The difference between socialism and capitalism.

I read an article on Facebook today which alleges a Professor of a "local college" instituted a grading scheme based on Obama's Socialism platform. Which was to say he would test this out by assigning everyone in the class the same average grade and that grades declined and ultimately everyone failed.

Aside from the obvious fact that the story is backed by literally nothing to prove it ever actually happened, it is plagued by an even greater problem; it doesn't model socialism, it models communism.

Many conflate the two because both system DO redistribute wealth. But, the primary difference is that socialist states either tax everyone equally, or tax in a tiered system. The end result is that who is the wealthiest doesn't generally change as a direct result of this wealth redistribution. And so, the wealthiest are still have incentive to be wealthy.

Another traditional hallmark of social systems is that the general aim is to benefit society as a whole. Including the wealthy. I'll be the first to admit, these are systems put in place by people and they are imperfect and different elements work to varying degrees.

Education for instance. Without public education, there would still be wealthier and poorer individuals. We can look back to points in history where there was no public education to readily back this. But, what would be lacking is the quality, or value of that wealth. In short, societies have advanced DRASTICALLY as a result of public education. And that advancement has enriched the wealthy immensely. In fact, it has done so disproportionately in their favor even.

So, even if the wealthy choose to pay for private education, they are still the among the biggest winners of the public education system.

Based on this, it should be pretty obvious, the theoretical class average grading does not fit this system. It is a wholesale loss for those who work, and a whole promotion for those least capable.

Of course, to me the amusing part is that if a system like this were implemented, it STILL wouldn't have gone as described. Again, communism isn't some thought experiment, we have a history of it. We know how masses of people behave in these conditions.

In a capitalist or socialist society, those able to make money are motivated to do so because of the benefit of the money. The beneficiaries aren't those who work less than average. Their value is derived from getting more for less. And these people will work the system in other ways; threats, playing to sympathies, working just hard enough to show the actual labourers that they aren't the only ones, etc...

Really, the only difference between communism and capitalism is how value is derived. In capitalism, value is derived from the amount of money you have. In communism, value is derived by investing less effort for the same wages. And both systems require outside forces to sustain them.

In capitalism you need to create a need or a perception of a need to spend. Realistically, most people could with some training and a few tools live off the land and retire in their 20s.

In communism you need to create a need or a perception of a need to work. Without it, things would devolve. But, policing and threats and other methods can keep the masses working just hard enough.

Again this isn't some praise of socialism. It is a flawed system. But, problematically, it isn't as flawed as people perceive it to be. And, many problems would actually be fix by greater socialist investment rather than less. Canadian health care is a prime example. Most experts agree, spending more on certain areas of the health care system would actually decrease overall costs by preventing certain conditions and stopping others from becoming chronic.

To illustrate, ask your mechanic; Is it cheaper to change your oil regularly, or rebuild your engine when it seizes? Changing your oil requires a regular budget of more money but you won't get caught with outsized bill later. And we treat a lot of health care problems that way. We don't pay for the oil changes and so people don't get them (often because they can't afford them). And then the tax payers get stiffed for the medical equivalent of a rebuilt engine.