An economics professor 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 for all, for society. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
He said that 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 was given 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 hadn't studied much for the first test had studied even less, and the ones who studied hard weren't motivated to study hard again, and they 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.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else. All failed .... and the professor told them that the socialism they wanted would ultimately fail, as they had, because the reward of success normally goes to those that work harder, but when government takes the reward away; few will try so no one will succeed.
Comments (77)
@tjordanm - That is the problem right there...we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of humanity. Can't discuss anything further until that is bridged.
@the_earth_isnt_humming - True. You see humanity as an ugly thing. I do not. But the statement was separate from the nature of capitalism. Perfectly moral humans are not necessary for it to work.
Unfortunately the analogy doesn't work, since there is no edict that socialism requires everything to be handed out equally. Socialism in no way means "everyone gets the same measurable amount." It is silly to think that equity entails that if we have $100 and ten people that the only fair way of dividing this $100 is to give every person $10. Some might say, "that is the only rational thing to do." Well, the world isn't so simplistic. There is more information available than that theoretically barren case. It doesn't work like that, even in probability (which has similar rationalistic tendencies). For instance, say that you flip a coin three times. There are 8 possible permutations of H and T that you can get on each trial run.
HHH
HHT
HTH
THH
HTT
THT
TTH
TTT
Since there are 8 possibilities, the rational thing to do, like the barren example above, would be to give each case a probability of 1/8. This is not correct (as far as confirmation theories might go today, and the case Carnap uses for his confirmation function). Instead, we have four cases because depending on how many H or T we have. The first and last case have probability 1/4. The next three have 1/4 and the next three have 1/4. Why? Because they equally have the same number of H and T in their grouping, i.e., within those groupings they are equinumerous. This means that for each of the 8 states, the first and last state have probability 3/12 and the interior have 1/12. Quite different from the barren case of 1/8 each.
Similarly, there is no reason to suppose equity of $100 for 10 people must be $10 per head. Reality is hardly that barren. Suppose we take your classroom example and say that without modification, the students are grouped into their initial letter grades on their test. We could then spread the $100 per category, and however that is spread within the category is however it is spread. This means we might have a frequency listing of
A: 2
B: 3
C: 3
D:1
F: 1
Then each category, on arbitrary "fairness" gets $20. This means the A students get $10 each, the D and F students get $20 each. The B and C students get 1/3 of $20. Now, clearly the case can be made that if you are in a unique (i.e., less people) grade range, then you will get more money. The bell curve distribution above is what we would expect of students regularly. However, if they were motivated to get money more than their grade (a crucial requirement!), then it is much easier to get a bad grade. Thus, the choice might be to move from a B or a C to a D or an F since they had the least people. This poses problems, as is made obvious with a new possible distribution
A:1
B:1
C:0
D:0
F:8
Now the A and B student get 1/3 of $100 and 8 students have to split 1/3 of $100. Of course, we might find the grouping arbitrary or unfair. The problem is that you're confusing social institutions. Socialism does not have pre-determined institutions, and you're trying to impose set states as problematic to the approach to equity. Socialism is about how to manage any social institutions given what is available. Thus, socialism run in any country will be different from how it is run in America, to how it would be run in each individual state. It all depends on how it is executed and what institutions are available. If we were to change the institutions, we would need meta-theoretical justifications for it that are not available in this barren theoretical landscape. Going with the rationalist "indifference" case is not justified, as I showed above with the two versions of confirmation theory. I showed how a very different case, if we make analogous changes based on the equivalent confirmation theory, would result. While your classroom example shows everyone failing, it seems more likely that people will continue to try and do well in the class, since fewer people will get higher grades. Nevertheless, the error in distribution has more to do with the approach to equity to the institution (grade schema) than it does to the socialist approach. There is no single approach, and in this case we could also just as well alter the institution and change our possibilities further.
Thus, it is quite a straw man to say that socialism is analogous to the case where the entire class fails. In fact, it is even worse than what I demonstrated above because the original classroom case reorganizes the grade distribution to the average. It automatically says the entire grading schema is meaningless, you all get one grade. In this, it is actually quite question begging for two reasons. The first is that there is no meta-theoretical justification for that change in the institution. The second reason is that it presumes the change requires us to all go to Fs. Notice how I emphasized the "critical" requirement to the entire case. While I supplemented monetary measure as the measure of distribution, it requires that the measure be the incentive structure (it often isn't necessarily the case). The entire argument is predicated that people are not incited by their grade, and that everyone would stop trying to work if they all could get a "free ride". This ultimately comes down to a case no different than how people deal with common pool resources (CPR), and the tragedy of the commons. First off, there is no such thing as a free ride. It is just as likely the case could have ended with everyone obtaining a C average. Of course, a grade is only meaningful depending on its semantic qualities. Most professors I have normalize ("curve") the grades. If everyone were automatically changed to an equal grade, then it is equivalent to everyone having an A (or whatever the professor feels like making it, which could just as fairly be called a C). This goes back to the failure to distinguish the socialism from the institution, and the justification for the indifference principle or approach to equity. Nevertheless, while it is true that the tragedy of the commons is a big issue, i.e., left to itself any CPR will get depleted, research shows that this is routinely overcome by the institutional structures we humans develop in our societies. Thus, the entire issue depends on the institutions utilized. To say socialism fails because of some shoddy presumed (i.e., question begging) case of how equity should be against this provided institution is a misplaced criticism. If socialism were actually implemented, then it would be against an entirely new institution.
Therefore, it the argument were to make any sense at all, it would have to be put up against an entirely new grading schema, and justified in the meta-theory for why the institution is socially equitable. Then precise socialist measures can be put into effect to judge their warranted success or failure. As it stands, the analogy of the classroom is both a straw man (about socialism) and begs the question (about the equity of the institution).
@tjordanm - I don't see it as ugly. I see it as very valuable, but flawed. No one is perfect. And it takes more than just moral perfection to make a system work...you have to be error free totally. No accidental mistakes, no one can be self-centered unless it helps everyone else along with themselves, no greed, no imperfect communication, no factions, etc. Morals are just a part of it, admittedly they are not really part of it these days anyways. Just look at any of the big corporations to see that. Morality and ethics is just about dead in the business sector.
@the_earth_isnt_humming - That's because you are an altruist. Altruism is evil. Capitalism is the only perfect and moral system.
@the_earth_isnt_humming - Perfect and moral because it is not altruistic.
@tjordanm - You completely lost me...I don't know how you got to altruism. But that is okay because I am tired of this conversation and am about to go to bed. Hope you have a good rest of the week.
@the_earth_isnt_humming - You implied morality is about people helping each other and being selfless. That's altruism. Have a nice night.
Well, if he wanted to do an American Capitalism experiment, he'd throw a gun in the middle of the room and say only the top 1% gets an A, lock the door, and see what happens. Either economic system won't work on its own extreme. You need a fine balance of government and enterprise, which is the hard part.
In each thing as socialism,capitalism or what ever has his good and his bad things.The problem is the balance and politcians who never do what they are saying.Or you have one scandal after another one and one worse then the other one.These are few reasons,why I don't follow th politics anymore.It doesn't matter or the hole nation does/doesn't like a policy,the politicians have made their mind up anyway.
Autisable
@tjordanm - Pure capitalism? You don't believe that everyone should receive an education?
Perhaps I could accept capitalism if everyone were born with a clean slate. But without taxation and some sort of welfare state, publicly funded education cannot be made to be available. Thus, people are rewarded and punished for the situation of their birth to a level that social mobility is almost impossible - if you are born in to poverty, you cannot receive health care or the education necessary to fulfill the potential you were born with. Disparity is passed through generations. Capitalism claims it grants freedom to the individual - however, some people are remarkably less "free" than others due to the circumstance of their birth. I do not see morality in a system where it is possible to be born with a noose around your neck.
At least under socialism people are granted those basic things they deserve by virtue of being human. Pure capitalism denies people the right not to starve, not to die unnecessarily, and access to education. Perhaps socialism would not be best for the advancement of society. The individual may be less able to generate money, but they would still have freedom to be an individual with experiences and viewpoints and desires, and at least everyone would be born equally and with basic recognition of their humanity.
Awesome story! I love it!
I've heard this story before but I love to hear it. It puts things in perspective especially for the young people (the largest block of Obama voters). I myself am 24- so I'm not looking down on the age group.
@nidan - I don't think it's quite fair to say Jesus was a socialist. He was speaking in terms of people who want to be apart of the Kingdom of God- not governments or peoples in general. Loving money is what he was against in the sense of making it your god- he wasn't against people being wealthy so long as they acquired it honestly (do not muzzle the ox while it treads the threshing floor). Among God's people- which is to say the Bride of Christ- his believers are called to bear one another's burdens and that includes sometimes helping each other financially. But that's where having some being blessed financially is a good thing. God blesses them with money to bless others- no shame in being rich if you use it to God's glory. The financiers of his tours through Israel during his earthly ministry were the rich wives of some of the political leaders of the day- we never hear of him rebuking them for their wealth. Christianity doesn't exist in a bubble- it's designed to be able to function in any society because God's Kingdom is not of this world- so Christians can live in socialistic countries but the tendency is that they are persecuted far worse under such conditions. I once read a book by Richard Wurmbrand called "Marx and Satan" - don't forget that Wurmbrand lived in Communist Romania so he ought to know a thing or two about it- and he traces Marx's development of communism back to his embracing of Satanism. I concur with Schaeffer- "Communism is a Christian heresy."
That all being said- I don't consider you a socialist- perhaps just desiring to be generous?
Gosh there are some really long comments...made me feel bad about just saying, "that's a good analogy," so I added the rest of this sentence around it.
I was just looking at the book yesterday on Amazon! I added it to my wish list. Actually, I was looking for another book Glen Beck had recommended so I was browsing through the "customer's who bought this also bought..." lists. It was a little, tricky, though, when I couldn't remember the title! I think I found it, though.
Wow, that is one really amazing experiment. I think it clearly showed those students how socialism would work! That professor is awesome. I like that. I like it a lot.
@TheSecretLifeOfPandas - *giggles* I like that.
@coolmonkey - I think that is a good point in some ways. I think capitalism can go awry with big corporations and monopolies, when it becomes all about power. With an everyone's-out-for-themselves mentality, life stinks. Someone once said that a democracy is only as good as its people.
@sometimerainbow - Capitalism is based on the idea that one owns one's life. The root of all metaphysical rights that a human has are based on that idea--it is the only way rights can be rooted in metaphysics, rooted in reality. A person does not have a right to the services of a doctor. A person does not have a right to purified water or food. A person does have a right to own his or her life--and all that that life might produce. This includes doctors. A doctor is a human, and given his metaphysical right to own his life, he has no metaphysical or political compulsion to serve everyone in need--only those he chooses to, as he owns his own product efforts.
Capitalism works because not everyone is born with a clean slate--not everyone has the same abilities. People will get only what their productive ability, the one thing they own that cannot be taken from them, will get them. Some people are born with extraordinary ability and will produce many times that of the average person and will live in wealth. In socialism, he does not own himself, and thus he will be taxed much higher to take whatever he takes that is above average and give to those who simply have no metaphysical reason to have such things. It is like cheating reality.
As for governments--a government's function is to protect its citizens rights, as derived from the idea that they own themselves and ought to live free from physical force. A government has no authority to appropriate public funds to charity. That's for individuals to decide, not governments.
Have you lived in poverty or a disadvantaged position?
That was a great story.
Excellent.
I. Adore. This.
wow.
that was an awesome lesson, albeit not good for gpa.
@the_earth_isnt_humming - Pure Capitalism would be, I would think, some form of anarcho-Capitalism, where the free market holds sway even over any form of government or social institution.
My favorite common sense posts...people who argue for socialism, never lived it. Those who insist that it's been successfully employed in other nations have never met foreigners who'd rather live in the capitalistic USA-- Lets hope it's not the late great USA. If some have their way, we will nationalize the entire nation--the rest of it anyway