AIBU not understanding Labour's ideology?

[ChristmasSpecial]

This explanation sums up why I simply don't get it.

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Corbyn's vision of socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Corbyn's ideological plan”. All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A…. (substituting grades for £ 's )something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.
The second test average was a D! No one was happy.
When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.
As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.
To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
It could not be any simpler than that.

There are five morals to this story:

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
   

1. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
   

1. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
   

1. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
   

1. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

[VladmirsPoutine]

So you've either name-changed or just now registered to MN to post this. Quite a woolly attempt. 5 days before the election, it seems some parties are getting desperate.

[PaperdollCartoon]

If your statement is what you think Labour's ideology is, you've woefully misunderstood it

[Somerville]

The volume and inanity of these kind of posts is almost starting to become amusing now...

[PaperdollCartoon]

NOONE is saying everyone should have the exact same of everything. Just that the system is skewed so that some people can be very rich, and others can't even feed their children. I'm not anti business or high wages for those who earn them, but I want everyone in the country to have a good basic standard of living as well. Why is this so hard for people to grasp, that everyone should be able to pay their bills and buy enough food?

[SmileEachDay]

I mean, that would work as a brilliant analogy if wealth distribution was in any way that closely tied to how hard people work.

But it's not.

1/10

Next!

[melj1213]

www.snopes.com/college/exam/socialism.asp

The only person who has failed here is the OP - must try harder to troll next time.

[DarkFloodRises]

Are you by any chance a Tory voter who is feeling worried and desperate, OP? This isn't a description of the Labour ideology!

[JeremyCorbynIsFit]

Blah blah blah.

VOTE LABOUR

[Livelovebehappy]

Not sure this example describes it particularly well - I've seen it on quite a few sites. But I do agree Corbyns ideology isn't one I personally subscribe to; for a lot of reasons I'm not going to repeat on here as they've been gone over so many times.

[Eolian]

That example might be relevant if the amount of money people actually earned/received was based on how hard they work. It isn't. The world isn't divided into the hard-working rich and the lazy, undeserving poor.

[AndNowItIsSeven]

Oh this thread again.

[Cocklodger]

Communism isn't the same as socialism.yabu

[waitforitfdear]

All these stupid posts from Tory and labour supporters are equally pathetic and quite frankly a waste because most people know exactly who they are voting for anyway.

At least most of us gobby mumsnetters types do.

[Ankleswingers]

You won't get nowhere here OP.

It's a massively left wing site and so you're opinions and comments will be shot down.

That's how the lefties work. They can say it, but you can't.

You'll be accused of being a troll, TM in disguise etc as from the posts above.

[araiwa]

yabu to copy and paste something you found on facebook

its all crap too

[SmileEachDay]

You won't get nowhere here OP.

It's a massively left wing site and so you're opinions and comments will be shot down.

Or the stupid analogy will be shot down because it doesn't work?

and it's your, but I wouldn't want to be accused of being pedantic or mean to Tory voters

[MotherOfBleach]

You won't get nowhere here OP.

She might if what she was posting held any semblance of reality.

No-where in Labour's manifesto does it say that they want to pool everyone's money together and share it all out equally.

I'm as left as you get and even I wouldn't vote for such ludicrousy.

Those who earn more pay more towards public services to benefit everyone. It's simple really.

As opposed to the Conservatives who get the middle to pay more, cut benefits to those at the bottom, destroy public services but find the money to give tax breaks to those at the top.

[Boynamedsue]

Or the op might just be wrong. And completely misunderstand the labour ideology.

Paying a bit more tax on a 200k salary doesn't mean that you suddenly earn the same as someone on minimum wage. So your analogy makes no sense at all.

[theduchessstill]

Bollocks. Very flawed analogy.

[ToastDemon]

Not this tedious crap again....

[BillSykesDog]

That doesn't entirely work. For example, if had a class of 80 and you told each pupil that a class mate had cancer and couldn't sit their exam because they were ill, and asked them all to give up 1% of their mark so their classmate got a decent pass most would agree because it was unlikely to affect them much, they would still get a grade that reflected their ability and would help someone in real need. That's how the welfare state is supposed to work so in theory it's a very good idea.

I would expand that I thought the problem with Labour currently and in recent history is that a few other students would see that and try the same thing and within a few weeks the same students would be being asked to give up 1% to someone who had a bit of a hurty knee or too many kids to look after or was feeling a bit sad that week too which is why it would fail.

And it ignores the fact that other classes (or countries in this case) might beg the better abled students to join them where they'd lose nothing.

But the fact the model fails when it's in poor hands doesn't mean the model can't ever work.

[Dawnedlightly]

You won't get nowhere here OP

SHE POSTED SOME MADE UP BOLLOCKS! Literally copied and pasted rubbish😂

[20nil]

As I asked you on the other thread, what 'local college' and what professor?