This analogy is so true!

[The Alma Mater]

Does anyone know that this story appeared on Conservapedia?

Of course. I wrote most of conservapedia.

Which, considering my beliefs, says alot about that site

[Maurepas]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

^This.

QFT...The trick is, when you do all that shit and you end up still workin at a dead-end job, and in mountains of Debt...

[Risottia]

No, it is not.

It's a true analagy. How isn't it?

1.Analogies cannot be "true" or "false". They can be either "pertinent", or not, "useful" or not. Then again, analagies might be something different, definition pending of course.

2.Assuming that's meant to be an analogy about the difference between capitalism and socialism/communism, well, it fails at it. Because in school you aren't working to get grades in exchange (as if you were working to get money in exchange); you're paying (either directly or through taxes) to get education in exchange.

[KneelBeforeZod]

The better analogy - though not as much fun for our capitalist friends - would be not giving up a point from her GPA but giving some of her time to tutor her friend.

Tutoring her friend is acceptable, and part of my idea of ideal capitalism: reward hard work, discourage laziness, give those who have difficulties a hand UP (NOT a hand OUT), take care of ONLY those people who CANNOT take care of themselves.

But socialism means, not tutoring her friend to help her raise her GPA, but redistributing GPA points so that everybody has the same GPA, regardless of their performance or effort; as a result, before very long, people will realize that their effort makes no difference in their individual GPA, since it all gets redistributed, so they will quit studying, and their GPAs will go down, thus lowering the overall GPA point pool so that there are fewer GPA points to go around, and EVERYBODY suffers, even those few who still persevere in studying.

And THAT is wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

The better analogy - though not as much fun for our capitalist friends - would be not giving up a point from her GPA but giving some of her time to tutor her friend.

Tutoring her friend is acceptable, and part of my idea of ideal capitalism: reward hard work, discourage laziness, give those who have difficulties a hand UP (NOT a hand OUT), take care of ONLY those people who CANNOT take care of themselves.

But socialism means, not tutoring her friend to help her raise her GPA, but redistributing GPA points so that everybody has the same GPA, regardless of their performance or effort; as a result, before very long, people will realize that their effort makes no difference in their individual GPA, since it all gets redistributed, so they will quit studying, and their GPAs will go down, thus lowering the overall GPA point pool so that there are fewer GPA points to go around, and EVERYBODY suffers, even those few who still persevere in studying.

And THAT is wrong.

So is creating strawman versions of a position and claiming they are meaningful.

Some people do it anyway. *shrugs*

[United Marktoria]

Haha. Even though I prefer a mix between the two, I still find this analogy fairly clever.

[Conserative Morality]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

[Vectrova]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETO3-MxMe2Q

I'll just leave this here...


Anyway, I'll concur with the people who actually recognize the analogy as flawed: too simple, misrepresents both ideologies in question, and only works if the reader remains willfully ignorant of the first two. Socialism doesn't put everyone down or make them 'equally poor', it helps out the people who work hard but don't get what they deserve. No socialist would seriously advocate 'welfare queens' and other such nonsense because it's a contradiction of the ideology.

So the short version is that people get demonized ideas of socialism stuck in their heads, rarely if ever educate themselves about it, and make up vindications for their beliefs (like this analogy). Kinda sad really.

[Kalasparata]

Go to bed, and enjoy your Sunday.

I wish!

[Natapoc]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

[Natapoc]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

[New Amerik]

I think the real solution here is, no matter what the ideology is, find a way to get yourself at the top of the pile. It doesn't matter who you have to hurt or take down, the only thing that matters is that YOU come out ahead.


This would the perfect way to succeed, except for the fact that everyone else is trying to do it as well. So, I subscribe fully to any ideology that makes other people not think this way.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

[Natapoc]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

[Collective Systems]

Yeah, the analogy might be true for every hundred people per one-hundred million.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

[Natapoc]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

I think you still don't understand socialism... The workers get to decide these things democratically because the workers are the collective OWNERS of the place they work. There is no boss (under socialism) although in some types of socialism you would elect your "boss" who would assume boss like duties.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

I think you still don't understand socialism... The workers get to decide these things democratically because the workers are the collective OWNERS of the place they work. There is no boss (under socialism) although in some types of socialism you would elect your "boss" who would assume boss like duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm The best book ever written by a dem-socialist.

[Collective Systems]

Stalin wasn't a communist, he was a self-proclaimed bastard who reflected nothing off of communism. So don't you even compare thee two.

[Christmahanikwanzikah]

In alternate universe she kills her father,takes over the collage builds industrial base in the basement and then with thousands of followers takes over the capital and calls herself the new Empress of Terran Empire,how about that?

...

Well, fuck, thanks for spoiling a possible plotline for Starcraft.

[Natapoc]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

I think you still don't understand socialism... The workers get to decide these things democratically because the workers are the collective OWNERS of the place they work. There is no boss (under socialism) although in some types of socialism you would elect your "boss" who would assume boss like duties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm The best book ever written by a dem-socialist.

Am I insane or is this conversation incoherent?

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

If only capitalism actually worked that way I'd be all for it.

Unfortunately the analogy oversimplifies capitalism to the point where it's problems are removed by comparing them to grades.

If capitalism resulted in a person getting what they worked for it would be called socialism.

Uhu. No, it really wouldn't.

Pure socialism is worker ownership and management of the means of production. This means workers get the real products of their labor. So yes under socialism people get what they work for. Under capitalism they get what the employer can get away with paying them.

What would you as a socialist do?

I'm an anarcho-communist.

Not a socialist. But real socialism tends to reward workers with the full benefit of their labor. Instead of that money going to management it goes directly to them and they get to decide democratically how their workplace is run and how they are paid.

Wow, nice. I'll go into the hotel, book a room and demand that they refurbish the whole hotel.
P.S Look at the small print before signing and you'll be alright. Don't be afraid of joining unions, if a mean boss fires you, you'd be better off without him, anyway.

I'm really unsure how that relates to what I said? Did you intend to reply to someone else?

I think you still don't understand socialism... The workers get to decide these things democratically because the workers are the collective OWNERS of the place they work. There is no boss (under socialism) although in some types of socialism you would elect your "boss" who would assume boss like duties.

The bosses are shareholders, who don't earn money unless they sell their shares.Plus, workers are employees, not bosses. You can't pop up in Buckingham Palace and order HM about.Both of you are interdependent, and if he loses workers, he won't get any good.

[Tubbsalot]

This thread makes me embarrassed for so many people, the OP having the largest share of my pity.

[Collective Systems]

The bosses are shareholders, who don't earn money unless they sell their shares.Plus, workers are employees, not bosses. You can't pop up in Buckingham Palace and order HM about.Both of you are interdependent, and if he loses workers, he won't get any good.

I'm sorry, but you know nothing of socialism, communism, etc. You might want to study up first before trying to prove a well-accepted ideology completely wrong.