
Equality for all? And everyone fails... - zealoushacker
http://alexnotov.com/post/10709775427/equality-for-all-and-everyone-fails
======
OpieCunningham
Clinton was a centrist, far from socialist politician. Obama seeks the same
top marginal tax rate as Clinton, while supporting lower taxes in many other
areas, placing Obama to the right of Clinton. If this absurd analogy had any
merit, we would have all failed many times over in the 8 year Clinton
presidency.

I'm also curious what the OP means when he calls Obama a "corporatist
socialist". Considering the vast bulk of Obama's policies have been the
socialization of losses and the privatization of profits, that phrase may be
an apt description, though I get the impression thats not what the OP meant to
say.

~~~
johnubis
I consider any inequality in tax rates to be socialist, its in Marx's fucking
ten point plan. How is that not socialist?

~~~
noahc
Marx wasn't a socialist. ;)

~~~
zealoushacker
Are you kidding me???

"Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher,
sociologist, economic historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist who
developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. " -Wikipedia article

If you tell me that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for the above
information, shall I point you to 10 other sources that will corroborate the
above??

You must have been born on another planet.

~~~
noahc
The point I was making is that what Marx believed is called Marxism and not
socialism. They differ in a number of ways.

1.One is the Marxism is derived from the Hegelian German tradition of a
dialectical view of social change.

2.Marxism argues that socialism is a possible, but not necessary step between
capitalism and marxism. The more revolutionary the more likely this step
should be avoided.

3\. Read: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism> and notice how they use
socialism and in what context. They use it in opposition of Marxism and
Communism.

------
garethsprice
You know what's more damaging to American politics than the LURKING RED MENACE
of socialism?

Uncited, anonymous propaganda designed to get people frothing at the mouth and
to see people with opposing viewpoints as nothing more than gullible idiots.

<http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp>

------
Volpe
It's a strawman arguement.

You can't substitute grades for money. Because there are more drivers than
just 'success' in "the real world"

In reality... The people who were getting "F"s would be earning no money, so
they'd all starve, their families would starve... You really think they'll
just think "well I won't do anything, cause I don't like how this system
works".

Also, you are running the test on a group of people who have been conditioned
into the capitalist way of thinking, of course they find socialism
unsustainable, just as socialists find capitalism unsustainable.

Run an inverse capitalist experiment and tell the class "I'm only going to
give these 2 guys here As and the rest of you will get C-s regardless how hard
you work because their dads paid me some $$$" -- See how well the class goes
then.

~~~
zealoushacker
Why can't I substitute grades for money?

In our current educational system, grades are a measure of value, determined
just as arbitrarily as USD or Euros, by just as an arbitrary an authority.

You can think of grades as educational fiat currency.

The people whom are getting Fs are the ones who'd be on welfare. And they'd
have no incentive of getting out.

~~~
Volpe
I explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that are
not simulated by grades.

The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying
everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a
complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning
there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't
die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat.

I'm saying before a complete collapse you would trigger peoples survival
instincts and they would work - just to survive (similar to china from the
50s-70s).

At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living
situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly,
contributing value to their community).

~~~
zealoushacker
So are you effectively saying that a socialist system would not collapse,
because people would to survive and that in less extreme cases, people will
strive to generate more capital...

But, in a socialist system, whom would hire these people who would be on the
brink of survival?

As for the less extreme cases (let's say a mixed economy), whom will pay them
for the creation of value, and who will judge the value created, and who will
thwart value creation through placing incorrect judgments?

Do you see where I am getting with my questions?

~~~
Volpe
No, I'm not sure what you are getting at.

> But, in a socialist system, whom would hire these people who would be on the
> brink of survival?

I'm saying it would never get to that. Just like if you lose your job now, you
don't wait until you "are on the brink of survival" before you find another
job.

>whom will pay them for the creation of value, and who will judge the value
created, and who will thwart value creation through placing incorrect
judgments?

I'm not sure what answer you are looking for here. You are clearly driving to
a point, without actually making it. How about you make it, rather than the
socratic run-around.

> Do you see where I am getting with my questions?

No, I don't. Because you never actually made a statement in your response.

~~~
zealoushacker
First of all, thank you for staying on point and keeping your rational train
of thought. You have been the only one to realize the purpose of my post:
stirring rational discussion about a very difficult issue that deserves
attention from entrepreneurs. Also, thank you for calling me out on the
Socratic run-around and lack of direct statements. Here are my counter-
arguments (and notes of agreement, where possible), one by one.

> I explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that
> are not simulated by grades.

Of course. Everyone has a set of values that they follow through virtuous
action or otherwise, whether they realize it or not. Some seek the values that
ultimately lead them to their demise, others to their success. This does not,
however, preclude that some values are good and others bad for a given
individual. So if achieving good grades were the standard of value in a school
system, then it follows that the driver of success in that context were the
grades. Yes, in the real world, there are other factors (and if grades were
analogous to currency, then the acquisition of wealth is not the only thing
I'd be after - and I'd certainly not be accumulating in fiat currency).

> The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying
> everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a
> complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning
> there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't
> die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat.

Of course in a crash of an economic system, wealth allocated by individuals in
worthless financial instruments (made worthless because their worth had been
sanctioned by fiat) would be wiped out. Those individuals whom will have
invested in other stores of value prior to such a crash would prosper, while
others would live in squalor or perish (with some room for those in other
parts in the middle of the spectrum). Such collapses have happened in the
past, and are likely to happen again. Look at what is going in Europe for some
early warning signs. There's no true socialism anywhere, but there are very
serious attempts at implementing some of the philosophy of socialism. In
places where the attempts are the most honest, the crashes shall be the most
drastic. The places where they are the most honest, are the places most
analogous to the classroom example in the OP piece.

> At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living
> situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly,
> contributing value to their community).

Yes of course in less extreme cases of socialist-like socio-economic systems
(as in the US), those who see the writing on the wall will attempt to improve
their situation - at any cost - and some without even realizing that they are
doing so. I think that many entrepreneurs are in this class.

Now as to the reality of the failures of socialism... and its various
interpretations... is the analogy of the OP piece I posted clear? Does it make
sense, given what I've written above?

~~~
Volpe
It would make more sense, but there are clear examples of socialism working in
various forms, throughout Europe, China, Australia. So when reality counters a
fairly weak and stretched analogy. I am skeptical (to say the least).

Socialism doesn't have to be the huge stifling of wealth.

China is generating wealth with Socialism with Chinese Characteristic™

Australia has highly socialist policies (free health care, study allowance,
subsidised education, pensions, unemployment benefits), yet still boasts a
robust capital-generating society, that has avoided recession (so-far) post
GFC.

There are no "true capitalist" (true being 'everyone is a capitalist')
countries either, because it simply doesn't work. One needs to exploit
something (usually someone) in order to generate capital, and if everyone were
looking to do this, there would be no one to exploit, and thus no surplus
value, no profit, thus no motive for business.

~~~
prodigal_erik
An evenly-weighted average over each student's separate score bakes in a lack
of collaboration or competitive advantage. The most outstanding "producer" was
mathematically barred from compensating for even two poor ones, much less
giving them assistance. This wasn't socialism, but communism (imposed across a
wing of prisoner's dilemma cells), and the author of such a piece ought to
know the difference.

------
angdis
Why is it that libertarians often resort to lame "parable-like" stories to get
their point across? Is there really such a dearth of real, concrete examples
from which to draw?

It might be forgivable if the parables were at least interesting or original.
But this one has been recycled on senior citizen mailing lists for at least a
couple of years now. You can find it splattered all over the Internet wherever
tea partiers like to distribute their propaganda.

~~~
zealoushacker
I am not a libertarian. I am also neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I've
already apologized for the mistake of posting something that doesn't have
attribution and is baseless. Still, I appreciate your input.

------
tptacek
This story is literally the archetype of a bad HN submission. I'm surprised
and disappointed it lasted 13 hours. Of course I flagged it.

~~~
zealoushacker
Never mind, I just read: <http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

FYI: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is
inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag
it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will
see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't
also comment that you did.

~~~
tptacek
I think the "don't comment, just flag" guideline is often counterproductive.
Just look what happened here: my comment got you to read the site guidelines.
You wouldn't have even known I flagged the post.

So, I ignore that particular guideline, and you can feel free to downmod my
comment; I assure you I don't mind.

------
tariqk
If I wanted to read stupid-ass chain letters repeating the same old boring
irrelevant political talking points repeated by the mainstream media I'd be
reading my Facebook feed.

------
bryanlarsen
Only in America could Obama be called a socialist. In most other countries of
the world, his policies and platforms would be considered slightly RIGHT of
center.

A socialist would have:

\- nationalized the banks instead of bailing them out.

\- cut the insurance companies out of health care instead of bringing in a
health care plan very similar to the one proposed by the republicans in the
90s.

\- called for increased taxation on corporations to balance the deficit

\- immediately pulled out of Iraq & Afghanistan.

~~~
zealoushacker
-Bailing banks out and nationalizing them are virtually equivalent. Especially given the bailout terms.

-The proposed (and enacted) health plan _does_ cut out all insurance companies, which don't comply with its terms.

-Increased taxes on the "wealthy" _is_ an indirect tax on the corporations, since it is the "wealthy" which make those corporations possible.

-Why would a socialist pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, when those are good justifications for perpetuating the same policies currently in place?

~~~
MaysonL
_Bailing banks out and nationalizing them are virtually equivalent._

Except for the results for shareholders, bondholders, and executives, all of
whom end up much better off after the bailouts.

~~~
zealoushacker
And with the inclusion of the taxpayers who made the bailouts possible and who
will ultimately pay the highest price.

Yay for corporatism with a socialist twist.

~~~
zealoushacker
Seeing that this got flagged down, simply means to me that the folks who
flagged this comment down have no respect for reality...

------
tzs
Obama's socialism? 30 years ago Obama could have had shot at winning as a
Republican. To call him a socialist is ridiculous.

~~~
zealoushacker
To be more precise, Obama's a corporatist with socialist leanings ;)

~~~
zealoushacker
Why did I get -2 points on this comment? How is this wrong?

------
chx
<http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp> shame on you!

------
ricardobeat
Pointless and biased exercise. Nobody would stop working just to avoid paying
for other people's welfare, and only fools argue for absolute equality.

~~~
johnubis
What people should do and what they actually do, is two separate entities. Try
again.

------
D_Alex
Interesting, but: citation needed.

~~~
alanhenry
Agreed. The whole "experiment" reads like more like a politically-themed chain
letter--the kind you'd get from a particularly eccentric aunt who found their
way onto Facebook--than an actual exercise in sociology.

~~~
johnubis
So its... unlikely? PROBABILISTIC FALLACY, TRY AGAIN.

~~~
Volpe
Do you actually have a point to make, or are you just assisting people in
pointing out Rhetoric? (without calling attention to your own?)

I've responded above with a somewhat sensible view point. How about you
contribute there?

------
zealoushacker
Ok, to those of you whom have responded kindly to my mistake and did not act
like children, thank you.

I wrote this in answer to your honorable requests:
[http://alexnotov.com/post/10752273733/a-mistake-on-my-
part-r...](http://alexnotov.com/post/10752273733/a-mistake-on-my-part-re-last-
post)

