, and the simplest most straightforward definition that I have presented doesn't support your argument.

[Agnapostate]

Again, this is all based on your definition. Unfortunately for debate, we must rely on a third party definition, and the simplest most straightforward definition that I have presented doesn't support your argument.

What major socialist thinker or philosopher has expressed support for policies or philosophies that would support the nature of the system that you copy and pasted? The "dictionary definition" is overly crude and simplified, and is obviously incapable of addressing every nuance of socialist political economy. Regardless, there is no conflict between the dictionary definition and my own, which is not the case with your own claims.

[glockmail]

What major socialist thinker or philosopher has expressed support for policies or philosophies that would support the nature of the system that you copy and pasted? The "dictionary definition" is overly crude and simplified, and is obviously incapable of addressing every nuance of socialist political economy. Regardless, there is no conflict between the dictionary definition and my own, which is not the case with your own claims. Merriam Webster has taken the historical context and boiled it down to a simple definition. You can cite all the nuances you like but their definition of socialism is as correct as one can be. And the situation set up by the professor reflected that perfectly.

[Joe Steel]

The "dictionary definition" is overly crude and simplified, and is obviously incapable of addressing every nuance of socialist political economy.

Nevertheless, unless you can explain socialism in fifteen words or fewer, preferably of no more than three syllables each, you have no hope of convincing the regulars. Complex ideas are difficult for them.

[glockmail]

This one's for you, Joe:

IE3KdcTgrno

[Agnapostate]

Merriam Webster has taken the historical context and boiled it down to a simple definition. You can cite all the nuances you like but their definition of socialism is as correct as one can be. And the situation set up by the professor reflected that perfectly.

No, it didn't. The situation allegedly set up by the professor (I say allegedly because I've heard this little narrative many times before), had little to no relation to socialism, as has been explicitly detailed. Socialism necessitates collective ownership and management, a situation not present here, the existence of voluntary association, also not present here, and does not attempt to establish equality of outcome, a fallacious assumption of anti-socialists.


Nevertheless, unless you can explain socialism in fifteen words or fewer, preferably of no more than three syllables each, you have no hope of convincing the regulars. Complex ideas are difficult for them.

The collective ownership and management of the means of production. That being said, it should be rather obvious that the dictatorial whims of the professor don't constitute "collective management," and that attempts to establish "equality of outcome" wouldn't facilitate the continued functioning of a socialist economy.

[Agnapostate]

This one's for you, glock:

VUig0lFHDDw

[glockmail]

... Socialism necessitates collective ownership and management, a situation not present here, the existence of voluntary association, also not present here, and does not attempt to establish equality of outcome, a fallacious assumption of anti-socialists. ...

Again, that's your definition, the rest of the world has theirs.


This one's for you, glock:...


an·ar·chism

1 : a political theory holding all forms of governmental authority to be unnecessary and undesirable and advocating a society based on voluntary cooperation and free association of individuals and groups

2 : the advocacy or practice of anarchistic principles m-w.com

Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That's what anarchism is.

[Joe Steel]

... it should be rather obvious that the dictatorial whims of the professor don't constitute "collective management," ...

Exactly. Government by fiat is not socialism.

[glockmail]

Exactly. Government by fiat is not socialism. Socialism can only be inflicted on a freedom loving people by violence or threat of violence: fascism.

[Joe Steel]

Socialism can only be inflicted on a freedom loving people by violence or threat of violence: fascism.

Socialism is chosen not imposed. You've got to focus on that sentence. That condition is an absolute requirement.

[Silver]

Socialism is chosen not imposed. You've got to focus on that sentence. That condition is an absolute requirement.

I'll buy that....Fighting socialism in the US is like fighting obesity in a Supermarket that gives the goodies away.....

Thankfully, it only lasts until the goodies are gone.

[glockmail]

Socialism is chosen not imposed. You've got to focus on that sentence. That condition is an absolute requirement.No its chosen by a majority, then imposed on the minority. If the minority don't go along then they are jailed or worse: fascism.

[Agnapostate]

Again, that's your definition, the rest of the world has theirs.

Any person familiar with political economy would support my definition. Your own "definition" is merely a crude and fallacious strawman of the misinformed anti-socialist. It might fly on mises.org, but the knowledgeable analyst would quickly reject it.


m-w.com

Ever read "Lord of the Flies"? That's what anarchism is.

Similarly fallacious definition. This one's somewhat more excusable; effectively all Americans suffer from the misconception that anarchist theory provides for "chaos" or "disorder." The reality, however, is significantly different. The essence of anarchism is opposition to unwarranted hierarchical authority, the core of which has traditionally been considered state, church, and capitalism, with specific emphasis placed on state and capitalism in these modern times.


Exactly. Government by fiat is not socialism.

More than that, government intervention in general is not "socialist," as is often fallaciously assumed. For instance, consider the oft-attacked progressive taxation. Such taxation merely factors in the diminishing rate of marginal utility, and is thus able to eliminate some degree of poverty traps amongst the lower class, thus guaranteeing their physical efficiency and thereby upholding capitalism.

[Agnapostate]

No its chosen by a majority, then imposed on the minority. If the minority don't go along then they are jailed or worse: fascism.

Again, this is a crude reference to state capitalism. Libertarian socialism of a decentralized and voluntary nature (such as the participatory economic structure advocated by Albert and Hahnel), is significantly different, for instance.

[glockmail]

Any person familiar with political economy would support my definition. Your own "definition" is merely a crude and fallacious strawman of the misinformed anti-socialist. It might fly on mises.org, but the knowledgeable analyst would quickly reject it.

Similarly fallacious definition. This one's somewhat more excusable; effectively all Americans suffer from the misconception that anarchist theory provides for "chaos" or "disorder." The reality, however, is significantly different. The essence of anarchism is opposition to unwarranted hierarchical authority, the core of which has traditionally been considered state, church, and capitalism, with specific emphasis placed on state and capitalism in these modern times.


Actually, what you're claiming as "my" definitions are in the published dictionary. *shrug*

[Agnapostate]

Actually, what you're claiming as "my" definitions are in the published dictionary. *shrug*

The dictionary is obviously unable to capture every nuance and element of political theory and economy, which is why those with an interest in thorough analyses of political theory economy don't limit themselves to the dictionary.

...And *my* definitions do not conflict with those of the dictionary. They complement them.

[glockmail]

The dictionary is obviously unable to capture every nuance and element of political theory and economy, which is why those with an interest in thorough analyses of political theory economy don't limit themselves to the dictionary.

...And *my* definitions do not conflict with those of the dictionary. They complement them. That doesn't add to your argument that the professor wasn't practicing socialism.

[Agnapostate]

That doesn't add to your argument that the professor wasn't practicing socialism.

You're just running in circles now. I've already explained that socialism necessitates legitimate collective management of the means of production (a condition not present, already rendering the professor's idiocy non-socialist). We could also mention the obviously inappropriate nature of using something as relatively intangible as a grade as an object of "collectivization." More than that, the "individualist" nature of grades prevents any legitimate extrapolation from the effects of "collectivizing" them to be applied to the collectivization of a socialist economy, which would naturally place focus on the means of production, not individual possessions. The only reason grades are focused on is because the misinformed anti-socialist wishes to illustrate the anti-motivational effects of an equality of outcome economic system. In this, they and I are not in disagreement. However, it is an inappropriate and abusive misapplication of political economy to call this "socialist."

[Jagger]

Most of the American people believe that socialism works. That's why 70% of them favor a strong socialist safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc.)

Surge in Support for Social Safety Net-Sympathy for the Poor and for Government Aid Programs Returns to 1980s Levels http://pewresearch.org/pubs/467/social-safety-net

[Agnapostate]

Most of the American people believe that socialism works. That's why 70% of them favor a strong socialist safety net (Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, etc.)

Surge in Support for Social Safety Net-Sympathy for the Poor and for Government Aid Programs Returns to 1980s Levels http://pewresearch.org/pubs/467/social-safety-net

A "social safety net" is not socialism. Indeed, welfare and its derivatives play a critical role in upholding capitalism by ensuring the physical efficiency of the working class.

[Jagger]

A "social safety net" is not socialism. Indeed, welfare and its derivatives play a critical role in upholding capitalism by ensuring the physical efficiency of the working class. Capitalism needs Socialism.

[glockmail]

You're just running in circles now. I've already explained that socialism necessitates legitimate collective management of the means of production (a condition not present, already rendering the professor's idiocy non-socialist). We could also mention the obviously inappropriate nature of using something as relatively intangible as a grade as an object of "collectivization." More than that, the "individualist" nature of grades prevents any legitimate extrapolation from the effects of "collectivizing" them to be applied to the collectivization of a socialist economy, which would naturally place focus on the means of production, not individual possessions. The only reason grades are focused on is because the misinformed anti-socialist wishes to illustrate the anti-motivational effects of an equality of outcome economic system. In this, they and I are not in disagreement. However, it is an inappropriate and abusive misapplication of political economy to call this "socialist." There was nothing to stop the students from managing themselves, and you assume that the professor didn't advise them to do so. A grade is certainly tangible- just ask a potential employer- as well as individual as a piece work paycheck.

[Jagger]

There was nothing to stop the students from managing themselves, and you assume that the professor didn't advise them to do so. A grade is certainly tangible- just ask a potential employer- as well as individual as a piece work paycheck.

You sound like a socialist.

[DannyR]

Back to the original student example, while this shows the failings of a system that allows slackers no consequences, its also a poor example of capitalism too.

Realizing that grades were slipping, a true capitalist system would see the smarter students rescuing their grades by offering to study for a fee. The majority of students, already paying thousands of dollars to take this class, would think nothing of paying 50-100 more to help keep from failing. And thus the professor would be amazed to find his grade average remained the same at the B level, and the smarter students would pocket a nice chunk of change, glad they could avoid the F and still make a profit. :laugh2:

If you think that wouldn't happen, then you are yourself arguing that the capitalist system if flawed, because without those who seek to make money and fill needs, you can't have a viable capitalistic system.

[Jagger]

Proof that Jesus was a Socialist:


Acts 4:32-35

32 All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had.
33 With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all.
34 There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales
35 and put it at the apostles' feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need.

[glockmail]

Back to the original student example, while this shows the failings of a system that allows slackers no consequences, its also a poor example of capitalism too.

Realizing that grades were slipping, a true capitalist system would see the smarter students rescuing their grades by offering to study for a fee. The majority of students, already paying thousands of dollars to take this class, would think nothing of paying 50-100 more to help keep from failing. And thus the professor would be amazed to find his grade average remained the same at the B level, and the smarter students would pocket a nice chunk of change, glad they could avoid the F and still make a profit. :laugh2:

If you think that wouldn't happen, then you are yourself arguing that the capitalist system if flawed, because without those who seek to make money and fill needs, you can't have a viable capitalistic system.

In my house we pay my son (a junior in HS with a 4.9 QPA) to tutor his sister (a freshman who has troubles with math and science) and that seems to be working quite well.

[Agnapostate]

Capitalism needs Socialism.

You're again not using an accurate definition of "socialism." If you were merely referring to social programs and the like, I'd be in full agreement with you. The government is a necessary stabilizing agent in a capitalist economy, and the state-funded programs so strongly condemned by the free marketer are a necessary element in maintaining a capitalist economy. As a socialist, I wouldn't be so strongly opposed to the implementation of the most rightist form of Anglo-Saxon capitalism possible. It just might speed along the revolution! :salute:


There was nothing to stop the students from managing themselves, and you assume that the professor didn't advise them to do so. A grade is certainly tangible- just ask a potential employer- as well as individual as a piece work paycheck.

Dr. T. Roger Taylor likely said it best: "A grade is an inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite amount of material." When we consider the analysis of Bowles and Gintis in determining how primary and secondary schooling function as a means of instilling reception to hierarchical authority in students (an oversimplification, but you get the point), in order to prepare them for performance in the capitalist workplace, the nature of schooling grows even more troubling.

But none of that's even relevant to the central point of my comments. This system was not socialist inasmuch as the aforementioned individual and intangible nature of grades rendered them inequivalent to the means of production, no legitimate system of collective or participatory management was implemented, and it was falsely assumed that socialism strives to ensure equality of outcome. To the contrary, socialism merely seeks to ensure that compensation norms are adjusted according to accurate productivity criteria.

[glockmail]

....



Dr. T. Roger Taylor likely said it best: "A grade is an inadequate report of an inaccurate judgment by a biased and variable judge of the extent to which a student has attained an undefined level of mastery of an unknown proportion of an indefinite amount of material." When we consider the analysis of Bowles and Gintis in determining how primary and secondary schooling function as a means of instilling reception to hierarchical authority in students (an oversimplification, but you get the point), in order to prepare them for performance in the capitalist workplace, the nature of schooling grows even more troubling.

But none of that's even relevant to the central point of my comments. This system was not socialist inasmuch as the aforementioned individual and intangible nature of grades rendered them inequivalent to the means of production, no legitimate system of collective or participatory management was implemented, and it was falsely assumed that socialism strives to ensure equality of outcome. To the contrary, socialism merely seeks to ensure that compensation norms are adjusted according to accurate productivity criteria.
Until they come up with a better standard of measure a grade is a grade.

So its communism then. *shrug*

[Agnapostate]

Until they come up with a better standard of measure a grade is a grade.

So its communism then. *shrug*

This definition has simply grown worse. Neither does communism have a basis in equality of outcome, inasmuch as it retains compensation differentiations according to labor input differentiations. Neither does communism abolish personal possession rights (a communist will typically focus on "use-value"), so this analogy thus remains inaccurate due to the personal, individual nature of grades, and their inequivalence to the means of production.

[glockmail]

com·mu·nism

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

m-w.com

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to redefine words to support your argument.

[Agnapostate]

com·mu·nism

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

Socialists draw a distinction between "private property" and "personal possessions." Private property is the establishment of monopoly control over an unused resource or asset, whereas a personal possession is the ownership of a "personal" item that is used by its owner. Owning a favorite vase would be a personal possession; owning ten thousand acres of land would involve ownership of private property. There's obviously a necessary distinction between the two, particularly considering the personal and individual nature of grades, and thus, their inequivalence with the means of production.


2capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production.

c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably

This is all specific to Marxism and Marxism-Leninism and does not address non-Marxist forms of communism. That's understandable, considering that the economic system of the Soviet Union is inaccurately defined as "socialist" or "communist," but it isn't an excuse for claiming that other forms of socialism and communism do not exist.


Wouldn't it be nice to be able to redefine words to support your argument.

Indeed.