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?
International Liberty 
[…] when they’re presented with a real-world choice (and there are two satiric versions – here and here – about how that choice […]
[…] when they’re presented with a real-world choice (and there are two satiric versions – here and here – about how that choice […]
[…] snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
[…] snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
What a load of neoliberalistic crap.
The best road is in the middle.
You can clearly see how badly things are in a country where all wealth gathers to just a fraction of people and everyone else lives in poverty and can’t buy much.
That doesn’t create any new jobs and everything is stagnant and halted.
The best road IS in the middle.
There are plenty of examples of this thing working in many countries.
Look for example the best examples like Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark.
Also bigger countries like Spain, France and Germany gets things right.
I can’t understand that why US folks are so greedy and selfish.
Boris https://ya.ru
[…] [4] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ […]
[…] on “the tax system explained in beer” is my second-most-viewed post. And the “socialism in the classroom” example about the perils of redistribution is my fifth-most-viewed […]
[…] previously shared a similar video, as well as a couple of written versions of this redistribution […]
URGENT EFFECTIVE LOVE-SPELL TO GET YOUR EX BOYFRIEND/GIRLFRIEND BACK FAST. dr_mack@ yahoo. com is certainly the best spell caster online, and his result is 100% guarantee..
Too bad the video link is no longer valid. I believe the concept is correct and if this type of experiment were tried the outcome would be an F however, I don’t think this has ever actually been done and it should be stated right up front that this is a fictional depiction of what would likely happen, a thought experiment if you will.
[…] If you want even more socialism humor, click here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and […]
[…] https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ […]
[…] of socialism, redistributionism, and collectivism. “The Tax System Explained in Beer” and “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment” succinctly capture why it’s very shortsighted and misguided to have an economic system that […]
[…] of socialism, redistributionism, and collectivism. “The Tax System Explained in Beer” and “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment” succinctly capture why it’s very shortsighted and misguided to have an economic system that […]
That is a model for a welfare state. In actual socialism there is no elite to tax as there are no owners of private business, the workers own the factories.
Also a more accurate thing for the professor to do for “Obama’s Socialism” would have been to bell curve all the grades instead of average them.
Either the story is fake or that professor did not know what he was talking about.
Neil, Obamas socialism is communism, because in the words of Karl Marx the father of communism “a socialist will inherently become a communist”. It can’t be stop all just a matter of time.
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment – 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 … […]
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment – 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 … […]
What’s hilarious is how you all think Obama is actually a socialist lol He’s proven that he isn’t in recent years.
I just read the snopes.com article. The writer dismisses the story as “fictional”, and he then presents absolutely zero evidence that it is not true. The sum total of the research that the writer presents is that the school mentioned in one account that he found of this incident — Texas Tech — does indeed exist. So the one fact that he checked turned out to be true. Of course that’s a long way from proving the story is true, but it’s certainly not evidence that it’s false. The argument concludes with the author saying the story is unlikely because he disagrees with the value of the experiment on ideological grounds and he can’t believe that any economics professor would have done such a thing. Which, of course, is a totally nonsensical argument: I think this is a bad idea, therefore no one in the world could possibly have done it. (Like, personally, I would never write an article claiming that a story was false without doing some research to investigate, therefore, the snopes.com article does not exist.)
“The government cannot give to Goldman Sachs anything that the government does not first take from the working class.” Government giving subsidies to big corporations is an element of socialism, not capitalism, by definition. In practice, I don’t know any conservative who supports such bailouts and subsidies. When Obama was pushing his big bailout programs right after he was elected, look at what conservative columnists and think-tanks had to say about it: it was universally denounced. While the Republican Party is certainly not synonymous with conservatism, the vote on the TARP bailout in the Senate passed with 39 Democrats and 34 Republicans; in the House, 140 Democrats and 65 Republicans. It was liberals who passed the bailouts, not conservatives.
So your argument is: capitalism is bad because here are some examples of socialism that are evil. That doesn’t even make sense.
[…] socialist classroom experiment (including a video […]
[…] socialist classroom experiment (including a video […]
Excellent article – I am thankful for the facts , Does anyone know where my assistant would be able to access a blank a form version to type on ?
There isn’t a set number of jobs. New jobs are created by wealthy people pursuing new ventures or expanding successful ventures. To pay people to exist strips away their self worth. It says, “you can’t make it on your own because you’re inept. It becomes a lifestyle of worthlessness. Detroit is a perfect example of this. When you raise taxes, smart businesses move to where there are lower taxes.
Yeah, fortunately the rich socialist countries have more brain than this experiment.
This experiemtn is not accurate:
1. the resources are limited, the grades are not. a rich person doesnt feel the difference between having 20 millions or 20 billions. a poor person feel the difference between having 10$ in his pocket or 100$.
2. The students dont suppose to study for grades, they suppose to study for knowledge.
In switzerland they want to give 2k euros to each adult just becouse they exist.
As in this world are more people than jobs, you should be happy that your neghboor doesnt work and He’s ok to live on a small part from your salary. but if you push Him to work you’ll have to split your salary with Him. as the resources are limited how I said before.
[…] Source: Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment | International Liberty […]
[…] P.P.P.P.S. And here’s what happens when you try socialism in the classroom. […]
This isn’t Socialism at all. Socialism would be if the students receiving the high grades helping the students receiving the lower grades to study more, and sharing with them tools to increase their own status.
Interesting tosee all the progressives here protesting that this experiment isn’t valid. They ignore all the examples of failed socialist states, from Venezuela, Cuba, to Franch, Denmark and Russia.
Utopia just wasn’t done right in these countries. Which is why they are dying before our eyes.
[…] Tax System Explained in Beer” is the third-most-viewed post of all time, and “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment” is the fourth-most-viewed post. At the risk of oversimplifying, I think these columns are […]
[…] Tax System Explained in Beer” is the third-most-viewed post of all time, and “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment” is the fourth-most-viewed post. At the risk of oversimplifying, I think these columns are […]
What does Donald Trump mean when he says “I love the poorly educated”?
Poor is a viscous circle because it is a relative term, relative to others in the same geographic area or not. poor is different everywhere, at every different zoom level of the world. Compare the poor in New York to the poor in Ethiopia and they will…
[…] Dan Mitchell writing for International Liberty has this story: […]
The entire scenario falls under the faulty analogy fallacy.
[…] going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.Source: Read it on https://danieljmitchell.wordpres…Written 2h ago • View UpvotesMoreRelated […]
あなた本当にプレゼンテーションしかし あなたと一緒に | | 本当に簡単そう簡単それは見えるようです作るI 検索するこの問題 私が感じる実際に 何か 私がかもしれない 決して理解しています。 複雑な複雑とすぎに思え 非常に 大私のために。公開| |提出| ポスト、私がしますぶら下げる|しがみつく|把握|ホールド|} 私は {しようとするでしょう！
国内即発 新作大手で通販の最安値 http://www.apfitness.ca
My feeling lately is that Capitalism works great in small systems, but becomes flawed in larger systems. This is why it makes sense to apply it to the early settlers. In a small free market with survival on the line, I think it’s much harder to see small groups dominate the market over others. Or maybe if Monopolies exist, it’s no big deal in a small market. Maybe one guy cornered the market on fishing and the other cornered the market on farming. If the group is small, the remaining people can find something to do.
In today’s large economy though, you have have entities like Walmart that can lock down sectors of the economy or steamroll right over small stores in small markets.
As for the example in this article, I think it’s overly simplistic. What if we imagine Test points were currency? To be fair, I think the Capitalist system should conversely allow students who excel do extra-credit and grab up more points to dole out to their friends, leaving the under achievers with scraps.
Again, in a small market or small class of about 10 students, this would be harder to pull off and the Capitalist grade system would probably work. However, suppose for the argument a class had a 1000 students and about 150 of them where really smart? They might come together to knockout the exam and do extra credit bonus questions gives them a disproportionate amount of test points they could then hand off to friends for favors.
[…] Economics School Teacher Shows that Socialism is Bound to Fail. Source: danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ […]
Hitler was not a capitalist, he was a fascist. That’s not the type of competitiveness I’m talking about. I don’t mind paying taxes for certain things like national security and infrastructure. As a soldier, I benefit from this myself. Capitalism doesn’t have to be cutthroat. Businesses function best when they work together. As for the bakery scenario, nowhere has a town become devoid if bakeries because of competition. The best rise to the top. They thrive or fail due to efficiency and flavor (or lack thereof) and those who fail either learn from their mistakes or find something else to do which is needed. The opposite of this is when the government guarantees jobs to the point where people become lazy because they know they won’t be fired. Governments should not own businesses. Beurocracies in the government are an example of socialism. They lock their doors at a certain time and turn people away at quitting time which barely adds up to 40 hours. If an entrepreneur ran the same shop, he wouldn’t close until the last customer was satisfied. If Greenland has millionaires and billionaires, then it isn’t socialist or communist entirely. Read “compassionate capitalism” by Rich DeVos
I did not say the world was not -partially- as you describe it, but there are humans who function very well without that childish competitiveness others thrive on. I used to be that way myself, but I matured. Most of my friends are the same way as myself. And there are more of us now than say twenty years ago. And do understand that you and no one else is the finally authority of what “the real world” is. Ever been to Greenland? I have. It has a reality you cannot conceive of without being there. Neither are you the final word in defining “success”. Hitler was a very competitive guy, and his extreme personal ambitions -and that of his thousands of fellow competitive followers- “won” land after land…and eventually that got 50 million people killed in just ten years. Maybe you admire that? And if you think success is inventing more stuff for an already over populated world to buy, you have not been paying attention to what all that “success” has been doing to the environment over the past fifty years. And if you think that the purpose of life is to best other people then you have missed out on life. Darwin’s years of research on “survival of the fittest” showed that species that cooperate the best survive the best. Humans are very cooperative, that why we have succeeded. That being said, it takes all types to make a society function. If everyone was a cut-throat capitalist there would be no civilization. Who would actually make things to sell? And if a town has too many bakeries, each fiercely competing for a share of a limited amount of customers, they would all fail until there was just the right amount needed. Towns do pass laws limiting, say, the number of bars. That is socialism, but it also is freedom, freedom of the majority of a town to develop itself. And the best functioning societies (by all polls) on the planet are the socialist ones of Scandinavia, an area famed for inventiveness, productivity, and are by all polls the happiest societies. I know; I, an American live there. And we have plenty of multimillionaires and billionaires as well. And most pay their share of taxes because they know that keeps the society in which they thrive, thriving. Get it? Too much ambitions destroys. There has to, of course, be a balance.
Enlightened? The reason we have separation of powers is because we are not all enlightened. There is corruption in every human heart and so we have checks and balances. The most productive people in our society are the most competitive people. If there is no incentive to be the best, the brightest, the smartest, much of our technology wouldn’t exist. This holds particularly true in the computer industry, but also in every other industry where innovation is the difference between success and failure.
There are also people so enlightened that they’ve figured out how to get a paycheck without working in the real world. This has become generational in some places as it becomes a lifestyle of laziness. It is you Will who needs to grow up and look around at the world that is and not the world you wish it was.
The article is true for selfish, unenlightened people who need reward to improve, sort of like a dog. The article is false for humans who like other humans, understand the true nature of existence, and do not need to compete to be fulfilled as a person. This latter group is also very capable of making a living, creating inventions, and improving society. All societies are semi-socialist already: public schools, paid by everyone, ditto police and other social services. Note the word, social. Grow up, Dan!
“Capitalist” often forget that it’s the scare of what happens in a true free market that scares the “socialist”. The fact that the world has been dominated by autocracy than public rule. That is the idea of no government regulations and the guarantee of a a monopoly in which we would have nothing less than one owner. AKA monarch. Which would be worse socialism or a monarch? How about a happy medium for the capitalist and socialists?
[…] other words, Venezuela is a real-world example of the famous parables about socialism in the classroom and buying beer with class-warfare taxation. Demagogic politicians don’t understand (or don’t […]
[…] other words, Venezuela is a real-world example of the famous parables about socialism in the classroom and buying beer with class-warfare taxation. Demagogic politicians don’t understand (or […]
Neither socialism nor communism entail equal outcomes for everyone. Whoever seriously claims otherwise is either profoundly ignorant or mendacious. Do a little reading, instead of repeating tired propaganda.
“But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal
labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist
only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only — for instance, in the present
case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored.
Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.
But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.
In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly — only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”
Click to access Marx_Critque_of_the_Gotha_Programme.pdf
[…] a lesson about the dangers of so-called progressive taxation. And the third-most viewed post is a parable about applying socialist principles in a classroom, which is a lesson about the dangers about the dangers of […]
[…] snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
Full Definition of SOCIALISM
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
Too Much Government is NEVER a good thing. Every one of our fore-fathers believed this. FREEDOM. AMERICA. FREE ENTERPRISE. LIBERTY.
Why would we sacrifice these to a Socialistic Society. I say to those who love socialism – move to a socialistic country. We are a FREE country OF the people BY the PEOPLE and FOR the PEOPLE – NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
Truly, it doesn’t matter because Americans would rather have their comforts and securities than FREEDOM. We’ve given up so much … I don’t know how we will ever get it back.
Socialism or no socialism one thing is sure the “alleged” professor who did the “alleged” experiment thinks that “grades” are sacrosanct and has never heard of Einstein Enough said.
if you judge a fish – Google Search – https://www.google.co.in/search?q=if+you+judge+a+fish&oq=if+you+judge&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.12073j0j4&client=ms-android-motorola&sourceid=chrome-mobile&espvd=1&ie=UTF-8#imgrc=x_ZH6YkLtMa80M%253A%3Bundefined%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fs-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%252F736x%252F2b%252F1c%252F53%252F2b1c53ea0bd3c358c9dc33f392c569fc.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.pinterest.com%252Fpin%252F516999232196016784%252F%3B480%3B515
[…] the socialism-in-the-classroom example, which may or may not be an urban legend, makes a similar point. As does the famous parable about […]
[…] This story on “the tax system explained in beer” is my second-most-viewed post. And the “socialism in the classroom” example about the perils of redistribution is my fifth-most-viewed […]
[…] This story on “the tax system explained in beer” is my second-most-viewed post. And the “socialism in the classroom” example about the perils of redistribution is my fifth-most-viewed […]
[…] This story on “the tax system explained in beer” is my second-most-viewed post. And the “socialism in the classroom” example about the perils of redistribution is my fifth-most-viewed […]
I should mention that I conducted a similar study during my spring semester last year for my Business, Government & Public Policy ECON325 course with approval from my department upon request from the Political Science department head. I would not have done this study otherwise because I believe my field does not provide me the credentials or education to make judgements on such a topic, though I suppose that’s why they wanted someone from Econ to do it. I conducted this study for the Political Science department (a prestigious professor from the Psychology department is also using my work as the basis for a consensus study.)
In this study I had two class sections covering the same course and materials. In one class I offered to use a grading system based on American Capitalism, in the other, Norwegian Socialism (pseudo-socialism, from what I understand, the Poly-Sci department structured my grading.) Three students from the AC class dropped, and two dropped the NS class. At the beginning of the courses I asked all students to fill out a survey that established their economic and social backgrounds. The policy for the AC class was that all grading was unbridled. Students were permitted to bribe others to show their tests, hire others to write papers and take tests for them, and generally use their income however they wished to earn a grade they believed suited them including paying a fee to use notes during tests. In the other class, the NS class, top students (A or above on the first test) were required to provide a minimum of 2 hours a week tutoring to those that felt they did not understand the material. Those that provided more tutoring were rewarded with extra credit. Those that scored below a B on the first test were required to attend tutoring. 60% of the class grade was individual while 40% was a class-based score. All students were randomly assigned to groups of 5 in order to devise study guides for the upcoming tests, I chose groups based on grades alone (each group averaged a B on the first test, the student struggling most was assigned to the group with the student with the highest grade) with their academic ID numbers being the only indicator for who was being assigned.
In the end, unsurprisingly, we had about 8 A+ students in the AC class, all of whom except one were from wealthy backgrounds, the rest averaged a B-C and there were a few solid Cs with only 2 failing grades. Meanwhile, no one failed my NS class. In fact, the average grade was an A believe it or not, while the lowest grade was a C, one student who suffered from dyslexia. The range based on personal economy in the AC course broke down as expected; those with more money did better. In fact, everyone who came from a family of over 250k a year got an A+, those who come from a family of 100-249K averaged a B+, those from families from 65-100k earned a B, and those under that averaged a C.
The grades received reflected not the work ethic but the context under which the grades were assigned. In the AC class, one of the two failing students I know for certain came from a poverty-stricken background and failed despite his trying to work hard on his own, the other was just lazy, while 5 of the 7 wealthy students who received an A+, given their comments during class (those they actually attended,) clearly did not understand the material. The results were not surprising. If you offer a hand up, most people will take it. In the NS class, my worst students became my hardest workers, trying to prove themselves to their groups.
All students in both classes were offered the opportunity to retake the course for free during the summer through an online course. Both failing students in the AC class did so and earned fairly good grades when I worked with them one on one through Skype, while no one in the NS class did other than the student who earned a C and increased his grade to an A.
I am not a psychologist, an anthropologist, a poli-sci, or anything else. I only know trends. And what I saw in these two classes was that, given the opportunity, and the motivation, and the push necessary, under a semi-socialist approach students all did well. Under an American Capitalist approach, those with money did VERY well, and those without did poorest. I was an Independent before this study. I voted for Gore in 2000, Bush in 2004 (Kerry was just a terrible candidate,) McCain in 2008 (despite Palin,) and Obama in 2012 (again… Romney was an awful candidate.) But since this study I have registered as a Democrat. I voted for Tom Wolf in the 2014 gubernatorial elections for PA, and will continue voting for the left if their policies continue to provide support for those that need extra assistance. I am not saying that lazy people don’t exist. But more often than not, those that suffer most in this amazing country are those that just need a helping hand from Uncle Sam. Thank you all for your time.
Also… I have to ask. What right does an economics professor have using his class to teach a social experiment? Supply and Demand, stick to it. I know full well that socialism is as much an economic policy as it is a social, governmental, cultural, and political policy, but unless he got this approved by the department head and dean, as well as having a focus in social economics, then he was COMPLETELY out of line and, frankly, out of his depth considering he clearly is ignorant regarding the functions of socialism.
This professor clearly has absolutely no idea of how socialism actually works… Well, I guess even in academia you get those who want a free ride. I’m guessing the professor was one of the department’s “F’s” who got averaged to a “B” by the rest of his outstanding faculty comrades? According to his own version of socialism at least. Maybe communism and socialism sound too similar… he might have an auditory processing disorder. He should get checked out by the Speech and Hearing Sciences department, provided they aren’t in the middle of an experiment where they use students’ grades as en example about how those who are hard of hearing might just be faking it…
Can socialism work? You damn right it can but, you have people who will always argue against it, because mostly they are already prospering and, could virtually care less about their fellow man who doesn’t. Corporate greed is one sure fire sign of capitalism, not caring about anyone but those with money! People can assume all they want that socialism doesn’t work but, what they refuse to acknowledge is that they are part of the reason, as to why people don’t want to make it work. Capitalism has been instilled in people’s mind over so many years, that they only know this system to work and, haven’t strived for change. The experiment was a poor example, because had they kept going eventually over time, the majority (if not all) of students would have picked the pace up, because if they didn’t than none of them would get anywhere. Humans have become lazy, greedy, placid to the point they only are after few goals in life but, none of those really involve furthering humanity much, mostly they achieve either small happiness or, are after personal gain/wealth while keeping other’s from achieving this same level of equality. Heck just look up the very meaning of Capitalism and, that should tell you how horrid of a system is has and, will continue to be, heck no Nation has ever survived in the past using such a system and, the U.S. is showing it is failing as well but, those who have already achieved large sums of money would try and tell you otherwise, that it is the best system ever! Yeah, sure it is!
Kindness to one comes at the cost of injustice to another. That is why nature is just not kind. For evolution to be possible only the strongest survive. The flip side of this is that, any other model would only result in the collapse of the whole system. However the question is what decides who is to be born more capable than the rest? There is no need to get into karma and rebirth and all that which cannot be verified. The only way everybody can win is by doing what they are good at.
Almost all people are hard workers and want more out of life. The question is do they work inside the system or outside the system? There is the fellow that registers as disabled, then gets on every government program he can to maximize his benefits, then goes on to take on painting and fix-it jobs to be paid “under the table”. He will live better than many who work and pay taxes inside the system. Then you also have those who work in cash industries (bars, restaurants, etc.) that can get away with under reporting their income and you have the 25-40% black market of our country. It is hard to create a model when you have to take into account the way normal people will work the system to get around government rules, regulations and taxes.
Although most of you write with proper grammar, almost all of you, including the stupid or idiotic professor has lack of common sense or doesn’t have common sense, is why most of you, including the stupid or idiotic professor didn’t like or doesn’t understand real socialism, is why the professor failed the students for the obvious reason the students disagreed with the professor[s], are control freaks ! similar to cops are control freaks who use false laws to limit your natural rights ! and soldiers forced to obey crazy orders under threat of arrest or death penalty. All governments are organized crime or mafia, each is controlled by zionists, r not jews but pretend to be jews, meaning psychopaths control all governments, and is what type of economy us has which is crony capitalism is what us has as its economy, where education is part of that crony capitalism, is a zionist trick ! This is why people are tricked to give candies on Halloween to kids, where the adults are tricked to harm children, is what zionists do to turn children into bunch of cannibals to get kids to think or not trust other kids, as they grow up, they the kids will learn that adults betrayed them and not protected them, is the real or evil purpose of Halloween, is form of war crime, which the logical robots will probably arrest or exterminate adults for giving candies to kids on Halloween after decade or after dozen years when logical robots come, will teach irrational adult humans what is common sense by arresting and exterminating anyone that violates logic or common sense, which is most of adult humans lack logic or common sense !
Although most of you write with proper grammar, almost all of you, including the stupid or idiotic professor has lack of common sense or doesn’t have common sense, is why most of you, including the stupid or idiotic professor didn’t like or doesn’t understand real socialism, is why the professor fails the students for the obvious reason the students disagreed with the professors, that almost all the educated stupid professors are control freaks, meaning psychopaths or/and also sociopaths, that all members of government, including teachers and professors are psychopaths or/and sociopaths, but the students including mostly all posters be too immature or lack understanding of reality to understand why the students failed, because the students disagreed with the professors, are almost all bunch of control freaks, sort of like cops, or like stupid soldiers obeying to crazy orders. But, don’t worry, when logical robots come after a dozen years, logical robots,the first thing it will do, will start to exterminate all members of government, since all members of government are all members of organized crime or mafias, which it calls itself government, is nothing but a scam or fraud on national and also on ? international scale, meaning government is innovation of zionists ruling class !!! and zionists are not jews but pretend to be jews, so jews get blamed for all the evil that zionists do and been doing for not only hundreds of years but for the ?? past thousands of years zionists been ruling all countries on this idiotic planet, where humans wonder why bad things happen wherever government exist and whenever government gets involved bad things happen, because people, the stupid or ignorant humans, lack common sense to understand the obvious, and that includes education is scam or fraud, meaning is protection racket by mafias to steal your money, similar to car insurance, that you have to pay, and people go along with this idiotic form of false government, because adults are cannibals, who use laws to hide behind their evil actions, and using cops are assassins and using soldiers to steal from another country and using cops to attack those that they dislike, sort of like christians using government mafias to attack flds during the 19th and 20th century, meaning government is simply organized crime or the mafia in each country, where cops or police are the biggest & also worst gangs. Governments are nothing but organized crime & limit your rights & steal your $. But, don’t worry, when logical robots come after a dozen years, the first thing the logical robots will do is exterminate all the hypocrites which are lots of adults who are adults but don’t act like adults who have common sense of children in bodies of adults, including feminists who are hypocrites or irrational adult humans will be the first to be exterminated by logical robots including anyone that work for the government since all governments are nothing but organized crime or the mafia, and all mafias are controlled by zionists, not referring to the ignorant jews, but those that pretend to be jews are zionists, will also be target of logical robots, will target all governments and anyone that supports organized crime or/and mafias, including anyone that seems to be irrational, since logical robots find anything that is irrational as personally offensive, sort of like christians find muslims to be offensive and vise versa, meaning logical robots will also target religious fanatics are also irrational, since most people including religious people are irrational, is not to say that i’m not religious, which i am, that i’m religious, but i’m rational and not irrational, which i can’t say for most people are irrational, will be made target by logical robots hate contradictions, such as feminism, is another word for [can you guess ? ] organized crime or mafias or government, uses different words !!! And, just because someone has good grammar doesn’t make his argument true or logical, just as if someone lacks good grammar doesn’t make his argument false or not logical, is why almost all professors are nothing but con artists, and part of scam or fraud and part of protection racket to steal your $, is what the ?? evil zionists do, and education is another form of tax by zionists have almost no intention to teach anything to u except to steal more of your $ & limit your rights. But,don’t worry,anything related to organized education&organized government will come to an end or start to come to an end when logical robots come after a dozen years is when anything organized by humans will be limited by robots, r logical and not irrational, latter is what most adults are bunch of hypocrites, who use government to steal from one another is called crony capitalism is also what higher education is about forced to pay protection money called college degree to have right to work, but hypocrite humans are ok with that because hypocrite humans are bunch of cannibals, who can’t see or understand the obvious evil !
[…] great example of how this happens is provided in the article “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment”. The five morals from the article’s 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. -Daniel J. Mitchell** […]
[…] Does Socialism Work? A classroom experiment. (brilliant.) https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ […]
[…] Socialism Work? A classroom experiment. (brilliant.) https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ .social-icon{ display:inline-block; width: 120px; float:left; } […]
The amount of people on welfare has tripled since 2008. Why? Because the freeloaders were not altruistic. They prefer to get paid to not work. Capitalists give away more money than communists ever could.
The idea is that the clever students should have appreciated and taken pleasure form the fact that their intelligence is helping other students get through and the less clever students should have been grateful that someone else is helping them and worked hard and try to better themselves for the future – and so have the ability to help someone else.
The reason everyone failed is because they all defaulted towards greed and selfishness – the class would have all passed if they had been altruistic and worked as a team.
It is not a flaw in Socialism that causes it to fail – it is Capitalism.
[…] Here’s some snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
[…] *But then we return to 2011 because lots of people waited until 2013 before reading the classroom experiment with socialism. […]
王Zhengshengは
How about having a capitalism experiment instead? Were the poor kids work for the rich kids. The rich kids get the best grades and do none of the work and the poor kids get the worst grades and do all the work.
I think this was an excellent experiment to prove the point. Too many able bodied free loaders out there with their hand held out. And I am here at work today, with a mild migraine. My employment is “no work, no pay” The same should apply to them. Not to mention that if a person has to be drug tested to GET a JOB, then a person should be drug tested to GET GOV’T AIDE.
A rather asinine class experiment, particularly the writer assumes Obama is a “socialist.” I feel pretty bad for the kids. I’d have to sit the teacher down and give him a global political literacy test.
What’s up, after reading this amazing piece of writing i am too delighted to share my knowledge here with mates.
[…] I also would like to add this article why socialism won’t work. https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/does-socialism-work-a-classroom-experiment/ […]
Their products are well designed and manufactured using the best materials
and techniques. You wouldn’t want anything within your bag poking you in the back, why would you think your dog would. When a heavier weight than this is placed on the shoulders, it will cause imbalance and pull the person backwards.
Awesome!! And so true!! Socialism cannot work for this reason. Great story!!!
Obama’s socialism? I’ve seen almost five years of the Obama administration and I’ve yet to see socialism put in to practice. I’ve also yet to even hear the Obama administration mention that they’d like to replace the mixed capitalist system we have had. Lastly, I’m fairly educated in statistics, and I’d say that this experiment is very much flawed, and certainly unrepresentative of an entire economy. I’m not fighting for or against socialism; I’m saying this should give you no indication as to whether or not socialism works.
socialist vitriol is nothing new… the more anger expressed by the rank and file cadre… the more effective the argument has been… my complements to Dr. Mitchell… he and his collogues at Cato have them scared… welcome to the free marketplace of ideas…
That’s a lot of name calling against a person you don’t even know. So angry.
Or perhaps, Mr. Cato Institute Kock-funded Mitchell, you’re simply a cheap, Republican, self-centered, artistically iliterate, non-scientist, faux economist designing “experiments” to meet your predetermined results rather than to objectively test anything. When have you ever objectivly tested anything? Even your embarrasingly decadent personal over-spending habits are so carefully planned that zero is the allowable margin for creativity, spontaneity & imagination. You must be fun at a party, huh? I mean a party, not those things you and your like invite each other two. Flat tax, anti-urbanite philosophy is just masked racism. But you don’t care that you’re exposed, do you? You’ll just buy a more exensive mask to replace it w/ the money you saved not giving any to the under-privileged!
How many times have you heard of a person saying their
interest started as a hobby, and had no idea that it
would develop into a new financially gainful career.
Because a pearl farmer wants to create the highest quality of pearl every time, it
can be an exhausting and drawn out process, but if you are a pearl aficionado you will certainly appreciate that it takes time produce excellence.
The desktops are smaller, but they are more practical, as they are kept on your desk, and easier
to reach.
[…] Here’s some snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
[…] Here’s some snarky humor comparing the Gipper with Obama. And if you liked the story of what happens when you try socialism in the classroom, you’ll also enjoy this video of Reagan schooling […]
[…] (property rights). Socialism goes against human nature as you can read about in this article, “Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment”, by Dan Mitchell at danielmitchell@wordpress.com. Human beings are self-interested and will work […]
Rich Devos wrote a book called “Compassionate Capitalism”. This already happens by the way where the wealthy use their wealth to educate, give to charities and create economies where the poor can thrive. 95% of millionaires in the United States were born poor, many of them immigrants and minorities. This isn’t a system where all the wealthy people came from wealthy families. Far from it. By reinvesting wealth, they create more jobs, more contracts for small businessmen and thus more wealth. The secret isn’t in who has all the money. The secret is the use of the principles of wealth. If all the money was taken from everyone and divided equally, within a generation, the money would be back in the same hands because most people would have more money than they know what to do with and would squander it and those with a business mindset would build business models which would eventually cause them to accumulate money as they create systems and pipelines. Anybody in America has the opportunity to build a business. Buy a lawn mower and mow lawns. Get a squegee and wash windows. Small beginnings done well will lead to better opportunities. The problem is that public schools are designed to get you a “job” and dont teach you how to build and manage a business. Invest in your business knowledge by buying books. Robert Kiyosaki and several others have great books that teach these principles. The problem as Thomas Jefferson once said is that opportunity is often dressed in overalls and looks too much like work. Americans have been trained to work 9 to 5 and businessmen work much longer hours to build their business. Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook still works 16 to 20 hours a day. Do you think he would do that if he were on salary? I think not.
I bet you criticize public education too.
But in high school I learned that socialism is when government controls various large scale industries, but does not in fact make everyone have the same income.
Your joke seems to mistake socialism for communism, and to people who paid attention in high school government class, it makes you look really stupid.
[…] пример, к чему приводит стремление к уравниловке Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment | International Liberty Есть только миг между прошлым и будущим, Именно он […]
its absurd to consider any socialism or communism can work if one maintains a capitalism mindset. socialism is based on cooperation, not competition.
to do less and less for the maximum profit is capitalism.
I can’t believe this is a real professor – if he is, he’s an idiot and so are his students for being suckered.!
His example hasn’t ‘described’ Obama’s policies – all he’s proven is that Marxism doesn’t work because man is basically greedy and selfish. Didn’t we already know that?
Unadulterated capitalism doesn’t work either for the same reason – especially in a world where resources are becoming more and more scarce.
Now don’t get me wrong, I am not a wet blanket wanting to give people handouts for doing nothing, in fact nothing gets me more exasperated than the way my hard earned taxes are given to people that do not deserve them in the UK. However, I am quite happy for those same taxes to be used to help lift people who want to make a life for themselves out of poverty and to help make sure people have access to healthcare, education etc. I think it’s a sensible middle ground and this bogus university professor seems to be giving his students an irresponsible lesson.
I wonder what would happen if the ‘professor’ told his students that their marks would be like cash and give them the ability to ‘buy’ resources to complete their next assignment. Resources would be say the coursework that they are learning. After a few assignments the most intelligent in the class (NO MATTER HOW HARD THE REST OF US WORKED) would hold all the resources, and the rest of us would be failing and dropping out because we would not be able to complete the assignments. This example would describe the ever widening poverty gap caused by unchecked capitalism, and I suggest it is this gap that Obama is trying to bridge. Anyone that suggests Obama is a Marxist (as this professor seems to be doing) is either insane or stupid.
[…] came across an interesting story on socialism posted by Dan Mitchell about an economics professor. His class felt that socialism worked, so the […]
No, it really isn’t deep- it is simple-work hard and it pays off-not in money terms-money isn’t success
grades are not socialism. it’s much deeper than that.
[…] Del odgovora se skriva v znani študiji: Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment […]
One thing…
In a classroom the reward is directly related to effort and quality of output.
If only the same were true of the capitalist system..
please read Atlas Shrugged. It is a 1950’s book on America switching to a pure “socialist country” whereas the people at power working to move the country to a more fair country. The people at power do not want to lose power once had. If you had everything you ever wanted, would you give that up so EVERYONE has equal power? probably not. Thus, this still creates a society where power is in the hands of the rich. Socialism does not work.
Communism works in the sense that the elite retain all the power. Again, the elite once given power would rarely relinquish it without coercion. And a government first established on coercion has to re-identify itself.
Facism= (Extreme case) Natzi germany, Enough said.
Democracy governs what the whole of the people want. Have you tried obtaining what you so desire in a place where there are millions of diverse and exotic types of people? Do you see how democracy can be inefficient for a huge place like America as well? Maybe, democracy would work at a state level where citizens interests can be better aggregated? = Republican mindset.
Purely free-trade country would let the weak die and the strong live. Hell that would be the most economical efficient and wealthy country in the world, but at the price of the poor. Even then, the elite will work its way to the top, and adverse situations would occur.
All systems of government has their flaws. Think about all perspectives before writing off those that you do not “think” would happen. Contrary to popular belief, you can’t always change lazy, or self-entitled mindsets. So if you socialism lovers are willing to work hard and those that are less motivated on leach on you then YES socialism works.
This ‘classroom experiment’ is a false analogy, because it assumes that a person’s place in society is determined solely by how hard they work. This is a fantasy. A high school teacher might work harder than a CEO of a major international corporation, but that teacher will never be a billionaire.
If the normal classroom truly reflected capitalism, it wouldn’t be a matter of student grades reflecting how hard they study. It would be a matter of a few students ’employing’ the many to study and do the tests FOR them, so that those few achieve an A grade. The few would then shave a couple of percentage points off that grade to ‘pay’ the many (who, after all, actually did the work), thereby giving the many E grades.
Criticisms of socialism, and whether it would work, are one thing. But let’s not have any illusions about what capitalism is.
Straw man arguments…who is arguing for the socialism this guy has supposedly defined? Do you and this guy know that public schooling is “socialism”? This socialist system is paid for through property taxes in many if not all school districts. I attended public schools all my life and grew up in rental apartments, even if it’s argued that the rent paid each month includes an allocation for property taxes it would never come close to what I would have to pay just to attend the cheapest private school option in my area. The property taxes on my house are currently $2,000 per year again no where near what it would cost to send my one and only child to a private school wow couldn’t imagine the cost if I had more. Instead I, like most others who use the socialist public school system rely on the distributed income err I mean property taxes paid by the old couple whose children have already finished school and the childless couples who don’t burden the system since they have no kids. Public libraries, which is essential for democratizing knowledge is socialism, funded through tax dollars. Could you imagine if you had to pay some oligarch his profit just so you can have access to free information and improve your life. Hell if you live in the most remote of areas in Utah for instance which I’m sure there are many you can have information mailed to you for the price of a stamp all subsidized by tax dollars of course the alternative is to isolate you if you were such a person or you can pay a private company such as FedEx or UPS a price suredly more than the cost of a simple stamp but that’s not that type of freedom or American liberty that the government wants to guarantee. I can go on and on but you’re straw man is on fire.
The Snopes article doesn’t say that the story is a myth. It says that it cannot trace the origin.
Sir, I don’t know you. Your blog looks good. But I am following for one seriously good reason…
GO DAWGS!!!
Hope you don’t mind that. And, Yes, I liked the post. God bless!
Interesting.
What a lode of bolex. What of the sick and needey the ritierd.I have worked hard all my life and all a got was shits from academics like this. The profecer can theirise but what does he know aboute real work? One side of the desk to the otheire.
A lot of socialists make excuses why this class room experiment works out this way…….As well as the excuses they make about why socialism has failed thus far…….The fundamental problem is that reality keeps forcing them to make excuses.
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment […]
[…] […]
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment […]
[…] Last year, I did a popular post on what happens if you redistribute grades in a classroom. […]
[…] Among the myriad political email forwards that continually get recycled and re-sent, one that explains socialism using a classroom/grades analogy has been quite durable. In fact, it appears to be over 18 years old, though no one is certain of the provenance. Dan Mitchell has a version on his blog, along with some useful commentary. […]
[…] […]
I don’t consider myself a political person and I rarely speak about politics. But on this occasion, I feel I must respond to the email about the “great teacher” of college economics who, as an object lesson, gave everyone in his class the same grade computed using the average of all the students. Of course, those at the top grumbled and of course, the average dropped as everyone lost incentive. But let’s complete this lesson in political economics. I think I can explain the whole issue in 10 short paragraphs. Read on:
The undisputed fact is that the US has a “mixed economy” with elements of both capitalism and socialism. The college professor argues well the case for capitalism and I don’t dispute the merit of its argument. However, there is a case to be made for the other side of our mixed economy, which is probably best described by the “social contract” theory of politics. Let me quote a high school textbook, Magruder’s American Government:
[The social contract theory] was developed in the 17th and 18th centuries by such philosophers as John Locke, James Harrington, and Thomas Hobbes in England and Jean Jacques Rousseau in France.
Hobbes wrote that in his earliest history, man lived in unbridled freedom, in a “state of nature.” Each man could do as he pleased and in any manner he chose, at least so far he was physically capable of so doing. That which he could take by force was his, and for as long as he could hold it. But all men were similarly free. Thus each man was only as safe as his own physical prowess and watchfulness could make him. His life in the state of nature, wrote Hobbes, was “nasty, brutish, and short.”
Men overcame their unpleasant condition, says the theory, by agreeing with one another to create a state. By contract, men within a given area joined together, each agreed to give up to the state as much power as was needed to promote the safety and well-being of all. In the contract (that is, through a constitution), the members of the state created a government to exercise the powers which they had voluntarily granted to the state.
In short, the social contract theory argues that the state arose out of a voluntary act of free men. It holds that the state exists only to serve the will of the people, that they are the sole source of political power, and that they are free to give or to withhold that power as they choose.
The social contract theory was instrumental in the origin of our own American political system. Thomas Jefferson described the Declaration of Independence as “pure Locke” when it argued that the king and his ministers had violated the social contract. The great concepts fostered [by the social contract theory] – popular sovereignty, limited government, and individual rights – were, according to Magruder, immensely important to the shaping of our own government system.
Concerning individual rights, Magruder writes,
At various times, the welfare of one or a few individuals is subordinated to the interests of the many in a democracy, of course. People can be (and are) forced to do several things, both large and small, and whether they want to or not. The examples of this are many, and they range all the way from paying taxes and registering for the draft on down to stopping at a stop sign.
When these or similar things are done, a democratic society is serving the interest of the many. But it is not serving them simply as the interests of a mass of people who happen to outnumber the few. Rather, it is serving the many who, as individuals, together make up that society.
end quote
The college professor in the story violated the principles stated in this last paragraph by Magruder. This is not how the American government operates. The American government, with the exception of the Social security agency, does not dole out money (or grades) for money’s sake, but rather, it doles out economic opportunity and fundamental rights that comprise the fundamental worth of individuals, rich or poor, black, yellow, or white.
That, in my opinion, is how you create a middle-class and keep it going strong. A strong middle-class does not occur naturally, and has only occurred a few times in human history and only under certain artificial conditions. Let’s keep ours going strong.
Bottom line is this: We have a mixed economy. We have elements of both Capitalism and Socialism in a blend that is all American. It’s a balancing act. Remember that, please, when you vote this next election.
applied to capitalism where there are a limited amount of points(like communism/socialism whatever), students would compete for the points. At the end of class the person with the most points gets the A and person with the least points gets the F, fair and simple…seemingly…though, no matter what, someone gets the F and someone gets the A…
So lets say there are 20 students, 100 points for each student in the pool for the possible A grade. An A grade is 90 or more points, a B is 80 or more points and so on. Since all points are available to everyone the A student gets 1000 points, leaving a 1000 points for the 19 other students…how many will pass?
1.0
Whether or not this really happened is irrelevant because it is entirely possible for such event to have taken place.
2.0
The author (or authors) of this story is confusing his understanding of socialist theory and his perception of applied social justice
2.1
The story seems to imply that the state of the class prior to applying the experiment gave everyone equal chance of success and thus is equivalent to capitalism. This would be true insofar as if the students were born into the same socio-economic class, with equal potential for obtaining the highest ability and skill, with equal health, intellectual, emotional, and physical makeup, except one’s freedom to choose one’s path. In reality, if a classrom could be used to represent America in the last two century, the classroom would be made up of the following:
– caucasian majority with a select few who come from extremely wealthy and educated families
– african american minority whoes families faced many years of discrimination and were denied economic opportunities based on merit and not based on connection
– asian, hispanic, and east european immigrants who also faced years of discrimination and were denied economic opportunities based on merit and not based on connection
2.2
Now, the wealthy caucasian students grew up in a highly educated household and received special tutoring outside of class. The african american students live in urban neighborhoods where crime is high and family are not as educated as their white counterparts. These students’ families cannot afford to move to more affluent areas because of the economic barrier of entry to those communities, such as higher property value and taxes.
2.3
Based on “capitalism” and applying the idea of economies of scale, whites will continue to get wealthier, be in positions of power, steer the system to favor their culture that systematically discriminates against the non-whiltes.
2.4
In conclusion, its not a matter of capitalism versus socialim. To view it that way is naive and simple-minded.
The question is about fairness. There is no conflict between efficiency and fairness. The level of efficiency should always be to the extent that maximum fairness is reached. Otherwise, efficiency, by definition, will always prefer those who are already better off over their lesser counterparts.
2.5
I recommend you read John Rawl’s Theory of Justice.
Entirely myth
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp
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.
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.
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…
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.
just because socialism has always failed is apparently no reason not to continue trying it
[…] also mention a fairly shoddy attempt of a cautionary tale against socialism, which can be found here. […]
[…] […]
[…] 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. […]
Yeah
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 !!!!
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment […]
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.
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.
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.
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….
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.
[…] Does Socialism Work? A Classroom Experiment « International Liberty. Share this:TwitterFacebookLinkedInStumbleUponEmailPrintLike this:LikeBe the first to like this […]
[…] 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. […]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Dan: Very good illustration of the absurdity of socialism.
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.
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.
“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 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.
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.