Socialism Fails

  • Thread starter Thread starter jaatdesi
  • Start date Start date
J

jaatdesi

Guest
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.
Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!


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. (Please pass this on)


Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:


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.


Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.
 
jaatdesi; 2. What one person receives without working for said:
[/B](this is all right, i think, as long as the people receiving are children, old people, physically or mentally challenged people) (Social Security of some capatilist countries)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Isss Socialism Ke karan hi too aajj India Ki yeh halat hai ke Chamar exam mein 50% lekar IAS baane baithe hai aur Jat 80% lekar bhi Daily MAJDURI karta hai.
 
Last edited:
jaatdesi said:
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.
Is this man truly a genius? Checked out and this is true...it DID happen!


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. (Please pass this on)


Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.


These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:


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.


Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.
Click to expand...

Beautiful presentation of a thought provoking idea. But it is not the failure of socialism but the failure of those who swear by socialism and do little to implement it.
 
jaatdesi said:
Can you think of a reason for not sharing this? Neither could I.
Click to expand...

Plenty of them. Just to list a few:

1. This is not describing socialism - it is describing communism. Communism is banned in USA and Obama can't even talk about it in his wildest dreams. This is most probably written by some Republican propagandaist.

2. This is talking about equality of outcomes - that is communism. Socialism is about equality of opportunity. Does a farmer's son born in a village on outskirts of Bhiwani have the same opportunity as Mallya's or Ambani's son?

3. Building further on previous point, the rich get richer because they have a disproportionate share of world's resources. Even if you have the cynical view of the world as a rat race of self-enrichment, it is not a fair race to start with. How does a poor person compete without education, skills, training - all of which can be got only from resources.

4. It is intellectually an extremely bogus argument. If income from a job gets taxed at 40%, why should income from investment get all sorts of tax breaks? That is just a scam that serves the people with capital as they indeed multiply their wealth without paying their fair share of taxes. Most super rich make almost all their money not through a job, but through investing. So you have a situation where a guy making millions has an effective tax rate of 10% while the one making thousands has an effective tax rate of 30%.

5. All societies have a social contract which protect individual's wealths and their right to hold on to it and use as they deem fit. This social contract is not handed out by gods, it has been made by men to live in a civilized manner. If you really want equality, you can have the jungle's equality where anyone can attack anyone. The biggest losers if that happens would be the rich as they have the most to lose. The social contract should guarantee everyone atleast a minimum decent form of life. Otherwise why should the poor buy in a system that allows a small minority to use all the world's resources?

A lot more can be said..........
 
Samarkadian said:
Charles Darwin daadi aala had said it more systematically and at much basic level.
Click to expand...

He said nothing like it. Social Darwinism is a misinterpretation of Darwin's evolutionary theory that was strictly confined to the evolution of species (Homo Sapiens all over the world are just one biological species and Darwin was clear that his theory had no socio-cultural application). This theory was a huge hit in late 19th century when it was used to justify all sorts of racist propaganda (like White man is superior than black/brown man). You have to catch up by 100 years, Samar :). You may find the below links useful / interesting.

http://www.directessays.com/viewpaper/98251.html
In summary, Social Darwinism is the theory where those who are on top of the class structure belong there because they struggled and gained their superiority through their success over lesser human beings. This statement is shown to be severely false, when looked at through a scientific perspective. Social Darwinism was an excuse used merely to have a reason to oppress those differing in race, gender, class, or otherwise. Used against blacks to promote harsh racism, and segregation, used against women to try to justify their ill treatment, and placement in society, or used against the working class in an attempt to prove that they belong there, Social Darwinism defended prejudice, and oppression. This idea was structured on the misinterpretation of Darwinian theory, and conjured to justify discrimination against blacks and women socially, and against the working class economically, all the while being defended through little or no interaction by government.

http://www.eubios.info/EJ141/ej141g.htm

Social Darwinism is application of the Darwinian theory of evolution to human
affairs. The purpose of this communication is to bring out misinterpretation of
such Darwinian phrases as "struggle for existence" and "survival of the fittest"
in the area of social Darwinism. The misinterpretation becomes obvious, when we
take into account the following situations.

(a) It has long been debated whether the human races are polyphyletic in
origin (i.e. the different races arose independently in different geographical
areas from the subhuman ancestors) or monophyletic (i.e. the modern man, Homo
sapiens arose in one part of the earth, and then got dispersed to different
parts through migrations). Now there are substantial and convincing evidences in
support of the concept of man’s monophyletyic origin (Verma and Saxena, 2000).
It is a well supported view that the present human species arose from the Homo
erectus level in south-east Africa, and from there he migrated to the Middle
East, and thence to the rest of the world. Wilson (2002) says, . Vandeman (2003) points out, . Thus the different geographical races of man have
had a common genetic origin.(d) In the modern human species biological evolution (in the meaning of
speciation) has stopped taking place more than 150 thousand years ago, and
changes taking place have been mostly cultural (including technological). In
producing variations cultural inheritance (including cumulative traditions or
social memory) has been almost as important as genetic inheritance, if not more.
The Darwinian selection operates on genetic variations and not on environmental
variations.

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/sci_cult/evolit/s05/web1/mheeney.html
The three major fallacies it commits are the appeal to authority, retrospective
determinism, and the naturalistic fallacy. It appeals to the scientific
authority of Darwinism to deceptively associate scientific clout with a
decidedly pseudo-scientific theory which, as will be subsequently explained,
misinterprets a majority of Darwin's own thinking. It relies upon circular
reasoning and retrospective determinism, or the notion that because something
happened it was therefore bound to happen, when it infers that since it may be
possible for certain individuals to possess genetic characteristics
(intelligence, drive, noble bloodlines) that elevate them from others in terms
of wealth and societal status, that then all individuals with such wealth
possess such superior genetic characteristics. Therefore all wealthy (or Aryan
as used in Nazi eugenics, or any other denotation of privilege) people are
justified in their superiority because of the natural selection of genetic
factors. This retrospective determinism is used most damningly on the poor and
underprivileged, because it assumes that since individuals were born into
environments with poor educational resources, rampant crime and urban decay, and
other symptoms of poverty, that they all must therefore possess inferior genetic
characteristics.

And finally, one particularly relevant to the opening post as it talks about the misapplication of Social Darwinism by the current Republican candidates - from where the email forward seems to be originating.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/republicans-social-darwinism_b_1124379.html
Social Darwinism offered a moral justification for the wild inequities and social cruelties of the late nineteenth century. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim the fortune he accumulated through his giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest." It was, he insisted "the working out of a law of nature and of God."
Social Darwinism also undermined all efforts at the time to build a nation of broadly-based prosperity and rescue our democracy from the tight grip of a very few at the top. It was used by the privileged and powerful to convince everyone else that government shouldn't do much of anything.
 
Things are not simply black and white as they used to be in 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century when Darwin gave theories of “survival of fittest” and “natural selection”. And capitalism is not a product of adaptive evolution.

Cuba has better healthcare system than many developed capitalist economies
 
Last edited:
deshi-jat said:
Things are not simply black and white as they used to be in 19[SUP]th[/SUP] century when Darwin gave theories of “survival of fittest” and “natural selection”. And capitalism is not a product of adaptive evolution.

Cuba has better healthcare system than many developed capitalist economies
Click to expand...

But he never gave those theories for application to human society! He was misinterpreted by propagandaists.
 
Some more on this theme.

http://www.openthemagazine.com/article/business/life-liberty-and-luxury-for-all?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+openthemagazine%2Fbusiness+%28Business%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

Existence precedes consciousness. This seems true at least of the luxury market. It exists. But, here is the question, should it? In a country that ranks with sub-Saharan Africa on poverty? In a country of such appalling inequality?
One response is to deny that India is any worse off than others. With a Gini coefficient of 0.38—where 0 implies everyone earns the same, and 1 means one person takes it all—India draws level with the US on income inequality, and does better than China, which, with a figure of 0.42, has even fewer people earning most of the money. But this argument betrays a failure to see the Gini coefficient for what it is: a fluffy statistical toy stuffed with so much dodgy data that the truth has no choice but to elude it.
If a genie is to be conjured, it might as well be one who grants us three wishes. And since this is all in the realm of imagination anyway, Rawlsian principles of justice may not be too much to ask: ‘1) Each person has an equal right to a fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties for all. And 2) Social and economic inequalities are to satisfy two conditions. First, they must be attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of opportunity; and second, they must be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society.’
Now, by the first principle, anyone who wants to live a luxurious life ought to be free to do so. Fair enough. By the second, everyone should get a shot at leading such a life, and whoever succeeds should do the poor a good turn in doing so. Can the luxury market do the poor a good turn? After all, what the luxury consumer and starved Indian have in common is this: they are both price insensitive. A Rolls-Royce buyer must get his dream wheels, whatever the price; a starved Indian must eat what he can, whatever it costs. The difference lies in what happens if the cash cannot be coughed up. And so it makes eminent sense to overtax one to underwrite the other.
A recent AT Kearney-CII report places India’s luxury market (including snazzy cars and real estate) at $5.8 billion in 2010. This is set to touch $14.7 billion in 2015. If a third of it is drawn as tax, it would mean $4.9 billion in the Centre’s coffers. This, alas, would not be enough to pay for its Food Security scheme even four years hence. An economic resurgence could turn the numbers in the idea’s favour, no doubt, but that would arguably first need the Centre’s fiscal deficit to be contained (and thus inflation snuffed out and cost-of-capital crunched). With some food policy patience and sound economic sense, India’s luxury market could yet justify its existence better in Rawlsian terms.
 
Social Darwinism had been rejected long back. Even if you want interpret the things with his classical theory of evolution, “survival of fittest”, take a simple example; in my farms Bathua (बथुआ) is more adapted than wheat, but I spray 2, 4-D to give a selective advantage to wheat over bathua. Now what bathua's fitness would do?

Same selective advantage tactics applies in promoting a particular economic system

kapdal said:
But he never gave those theories for application to human society! He was misinterpreted by propagandaists.
Click to expand...
 
deshi-jat said:
Social Darwinism had been rejected long back. Even if you want interpret the things with his classical theory of evolution, “survival of fittest”, take a simple example; in my farms Bathua (बथुआ) is more adapted than wheat, but I spray 2, 4-D to give a selective advantage to wheat over bathua. Now what bathua's fitness would do?Same selective advantage tactics applies in promoting a particular economic system
Click to expand...

the fight for survival in your example is between bathua and man (not between bathua and wheat).
 
I agree with 5 points mentioned by jaatdesi, Let us discuss about India, our forefathers did not mean the kind of socialism implemented in our country, Their aim was based on three things, Equality in social status, opportunities and economic help to deprived people, But our rulers did not implement properly and hidden the real intention of our fore fathers, Our planners never thought of shifting the wealth, opportunity and social status from have to not have, from one community to another community. It is definitely a duty of the Govt to provide equal opportunities to all and provide resources to the people who do not have, Our fore fathers did not realize that our so called rulers would be so weak that they will take help of divide and rule policy, will not implement the policies as intended and interpret the clauses of the constitution for their self interest and start vote bank politics.



etc
 
Some steps were really initiated to address the issues raised by you but much more is needed to make the 'socialism' as enshrined in our constitution a reality in the Indian context.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top