I posted a video making this point earlier in the year, and I also posted a version of this joke back in 2010, but here’s another version that’s worth sharing because of the five lessons to be learned at the conclusion.
=================================
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently 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 on Obama’s plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for dollars – something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
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.
It could not be any simpler than that.
There are five morals to this story:
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.
=================================
I’ll make one final point. There are five morals to the story, but there are dozens of nations giving us real-world examples every day.
Sort of makes you wonder why some people still believe this nonsense?
One of the best comments on your previous post of this story was about classroom group work. Many of us have endured group-work through high-school and university and seen examples of this behaviour.
I think the worst thing a professor can is preach their philosophy. Instead I think it would be better for professors to teach students to improve both their creative and critical thinking skills.
“Instead I think it would be better for professors to teach students to improve both their creative and critical thinking skills.”
That particular professor did – if his students didn’t walk away with a better understanding about how the real world works as opposed to an ideological one then that really isn’t the professors fault. The professor turned the Socratic Method on it’s head with spectacular results. His students entered into the contract voluntarily probably figuring (as those with entitlement mentalities do) that there would be at least some that would keep producing good grades. Good for the producers choosing to take the F and go Gault.
I imagine a socialists response to this would be that the story is wrong and that the students would all continue to study hard for the greater good of the class as well as individual knowledge and that grades might actually rise, now that other people were relying on their hard work.
I don’t believe that would happen but it would be tough persuading a true believer that the story presented in the original post is any more or less likely.
Stuart, as a socialist, I can confirm you’re absolutely right.
The top students want to do well! They’re not just going to cruise. Some may leave the course (equivalent of the super-rich becoming tax exiles, I guess), but those in the middle and at the top will do what they can to persuade the lazy to do more work. Those who are seen to be getting a free ride will be shunned.
Those who are not lazy, but simply not all that capable will be given the help they need from the more able.
I find it hard to see why anyone would subscribe to Libertarian philosophies if they thought people were so selfish.
Another problem is that “Obama’s Socialism” isn’t communism. By the standards of just about any European country, Democrats would be considered the right wing. Yet just about all of these countries allow the hard workers to earn more. It would be more like 50% of the grade being a class grade, and 50% being individual effort. Could you imagine a class where that was the situation *not* helping each other out? Whether this applies to the real world or not I make no comment.
Dan: Very good illustration of the absurdity of socialism.
The Pilgrims of 1620 tried the socialist experiment. They almost starved under their communal system, but changed it to survive, then prosper.
Pilgrim’s Progress (Click, then see the link at the upper right)
This sounds like what working for the federal government feels like… scheduled promotions not based at all on merit… so the hard workers sit around watching the lazy people do nothing, and everyone gets the same raises at the same times each year no matter what. Eventually, the hard working people (who end up getting hit with the lazy people’s work) get sick of it and stop working hard themselves since there is no reward… it’s pretty depressing.
Unfortunately it appears this isn’t a true story, at least it’s been around in slightly different forms for years. If this can be documented as true, then it shows the workings of socialism. Otherwise it’s something somebody made up and has about as much substance as stories socialists tell about the horrors of capitalism.
One thing left unsaid here. Using your analogy, if you did not study better than F, you would go to the jail. So unfortunately it did “work” for decades.
As a simple example it is incomplete. In their microcosm some students may have still continued studying, albeit perhaps with less enthusiasm. This is because they would realize that beyond this one class, one semester microcosm lies a more real world with a steeper effort/reward curve, where knowledge acquired in spite of grade still matters. But in communism, and to varying degrees in socialism, there is no real world alternative, as the entire social structure has the same effort-reward curve as the class. Under a flatter effort reward curve, people at the bottom become more complacent in a mediocre lifetime trajectory while productive people are discouraged from pursuing a lifetime of excellence by the mandatory confiscation of large parts of their effort. In addition they are typically further restricted in what they can do with the compensation they are allowed to keep: “No that car is too big, thus pays punitive excise taxes, no that single family house does not adhere to the grand Al Gore plan, therefore it again pays punitive excise taxes, no the water, electricity and other utilities you buy are priced on a progressive scale, no if you make more than this much you don’t get a student subsidy paid by others, you don’t deduct the interest on your house etc. All that works to further flatten the effort/reward curve and thus send the French Steve jobs to the Carribean sailing in the happiness of a more modest life, free of pitchforks and perhaps even a lower chance at pancreatic cancer.
Really, where is the French Steve Jobs?
Even an altruism motivated Steve Jobs in France would have little chance of turning out competitive products. Why? Because a Steve Jobs also needs a pyramid of motivated people working for him (executives engineers etc. of various competence levels perhaps) to create an Apple that turns out a product that represents a better overall value than product developed elsewhere in the world. And clearly, most people — even in France — are motivated almost exclusively by work aimed at benefiting themselves and their families, not some distant unknowns for whom a lifetime of mediocrity is enough. Hence, a flatter effort/reward curve means no French Apple and no French Steve Jobs.
The part the story undoubtedly leaves out is the number of students that dropped the course after the initial announcement, unwilling to put their future in the hands of those that believed socialism worked. You’d end up with the same results but probably quicker than if you had guards at the door preventing people from leaving. If you did that the socialism experiment might last a lot longer with the class surviving at a C- or so for some time.
[...] Socialism, a classroom experiment – 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. [...]
[...] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this [...]
People leaving the class, in your real world example, presents an interesting angle and shows a major problem with socialism. Eventually force must be used and a “wall” must be erected to keep people in or to keep people playing the game. The best and brightest (aka producers) can not be allowed to leave or the system will run out of money or minds as the bottom half of society (those getting a higher grade on the hard work of others) is all that would want to remain in a system where the incentive to succeed has been taken away.
Urban legend right? Give us the name of the professor and his class.
The example may be dead on, but I don’t believe it ever happened.
Kind of like the guy who claims that he saw someone pull someone’s heart out and show it to the other person. Someone who knew someone, who knew someone….
Very good, unfortunately our nation is reaching a tipping point where 47% does not pay income taxes and therefor have no interest in limited government, effective government, or effecient government.
Worse we have a permanent political class that has neverheld a real job but presumes to be expert in every field under the sun.
We are doomed.
This is a really flawed study… The idea of applying the most extreme form of communism to a system which is not built for it suddenly with no extra support is bound to fail, as even the most fanatical supported of socialism would agree. This study doesn’t show that socialism doesn’t work, it shows that blindly applying ideals to any situation fails.
The classroom experiment is also very flawed as the grading system has a limit for the best (100%) and doesn’t have a way for the strong to gain from someone being week to obtain more than 100%. There is no direct way of applying capitalism to the classroom to show how it in it’s most extreme form is also bound to fail, but some analogy would be if the teaching was only focused on strengthening the strongest students while allowing other students to fall behind, and then checking the average. I’m assuming it might be slightly better, as not everyone would have an F, but by far worse than if the focus went to getting the stronger to help the weaker despite having less time to improve themselves and getting maybe slightly lower grades than they would otherwise.
I’m not saying either system is right or wrong, but that a balance should be obtained between the two where there is room for personal progress, as well as communal progress, and that one feeds the other, not destroys it. It’s not that hard to see how by giving you can gain more than by blindly taking all the time.
You don’t have to believe the story really happened but I can tell you after working for 40+ years that, that is what would happen. I have seen it many times. Many want a free ride and expect hard working people to give them that free ride. Why work for something when someone is going to give you that for free or very little cost. It is human nature.
[...] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment [...]
Well, we all know that Capitalism does work and will work no matter what Socialism, Marxism, Communism or any other form of Government other than Democracy ( Capitalism ) does, says or what anyone wants to so claim otherwise about it…… We have seen it from way back into the 1800′s and even further, but NOT as much as to after the Great Depression in the 1920′s, when Capitalism really showed it’s REAL & TRUE Strength….. Even today it is still going Strong….. Our major problems are allowing people like Obama into trying to say otherwise and the ones who believe his Nonsense……along with Companys who expand there business in other Country’s in order to Save money for cheaper Labor….. As a Rule though, Capitalism works and NO other Government can say the same…..
GOD BLESS AMERICA !!!!
Yeah
[...] Folks keep asking me to re-issue the post about the classroom socialism experiment, but that seems redundant when I can simply link to original post. [...]
[...] Folks keep asking me to re-issue the post about the classroom socialism experiment, but that seems redundant when I can simply link to original post. [...]
[...] [...]
[...] also mention a fairly shoddy attempt of a cautionary tale against socialism, which can be found here. [...]
just because socialism has always failed is apparently no reason not to continue trying it
This class experiment is based on a false premise. President Obama is not a socialist. His policies are not socialistic. There is an element of socialism in our government. The element provides highway systems, rail, schools, police, fire dept, defense and many others. This element made our country great and has benefitted corporations and well as real people. The founding fathers had insight enough to include a social agenda in the preamble. ” …provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and insure domestic tranquility to ourselves and our prosperity…”. I memorized this in grade school and was graded. Now I know why. If you ever find yourself in need of police or the fire dept. Or if you drive on a public highway you are benefitting from a socialistic element of our government. Don’t fall for this right wing propaganda. Socialism doesn’t work and president Obama isn’t a socialist.
First off, this is an urban legend. Second, what we have now is quite the opposite of Socialism.
Here is my response to the “5 best sentences”:
1. The current laws that favor large corporations are legislating the middle class into poverty while transferring more wealth to the wealthy.
2. What one large bailed out bank receives from the government without working for, the working class must work more for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to Goldman Sachs anything that the government does not first take from the working class.
4: You cannot have a prosperous country when such a small % of the population holds the majority of the wealth.
5. When people get the idea that the government no longer works for them, but rather for an elite aristocracy in the form of billionaires and global corporate entities (which apparently are people now), and that more wealth is going to be transferred to the wealthy through tax cuts for the rich paid for with cuts to education, social security, and Medicare (which people have worked for and earned), then that is the beginning of the end of our democracy.
It’s not about “being jealous of the wealthy”, it is about theft and the fleecing of the working class for the benefit of the new aristocracy. Welcome to Feudalism, 21st century style…
Cute little story, but is it TRUE. Not WOULD it happen, but rather DID it happen. When I’m arguing with a socialist, the last thing I need to offer are pulpit fictions for the sake of pandering my own views.
Wow, what a stupid analogy.
First of all, this is not an indictment on socialism as it is an indictment on lazy students. In a real socialist society, no one would be able to get away with not putting in their fair share. Yes, socialism preaches that people should share the benefits of everyone’s work, but it also preaches that everyone share in the work as well.
Second, there is no rational socialist out there that believes hard work should not be rewarded. Socialists do understand that people need incentives to work hard, so we do believe that those who work harder should be rewarded for it.
What socialists believe in is that more of the work should be shared and more of the benefits should be shared. We believe that we should be working harder to raise everyone’s status, not just our own. That is not the same as saying everyone should receive just as much as anyone else regardless of the work they put in.
I will readily admit that pure socialism will never work. However, it is just as true that pure capitalism doesn’t work. You cannot deny the fact that it was under-regulation and lack of oversight that got the world into the current financial mess, and that is capitalism. I’m not saying our current system doesn’t work and I’m not saying capitalism doesn’t work, I am saying that we can’t err too far to the side of capitalism as it would lead to more problems like the ones we saw in 2007. I think adding a bit more socialism into our government would work great.
Socialism is getting treated very unfairly in the current political climate. Like it or not, we deserve a voice in the government just as much as anybody else does.
Entirely myth
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp