Why socialism always fails - AEI

As weird as it sounds, in a perfect world, any and all systems would indeed work. Unfortunately, we don't live in that type of world, so we are forced to make each political and economic system work to the best of its abilities.

I remember being told a short story that illustrates socialism in paragraph. I'll do the best I can to recount it as accurately as possible.

A teacher at a high school told the students that he has never failed any individual student, instead of giving out individual grades he gives out a collective grade based on the average of all the results of the test. On the first test everyone studied very hard that week and the grades ranged the normal gamut of an A to an F. The average grade was an 85%. So everyone got an 85%. but on the test results when he handed them back he had the grade of each persons test written on top, as well as the recorded averaged grade. Which meant that every student who got above an 85 worked for something they did not get, (the remainder of their points). All those who got under an 85 got something they did not work for.

As you can imagine the next test all those who worked hard and got above the average realized that they worked too hard, because they didn't get what they deserved, so this next test they didn't work for the 100% they worked for the 85%, because why work harder that what you will get. And of course all those students who earned less than an 85 but got an 85 anyways learned they don't have to work hard to pass, so they didn't study at all, expecting to get an 85, because they expected the other students to bring the grade up.

However on Test #2. the range of grades was not from A-F, but from B-F, bring the averaged grade down to a 75%.

And the cycled continued until everyone gave up, and no one studied or tried, because no matter how hard they tried individually to get a good grade, or tried to get another person to work hard and get a good grade to bring up the collective average, there was no incentive to do that, because unless everyone, (or nearly everyone) worked really hard, did any one get any thing good....

But then what is the point of collective grading if everyone worked really hard and did well, why not just give them the grade they earned anyways... If everyone individually earned an A, then collectively everyone earned an A... The small minority of people who refused to participate would then get the F, (what they worked for) and everyone who worked for an A, would then get an A, (what they worked for)..

Thoughts anyone?

SFC (Join to see) - I was the abomination to your story. I hardly ever studied, hated homework, but I love to learn. So in the process of doing as little as possible, I almost always got high test scores. Aside from the few who are naturally good test takers, the story itself is solid.

PO3 Steven Sherrill - And who is trying to put pure socialism here? Sanders isn't pushing for anything beyond what they have in other Western democratic countries.

LTC (Join to see) - We are not other Western Democratic Countries. That is a big problem in the world today. Conformity. Everything needs to be cookie cutter. Certainly there are a great number of things that we can do better than we are. That has to come from the people. It cannot come from the government.

PO3 Steven Sherrill - It can't come from anywhere else. Private insurance companies will not fix the cost of healthcare, rather they will do whatever possible to maximize profit. Private individuals and charities cannot provide for the elderly, the disabled and poor, only government will do that.

LTC (Join to see) - I agree insurance companies do nothing to improve healthcare. Pharmaceutical companies do nothing to cure disease. It is all about maintaining a customer base and keeping people dependent on their industry. That is why both are so dead set against government intervention. If the Government takes their customer base they are screwed.

MAJ (Join to see) So the solution is to ban all ISMs. So simple. Wish it was that easy in reality. The corollary to the failure of pure economic systems is that every system has its flaws. It is when the flaws become accentuated to the point of failure that the economic system fails. The failure results in recession, depression, or outright revolution. This is not just for "pure" economic systems, but for hybrids as well. The USSR was a communist nation, it collapsed under the weight of its own economy. The United States has not been without its ups and downs. The United States is predicated on limited government, and maximum industry. When the balance fails, the economy dives. When the balance is restored, the economy thrives. The closer a nation is to a "pure" economic system, the narrower the balance point is. The better the hybrid system is organized, the more stable the balance point is, allowing for steady economic growth without the huge pitfalls. As with most things, the problem occurs when you introduce the human element. People are unpredictable. People can be overly greedy or overly giving. Overly greedy, leads to an economic downturn when people hoard resources. The economy cannot function when people do not interact with it. When people become to willing to give, then they become too dependent on government programs. When they become to dependent, the government has to raise taxes to pay for those programs. The more that is paid in taxes, the less the individual has to be self sufficient. Thus leading to more people being reliant on Government assistance. The problem with people is that it is that we are by our nature emotional beings. That cannot be legislated away, or mitigated. It is something that has to be contained and channeled. The United States Channels it by (theoretically) having the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of the government work together based on the constitution. The problem is that it has been over run by greed. Instead of being about running the country, it has become a place to line one's pockets with the money of lobbyists while ignoring the people.

Sorry for the rant. I promise I am not running for any political office.

Other than the "-ism" joke, you pretty much said the long-form of what I was trying to summarize, especially on the balance of hybrid economic systems.

The point about reliance on government assistance is only slightly off-target, because *everybody* relies on assistance throughout their day that they never think about, and the economy would be sh*t without it, but most want to pretend that they're the world's one true example of self-reliance. That's actually the main problem with critiques of "socialism" is that most have ideological blinders that prevent them from seeing the assistance they already get (and worse, the more they scream "socialism", the more likely they are to be blind to the massive corporate socialism that goes on because they're too busy directing their rage at the poor, even though that corporate socialism is larger than all the real welfare programs combined by a hefty margin).

Anyway, back from that tangent... I have long noticed that the mindless screaming about the term "socialism" in practice is very often the same people who shout "we're a republic, not a democracy" without having the cognitive skills to realize that we have always been both, and that "republic" is just the form of government while "democracy" defines the reason for one and from whence the powers of government derive (hint: it's "we the people").