T Nation

Socialism in College

I just read this on another forum. It’s kind of corny, but I liked it.

[i]Bart was a college student who was taking a course taught by an avowed socialist. He didn’t know much about socialism - it never really crossed his mind. Bart was a football player, it was football season, and Bart didn’t have as much time as he’d like to spend on his studies, so his classes suffered in the Fall.

One day the professor gave a writing assignment to everyone in the class. Everyone was to write a paper with the same title, “From Each, According to His Ability, To Each, According to His Need” (the classic statement of the socialist). Everyone began working on the assignment.

There was another student in the class, Joe, who was a strong socialist. Joe was very delighted about the assignment, and he was anxious to begin. Joe went home and worked vigorously on his paper. He read several books and articles, interviewed some socialist authors and experts, included many footnotes and a great bibliography, and followed the college’s research paper style guide perfectly.

When Joe received his paper, he was astonished to see a “C+” grade. Joe immediately stormed up to the professor and demanded an explanation for a grade that was far below Joe’s expectation. The professor replied, “Joe, you should be very proud of your paper. It was exceptional. Bart, who sits in the back by the door, when he attends class, didn’t do so well. So I gave Bart some of your credits to give you both a C+. You know, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”
[/i]

Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

Love it!

Saw that coming, and I loved it. Socialists fail to realize we live in an imperfect world.

HAHA nice. Loved it.

[quote]tedro wrote:
I just read this on another forum. It’s kind of corny, but I liked it.
[/quote]

True story (I work at a university). One of my colleagues is a Marxist literary critic by day. He sees no contradiction in the fact that he is partner in a small real estate business on the side. Yep, in his off hours he’s a slum lord to students…

Fucking win.

I’m so printing this up to show to a few people…

Is it just me or are college professors overwhelmingly socialists propaganda spewing propaganda spewers.

[quote]jj-dude wrote:
tedro wrote:
I just read this on another forum. It’s kind of corny, but I liked it.

True story (I work at a university). One of my colleagues is a Marxist literary critic by day. He sees no contradiction in the fact that he is partner in a small real estate business on the side. Yep, in his off hours he’s a slum lord to students…

[/quote]

If you see a contradiction, you aren’t familiar enough with marxist theory

[quote]Aleksandr wrote:
jj-dude wrote:
tedro wrote:
I just read this on another forum. It’s kind of corny, but I liked it.

True story (I work at a university). One of my colleagues is a Marxist literary critic by day. He sees no contradiction in the fact that he is partner in a small real estate business on the side. Yep, in his off hours he’s a slum lord to students…

If you see a contradiction, you aren’t familiar enough with marxist theory[/quote]

If you do see a contradiction then you are most likely sane.

[quote]Scrotus wrote:
Is it just me or are college professors overwhelmingly socialists propaganda spewing propaganda spewers. [/quote]

Most profs accepted the idea that social systems can be controlled and planned out. Hence, they become socialists.

They got this from earlier mathematicians and physicists who indeed could make predictions that were accurate. “Well, if they can do it, so can we!!” Human societies are somewhat controllable, but they are also chaotic due to human innovation and creativity, their models are faulty. They then, of course, resort to brute force (like in the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany) because change keeps disrupting their 5 year plans.

Socialism is pure evil because it must become a tyranny.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Socialism is pure evil because it must become a tyranny.
[/quote]

I respectfully disagree. Socialism isn’t evil because it must become a tyranny, for even a non-tyrannical socialist ‘paradise’ is a horrible concept.

The idea behind pure socialism, at its root, is that those who are born with greatness should and will be willing to happily share that greatness, to the point that they are no longer great at all, but mediocre. It is also built on the concept that all people will maximize there potential for the good of society.

The fact is, that even in a socialist ‘paradise’ entirely comprised of a middle class, people would still despise the system. Tyranny of the majority is not technically tyranny, but it is evil none the less.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Socialism is pure evil because it must become a tyranny.

I respectfully disagree. Socialism isn’t evil because it must become a tyranny, for even a non-tyrannical socialist ‘paradise’ is a horrible concept.

The idea behind pure socialism, at its root, is that those who are born with greatness should and will be willing to happily share that greatness, to the point that they are no longer great at all, but mediocre. It is also built on the concept that all people will maximize there potential for the good of society.

The fact is, that even in a socialist ‘paradise’ entirely comprised of a middle class, people would still despise the system. Tyranny of the majority is not technically tyranny, but it is evil none the less.[/quote]

I think we are both correct, you philosophically and me sociologically. Socialist systems sacrifice those who are its best for the benefit of those who are its worst. The horrible part is that they do so under the guise of benevolence.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I think we are both correct, you philosophically and me sociologically. Socialist systems sacrifice those who are its best for the benefit of those who are its worst. The horrible part is that they do so under the guise of benevolence.[/quote]

And what of those who are born to the best and born to the worst?

A child born to the best can be worse than a child born to the worst, and yet the child born to the best will be put at an incredible advantage compared to the child born to the worst, even though that second child is better.

“Socialist” policies such as public education and low-tuition for college/university helps to ensure that those who are great become great, and those who are not do not.

A child born to “the worst” should not suffer severe disadvantage because they lost the uterus lottery.

That makes about as much sense as selecting the Olympic Team based on the children of the Olympic medalists of the 60’s.

ElbowStrike

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I think we are both correct, you philosophically and me sociologically. Socialist systems sacrifice those who are its best for the benefit of those who are its worst. The horrible part is that they do so under the guise of benevolence.

And what of those who are born to the best and born to the worst?

A child born to the best can be worse than a child born to the worst, and yet the child born to the best will be put at an incredible advantage compared to the child born to the worst, even though that second child is better.

“Socialist” policies such as public education and low-tuition for college/university helps to ensure that those who are great become great, and those who are not do not.

A child born to “the worst” should not suffer severe disadvantage because they lost the uterus lottery.

That makes about as much sense as selecting the Olympic Team based on the children of the Olympic medalists of the 60’s.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

…Public education is hardly a ‘socialist’ policy. Capitalism is just as much about equal opportunity as it is about property.

Two men with the same intelligence and same work ethic, in theory, should have about the same chances of being successful in America. That isn’t Socialism.

We’re talking about a command economy here, in which the tax rate is >50%, most likely 100%.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
“Socialist” policies such as public education and low-tuition for college/university helps to ensure that those who are great become great, and those who are not do not.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

No, they ensure that society gets new worker bees/factors of production.

Greatness has nothing to do with it.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
I think we are both correct, you philosophically and me sociologically. Socialist systems sacrifice those who are its best for the benefit of those who are its worst. The horrible part is that they do so under the guise of benevolence.

And what of those who are born to the best and born to the worst?

A child born to the best can be worse than a child born to the worst, and yet the child born to the best will be put at an incredible advantage compared to the child born to the worst, even though that second child is better.

“Socialist” policies such as public education and low-tuition for college/university helps to ensure that those who are great become great, and those who are not do not.

A child born to “the worst” should not suffer severe disadvantage because they lost the uterus lottery.

That makes about as much sense as selecting the Olympic Team based on the children of the Olympic medalists of the 60’s.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

What subsidized college tuition unquestionably does is providing more college graduates than are needed by the market and those that graduate are in the wrong areas of expertise.

All funded with stolen money.

If that helps even one person that is truly gifted remains questionable, but that it is a giant waste of resources is a given.

[quote]orion wrote:
What subsidized college tuition unquestionably does is providing more college graduates than are needed by the market and those that graduate are in the wrong areas of expertise.[/quote]

So investing in education is a waste.

Why don’t we privatize high school as well? Middle school? Elementary?

Then the working class and their subhuman spawn stay at the “level” where they belong, eh?

A few years back there was a groundbreaking global economic report showing that every dollar a nation invests in education creates a 7% return on economic growth.

If those that graduate are in the wrong area of expertise, then shift your government funding to the areas that need it. In North America that’s skilled labour, so fund trades programs more and academic programs less.

Or, we could leave it up to the “free market”, keep the populace dumber and even more under-educated than they already are. Sounds like a great recipe for any nation’s standard of living.

[quote]
All funded with stolen money.[/quote]

So are the roads, police, fire, grades 1-12, and the military. What was the point of that comment?

Hardly. College graduates climb the corporate ladder faster and become more productive workers and higher earners in the long run than people who entered the work force right out of high school.

The fastest out of those being philosophy and math graduates. The two most apparently “useless” degrees out there.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:
orion wrote:
What subsidized college tuition unquestionably does is providing more college graduates than are needed by the market and those that graduate are in the wrong areas of expertise.

So investing in education is a waste.

Why don’t we privatize high school as well? Middle school? Elementary?

Then the working class and their subhuman spawn stay at the “level” where they belong, eh?

A few years back there was a groundbreaking global economic report showing that every dollar a nation invests in education creates a 7% return on economic growth.

If those that graduate are in the wrong area of expertise, then shift your government funding to the areas that need it. In North America that’s skilled labour, so fund trades programs more and academic programs less.

Or, we could leave it up to the “free market”, keep the populace dumber and even more under-educated than they already are. Sounds like a great recipe for any nation’s standard of living.

All funded with stolen money.

So are the roads, police, fire, grades 1-12, and the military. What was the point of that comment?

If that helps even one person that is truly gifted remains questionable, but that it is a giant waste of resources is a given.

Hardly. College graduates climb the corporate ladder faster and become more productive workers and higher earners in the long run than people who entered the work force right out of high school.

The fastest out of those being philosophy and math graduates. The two most apparently “useless” degrees out there.[/quote]

Yes, investing in education can be a waste.

The world needs only so many social sciences majors and a lot more chemists, biologists, engineers and so on.

Subsidize education and people will tend to learn what they want and not what they need to pay their college loan back.

Their free to study whatever they want of course, but why on the taxpayers money?

You are completely right that a lot of BS is financed by the taxpayer that should not be, but how is that a point for wasting even more money?

I also do not get how what you judge to be useless subjects or not is part of this discussion, nor do I think that being a corporate drone equals greatness so why try to argue that the two are the same?

Also, if you look at it form a financial point of view, lots of people never earn so much money that they make up for the years they spent in college.

Compound interest can be a bitch , especially when the first view years are simply missing.

Finally, you believe that a thing is done by the government or not done at all.

Au contraire, if there is a demand the market will provide it faster, better and cheaper, if not, there never should have been a government program in the first place.

[quote]ElbowStrike wrote:

And what of those who are born to the best and born to the worst?[/quote]

What do you define and the best and the worst? I assume you are referring to the finances? [quote]

A child born to the best can be worse than a child born to the worst, and yet the child born to the best will be put at an incredible advantage compared to the child born to the worst, even though that second child is better.[/quote]

Fun with words? Quality parenting is better then wealthy parents. But it should be pointed out that research has actually found an inverse correlation between success and financial help from parents. The worst thing a rich (or even not rich) parent can do is to give money to their child.

Also, last I knew, 90% of millionaires in America are first generation, meaning they were not just given the money. They had to earn it.

But are you saying that those who are not great cannot become great? That they are incapable of learning greatness?

Now let me pose a question. Who appreciates college more? The person who worked 2 jobs to pay for it, or the person who was given it, either by wealthy parent, or socialist program? There is meaning to the term �??earned a college degree.�??[quote]

A child born to “the worst” should not suffer severe disadvantage because they lost the uterus lottery.[/quote]

Where you start has no relation to where you end up. My in-laws were life long welfare recipients. They never had any money ever. They have a son who has become a physicist, and a daughter who has become a successful Nurse. (Currently re-attending school to become a Nursing instructor.)

The problem with the lottery analogy is the assumption that it is the only way to make money. Problem is many fools have squandered enough money on lotteries that properly invested they could have been wealthy.[quote]

That makes about as much sense as selecting the Olympic Team based on the children of the Olympic medalists of the 60’s.

ElbowStrike[/quote]

I really do not understand this leap in logic here. Seriously, going from uterus lotteries to picking Olympic teams… I seriously do not know how to properly discuss this because it is so off the wall.

[quote]orion wrote:
What subsidized college tuition unquestionably does is providing more college graduates than are needed by the market and those that graduate are in the wrong areas of expertise.

ElbowStrike wrote:
So investing in education is a waste.[/quote]

Where exactly does this leap in logic come from? Oh yeah, public education.

Not subsidizing is different then not investing. Also if you have seen some of these schools, many are subsidizing alcoholism and Toga parties. (Toga, toga, toga.)

Yes yes yes. Agree fully. Give my child an education instead of an indoctrination.

Fascinating, who programmed your mind? Problem is I see the current public education system doing exactly what you are trying to speak against. Creating a group of people who cannot think for themselves. To follow the group, and become part of the collective. To be good little workers.[quote]

A few years back there was a groundbreaking global economic report showing that every dollar a nation invests in education creates a 7% return on economic growth.[/quote]

Reference please. (Having trouble finding it, and thought it would be easy to find.) There is no doubt that investing in education is good, and benefits an economy. But education is not just about money. It is also not just about that piece of paper called a degree.

You can actually get knowledge without a degree. Maybe you can’t become a Doctor without one, but you can sure as hell start a Billion dollar company without one.[quote]

If those that graduate are in the wrong area of expertise, then shift your government funding to the areas that need it. In North America that’s skilled labour, so fund trades programs more and academic programs less.

Or, we could leave it up to the “free market”, keep the populace dumber and even more under-educated than they already are. Sounds like a great recipe for any nation’s standard of living.[/quote]

But right now if you have no money, (in America) you get your college for free. Why should there by any under-educated people here? But there still are. Why?

People choose to be uneducated. “It’s too hard.” Too many of these people were trained not to learn, or to hate learning by our terrible education system. We do not learn from our teachers, we learn in spite of them.

All the uneducated morons I have known seem to have one thing in common, they actually believe in far left and socialist ideas.[quote]

orion wrote:
All funded with stolen money.

ElbowStrike wrote:
So are the roads, police, fire, grades 1-12, and the military. What was the point of that comment?

orion wrote:
If that helps even one person that is truly gifted remains questionable, but that it is a giant waste of resources is a given.

ElbowStrike wrote:
Hardly. College graduates climb the corporate ladder faster and become more productive workers and higher earners in the long run than people who entered the work force right out of high school.

The fastest out of those being philosophy and math graduates. The two most apparently “useless” degrees out there.[/quote]

Math useless? Not in the slightest.

Nobody is arguing against education. Why do you think just because somebody doesn’t think education should be free, that it means they are completely against education?

I am for some government support of education. But I also believe people need to pay for at least part of it. When a person works his ass off to pay for an education, that person often loses interest in playing hookey.