Is Socialism is for Arrogant Bullies?

reply to post by tothetenthpower

Your analysis is inherently flawed in the sense that you expect some folks to work harder than others. This breakdown that your are discussing is hypothetical an would not take place in at truly well organized and well operated socialist economy.

The flaw is not the O.P.'s it is yours. Some people do work harder than others, this is so now, and this has been so since time immemorial, and the best you can offer to declare the O.P.'s argument a "flaw" is by calling it a hypothetical and then rich with irony turn around and offer up your own hypothetical. In this hypothetical you offer up no reasonable argument as to how the hypothetical "well operated socialist economy" would overcome the fact that some people do work harder than others, but merely ask us to accept that you are correct.

The Peter Principle states that people rise to a level of incompetency, meaning that people given more and more authority will eventually be given more authority than they can handle. This is why later in your argument you make the point that if everyone is not "doing their fair share" the system would fall apart, and it will fall apart under your paradigm because "doing their fair share" will include be given more authority than they can handle.

Your pipe dream of hybrid complexities are the same sort of pipe dreams that people have advocated for centuries, all of them leading to closed systems, and it is demonstrably so that all closed systems tend towards entropy.

Imposed complexities is a foolish paradigm as complexities will arise with or without any imposition of them. The freer the market the more open the market the less tendency towards entropy.

Originally posted by kozmo
Here is another metaphor:
..The second test rolls around and those who received worse grades than there performance work even harder to ensure that they increase their score. However, those who received a "C" or below during the last test study and prepapre even less. The results are again, predictable. This time, most of the "A" and "B" students get "A's" but the majority of the "C", "D" and "F" students simply get "D's" and "F's". Again, true to the deal, the professor averages the grades and determines that the class get's a "D".

we're the problem.. not they system then.
you're example was perfect.. even though the 'A' students know that they will be hurt by the 'C' ones.. they study for their own improvement rather than working with the lower graded students, finding what they're stuck on and having everyone do better. (which would be what they would do if they were socialists anyway)
that's still capitalist thinking (not to mention a flawed thought that less intelligent people are just lazy)

the thought process has to be different for socialism to work. i don't believe you can just change things overnight and make socialism work on large scale. not because of any flaw of the system, but for flaws of the people like the examples you and the OP showed with how a lot of us currently act/think.
i think it can work perfectly fine on smaller scale communities with like-minded individuals though. maybe eventually spreading out and succeeding elsewhere afterwards, but not all at once.

reply to post by CaticusMaximus


Well it sounds like to me you are bitter towards no advancement. Im sorry for that.

But, hard work and determination, do pay off in the long run. Hell, it is not going to happen overnight. Your angry reply makes you sound very liberal ..

You only get back .. what you put in.