I’ve seen this type of comment a lot on the internet and real life as an analogy against socialism...

Further-furthermore, a teacher couldnt do this. Even if no one stopped them, the class rank would reveal that the class was exceptionally equal. I guess it is just supposed to be an analogy.
Okay, now that Im done just writing to write, to nitpick, to read myself, etc…
Alright, so firstly, (to my knowledge) no socialist society has ever existed like this. Socialism isnt when everyone gets the same. Socialists are for the returning of value to the workers, not taking value from one worker to give to another. No one is going to redistribute a workers wages to another worker. This analogy is "correct", but it doesnt apply to Socialism. This is enough to completely dismiss the analogy on its own, so the rest of this is just for fun.
Lets say we did give everyone's wages to eachother in a society, and pay everyone equally. What if we simply didn't pay people who didn't meet a certain threshold of labor? Or, what if we paid people for the average, but only an average wage for each hour. We could even factor in intensity. So lets take the 18000 PPP dollars BBC gives for the average world wage.
bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040
So, simply, we would pay everyone 18000 dollars, but what if we knew how many hours of work met up with this 18000? From there, we could assign a "value per hour" produced. We could take that and multiply it by the hours you work and we could have an average wage, inequality accounted for! We could even take or quantify an "intensity". Some people work harder than others, so we could keep track of this by mutiplying any hours by the intensity of them. If someone was lazy and did half the work expected of them, the hours would be counted as half hours. If someone did two hours of work in an hour, we would multiply the hour by 2. So now, using an average wage per hour, we have developed a much more fair and unequal distribution of wages that would probably be more satisfying for people. How would a system like this work economically though? I suppose wages would always be adjusted for inflation? It wouldnt really matter how goods were exchanged if we paid people in this direct income/laborers. How would a system like this function if more people worked harder than was expected! Imagine that people worked harder than there was the value to be redistributed according to effort? Would that even be possible due to work producing value? Really makes you think.

Now, this really, really interests me, and brings up another failure of this analogy that I hadnt thought of, but this is the average INCOME of people.By the way, I wouldn't be surprised if all this was very wrong. The article didnt seem sure, and it seems like the PPP number is based on one groups calculations. Furthermore, it seems likely that accurate income data probably does not exist.
When you consider the value generated by workers but stolen for Capitalists in the form of property, stock, etc… marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18
This article says if you look at the funds invested in derivatives it is in the quadrillions. Look, for any of you who understand exponents.
A billion is a 10^9, while a quadrillion is a 10^16!
Thats 10 *10*10*10*10*10*10 more than a billion!
It's 10,000,000 times more!
It's ten 100,000 times more! Its a veritable fuckload!
So, if we changed nothing about the capitalist system, and simply distributed income, we would end up in a strange, low wage. How much will we be taking from these funds though? Seriously, consider how much value will be returned when we take it back from these technically-not-money^TM funds? I dont know how you would calculate this, but if only a quadrillion of these funds existed, only 7% would need to be redistributed to DOUBLE the average world income. Check it yourself, type in to google "70 trillion divided by a quadrillion". Multiply that by 100 to get the percent. Nuts.
Alright, Im done posting now. Ive posted enough rambly and stupid bullshit to make a whole book of stupid bullshit.

Its more like this.
There are students that are born with As.
The rest could afford a private school amd connections and got Bs.
The most you can get is a C but youll most likely get a D if you study and if you fail youll get an F.

Or they just reply with "yes".

give them a b

b for baboon

b for butthole

Socialism doesn't mean equality of outcome. It is possible to implement a system of incentives without private property. Pretty much every socialist country rewarded hard work. You can have a multiplier on labor vouchers, or an extra vacation, or a nicer housing view. You simply won't be able to use your earnings to buy a factory and start making profits off the backs of workers.

It's also obvious that whoever writes these has never studied outside of American high school. Many places of higher learning don't grade. At some point people stop being children and start studying just for the sake of it, not for a sticker from the teacher.

Here's how the analogy works with capitalism: one kid makes other kids do assignments for him and gets an A, while others don't have the time to do their own assignments and get low grades. But the teacher ignores it and instead heaps praise on the cheater for working hard and making the average grade go up.

hue

Attached: yeet.jpeg (719x596, 46.33K)

Because they are idealists. Reality and fantasy is inseparable to them.

these little analogies anti-communists use go to show that they don't understand what communism is and is on the same level as liberals who compare politics to harry potter and game of thrones

It's a fallacy of "equality of outcome."
Socialists advocate that pay correspond to productive labor, not that everyone is paid the same regardless of labor. You can argue against "equality of outcome" in a million different ways and be right, but it's almost always a strawman being used to attack a belief which has nothing to do with it.

The same argument is used to go after socdems - basically capitalism with a large public sector and services provided via tax revenue. Again, a strawman. The goal there is to raise standards of living and provide exactly the equality of opportunity which those railing against it attempt to contrast it with.

That's one absurdity of the analogy - it could also be used to attack charity. Either food drives are totally, woefully inadequate, or they are demoralizing the poor and making them lazy because they don't have to work harder in order to not starve to death. Can you imagine how awful it would be if everyone in the entire world could afford food? No one would ever do anything!

There were nomadic hunter-gatherer societies in which every member of the community enjoyed what was available - housing, food, etc. and ultimately all for less work than workers perform today. And because they didn't have industry or agriculture or any of that, the actual sum product of their labor was likely less than the wealth produced in factories or on farms - but they received more of it, even in these societies where scarcity was actually a real threat.

Wow it's just like mainstream economics!

I like how these strawman arguments against socialism always apply far better to capitalism.

I like how he basically invoked surplus value. So close yet so far.

Is there any ideologies that actually advocate for equal distribution like this strawman argument?

Utopian socialism

This is what happens when you watch and read too much fantasy and capeshit

You shouldn't, it's astroturfing meant to spread propaganda online, these kinds of forums can't be radicalized to our side.

In that case they have opened themselves up to a pretty easy btfoing/looking ignorant or revealed themselves to not really be worth discussing politics with - a win win