An anonymous commenter left this post in my blog yesterday evening at 10.49 p.m. in response to my post on THE COLOR OF HATRED. Many thanks to him/her for sharing with us. Do read it and leave a comment if you wish. Thanks and have a nice day.
_____________________________________________________________________
What has Abraham Lincoln and Dr. Adrian Rogers got to do with our failed NEP that UMNO seems to feel is their only lifeline to survival in this globalised world?
Answer:
You cannot take away what little the strong has and simply giving away to the so-called weak to make them strong. Everybody has to work equally hard.
Abraham Lincoln once said "You cannot make the weak strong by making the strong weak!"
An economics professor explains the whole concept of socialism extremely well. When Dr. Adrian Rogers was teaching at a local college, he made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.
There, during an economics lesson, his students had insisted that 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 socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.
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.
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.
All failed, to their great surprise, 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 the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.
The good professor went on to say:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 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 my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
10 comments to ABRAHAM LINCOLN, DR. ADRIAN ROGERS AND THE NEP
-
Unknown Dear Anonymous @ 8.04 p.m.
Thanks for taking the trouble to share the quotations and your ideas.
I think what the other commenter was trying to do is to show the failure of the NEP to make the weak strong and the illogical premises used to forward that plan.
We know the objective of the NEP is solely only wholly for one race but the other reader was trying to point out that no matter how one justifies, it just does not make sense at all.
Take care and thanks for all the trouble you went through to find and share these precious gems with us. Do keep in touch.
Cheers
-
Anonymous "I think what the other commenter was trying to do is to show the failure of the NEP to make the weak strong and the illogical premises used to forward that plan."
I know that. However the arguments on socialism as unworkable and wealth distribution as inherently bad are flawed.
WRT the NEP,from the wiki on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysian_New_Economic_Policy
"The NEP is also criticised for not dealing directly with issues of wealth distribution and economic inequality; that it no longer helps the poor but is instead an institutionalized system of handouts for the largest ethnic community in Malaysia as the NEP does not discriminate based on economic class. Bumiputras of high and low economic standing are entitled to the same benefits. The statistical problems of categorising wealthy and disadvantaged Bumiputras in one group also meant that the NEP's goal of having 30% of the national wealth held by Bumiputras was not indicative of a median 60% of Bumiputras holding 28% of the national wealth, but could theoretically translate into one Bumiputra holding 29% of the national wealth, with the remaining Bumiputras sharing 1%."
-
Unknown Dear Anonymous @ 1.52 a.m.
My apologies for the late publication of your comment as I had an early night.
Thanks so much for your response and the fact that you have taken the trouble to embellish your stand and this post with very relevant views and quotations.
I hope I did not offend you with my statement as I was not implying that you did not understand socialism.
Truth be told, the story posted may not have cohesion or unity in the flow as it is bits and pieces put together like a puzzle that does not quite fit but gives us a picture of what the previous writer was trying to achieve by leaving the tale in my blog.
Being one who admires Karl Marx and is writings, I do agree that some bits of Rogers' take are flawed.
So far, socialism has not really worked in any part of the world - at least not in the way intended by Karl Marx.
I would love to hear your views on socialism and wealth distribution, if you have the time, sir.
Once again, thanks for your insightful contribution too my blog post.
Take care and I hope to hear from you again.
Shalom
-
Anonymous "So far, socialism has not really worked in any part of the world - at least not in the way intended by Karl Marx."
The origins of socialism predate Karl Marx, who is credited with the foundation of communism instead. There are similarities and differences between the two philosophies.
From the wiki on socialism:
"Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended."
"Although socialist models and ideas espousing common ownership have existed since antiquity with the classical Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle, the modern concept of socialism evolved in response to the development of industrial capitalism. Early socialism was seen as an extension of classical liberalism by extending liberty and rights to the industrial economic aspect of life, so that these values were compatible with the then-emerging industrial society."
From thw wiki on communism:
"Communism is a social structure and political ideology in which property is commonly controlled. Communism (written with a capital C) is a modern political movement that aims to overthrow capitalism via revolution to create a classless society where all goods are publicly owned."
""Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."
Whether socialism has worked is a moot point. Here is a map of the members of Socialist International:
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=1780
-
Unknown Dear Anonymous,
Once again, thanks for the clarification of both forms of government. I am aware of the differences but was not referring to the pure form of communism.
I would love to hear your personal views on this because it would help me to hear where you are coming from. Personally, I do not subscribe to communist ideology but I do believe that if carried out properly, socialism is a better form of governance than capitalism or communism.
Yup - the effectiveness of socialism is a popular debating topic, even in my own sociology classes where many of my students, surprisingly prefer socialism to communism/capitalism, not because of me, but upon scrutiny of the characteristics of the two forms of government or philosophies.
I have taught students from both systems and they have offered me first hand accounts of the sufferings/strengths of both. Very interesting indeed - which seems to suggest that there is no one perfect system suitable for mankind because we are imperfect beings or is it because man is too wicked and self-centred by nature?
What then are your personal views, sir/madam? I would love to hear your view. Do you think socialism would ever work in the Asian context?
Some say that the failure of the communist system in many countries is evidence of the greed of man and structural bureaucratic weaknesses...What do you think>
I hope that you can offer me some of your personal views. Looking forward to that.
Have a lovely evening.
Cheers
-
Anonymous Personally, I am in favour for a form of democratic socialism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism
"Democratic socialism is a description used by various socialist movements and organizations, to emphasize the democratic character of their political orientation."
Communism and capitalism are opposite poles in the spectrum of political/economic systems and their philosophies are no longer relevant in the context of the contemporary interdependent global economy/society.
Since the financial crisis of 2008, there is more support, even in the US, for a more socialistic form of government. Unchecked "free market" predatory capitalism is perceived to have created this mess and the whole world is paying for it.
There is a revolutionary recent development in economic philosophy, whereby the economy is considered as an evolutionary complex adaptive system, like the brain, internet or an ecosystem, rather than as a static system, in Eric D. Beinhocker's book, "The Origin of Wealth".
I am a happy pessimist who prepare for the worst, but hope for the best outcome. Don't worry, be happy. :-)
-
Unknown Dear Anonymous @ 9.30 pm
Lovely to hear from you and to know we share the same view.
Whilst democratic socialism seems to be quite attractive, in reality, it would be quite difficult to implement.
I guess I must be like you - prepared for the worst cos I doubt things will get better. To me, there has to be a complete breakdown in the system >>thesis>antithesis>>synthesis like what German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel propogated and extended and adopted by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx referred to them in The Poverty of Philosophy as speaking Greek and "Wooden trichotomies".
Do I know you? Who are you and how may I address you? Just curious. I have this gnawing feeling that I know you...
Take care and have a lovely evening.
Stay cool and happy :-)
-
Heal Dear sir,
I think there is a mistake on text. As far as I know, Mr Adrian Rogers was born in 1931. It's impossible that he "was teaching at a local college" and making the refered experiment in this year.
Does anybody has some information to clear this?
-
Unknown Dear Hello
Thanks for alerting me. That post was left in my blog as a comment and I came across it in another website citing it as 1931. After reading your comment, I surfed the web for information and indeed, he was born in 1931.
I have edited the post and it now reads as When Dr. Adrian Rogers was teaching at a local college...
Thank you so much for highlighting this. I appreciate your kindness and civic consciousness. Take care and do keep in touch.
Best wishes
Anonymous As a counterweight to the facile argument of this post on why socialism will not work, consider the following declaration of principles from Socialist International:
http://www.socialistinternational.org/viewArticle.cfm?ArticleID=31
"Current economic, technological, political and social changes reflect a profound transformation of our world. The fundamental issue we now face is not whether there will be change in future years, but rather who is going to control it and how. The socialist answer is unequivocal. It is the people of the world who should exercise control by means of a more advanced democracy in all aspects of life: political, social, and economic. Political democracy, for socialists, is the necessary framework and precondition for other rights and liberties."
"Democratic socialism is an international movement for freedom, social justice and solidarity. Its goal is to achieve a peaceful world where these basic values can be enhanced and where each individual can live a meaningful life with the full development of his or her personality and talents and with the guarantee of human and civil rights in a democratic framework of society."
"The international challenge is nothing less than the beginning of a new, democratic world society. We cannot allow blocs, nations and private corporations to shape the political structure of the planet as a mere by-product of their own self-interest."
Here is an article by Albert Einstein on
"Why Socialism?" written in 1949:
http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einstein.php
"For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society."
"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights."
Incidentally, the NEP is NOT about socialism. It is an affirmative policy to uplift the economic and social status of one race. Period.