Its not communism though. If theres a rule that snacks aren’t allowed in class. And you open a snack. Then thats capitalism at work. You pay the price of your actions. The price of paying the bribe to the governing body for breaking the rule.
The real question is. What would happen if you said. Yes I do have enough and pulled out a large bag. Would they still allow it.
@Seohn, nah, it’s actually socialism. The wealth of the snack must be evenly redistributed for the sake of the society. After all, the teacher didn’t demand any.
@I Are Lebo, by definition anything that is owned and regulated by the community is socialism. Socialism doesn’t dictate that a redistribution needs to happen. Something like the internet is socialist to an extent.
@Implicit88, any taxpayer public service is socialism. Police, Roadworks, Garbage collection, firefighting. The only one which should be but isn't is medical.
@AussiePatrick, correct. Even k-12 is. But people think socialism is bad. Even communism isn’t inherently bad. Ultimately in a post scarcity economy socialism is a must. But capitalism wont let post scarcity happen since that will be the end of capitalism.
@Seohn, No no, since the teacher didn't say how much you had to share, you give everyone else no more than half of whatever you're being forced to share.
@Implicit88, by definition, your mom is socialism
@I Are Lebo, Its not socialism. It didn’t need to be evenly redistributed. Had he simply not started to eat a snack during class he wouldn’t have to give others any. The only reason he would have to share is because he broke a rule of no food. So its more like a protection from punishment bribe. Or a fee for the use of eating in the class room. Depending on how you look at it. Regardless of if the teacher wanted any or not.
Plus the teacher asked if he brought enough. Meaning thats the price of eating in class. He could have way more than enough. He simply would need to pay the minimum cost. And still have lots left over. Thus not being evenly distributed. Which negates your socialism argument of even distribution.
It isn’t socialism, due to the reason why its being given to others. In this case he has to pay for the use of something.
@Seohn, it can’t be a bribe, the one demanding the food be shared isn’t demanding any for themselves. It’s a forcible distribution of wealth among the lower class, from the haves to the have nots. Textbook socialism.
@I Are Lebo, clever, how long did it take you to come up with that one?
@I Are Lebo, Its a bribe because it would not be forced had he not broken a rule. You keep omitting factual information to paint a narrative. That information is crucial to the reasoning behind why an event or punishment took place.
It’s critical information that completely negates the, its socialism argument.
IE. You want to eat in this room. This is the cost of doing so.
@Seohn, ehhhh. I get where you’re coming from, but I still see it differently.
@I Are Lebo, you see it that way because you hold bias toward socialism. Also because the America way is to get mad and blame others rather than accept punishment for their mistakes. Or you are young.
Another way to look at why the teacher didn’t ask for any of the snacks is to look at the teacher like they are a Judge in court.
The teacher is a judge awarding money that others are suing for payment.
@I Are Lebo, But I do understand your viewpoint. Years ago when I was younger I would have said the same thing and made a joke/argument saying, This aint socialism.
But years of life experiences have taught me how to see the good and bad in everything. And to think about why something happens in “cause and effect” rather than focus on just the effect.
@Seohn, your argument makes no sense. I think a lot of people, yourself included, do not understand what socialism means.
If everyone is allowed to bring outside food into class and most choose to not do so as they will be held liable for any necessary cleanup, that’s one thing. If outside food and drink is not allowed, then the punishment for bringing it is to either have it confiscated or be asked to leave, that’s another situation.
Having someone only be allowed to bring in outside food if they share with everyone is socialism because the class as a unit is held to be more valuable than the individuals rights over private property. It’s not a matter of a rule prohibiting outside food, because the implication is that it is acceptable if it is shared equitably.
I don’t hold a bias against socialism. I live off of government support. Without socialist policies, I’d probably be homeless or living off of my parents money right now. However, you are quite clearly biased in favour of
socialism, with the implication that you think all socialism is is state run capitalism. That’s only a part of what socialism is.
None of the other students are petitioning that the food be shared. The teacher is unilaterally deciding that it is unfair for one student to have their own snacks while the other students go without. Because of this fundamental difference, your judge analogy is invalid. Judges do not have the authority to unilaterally take money from one person and give it to another, based on arguments of inequity.
Furthermore, seeing the “good and bad in everything” doesn’t apply when you ignore the bad. Taking the stance that “socialism is a good thing, it’s just never been done properly” is metaphorically akin to sticking your head in the ground. Socialism does not work. It’s an invalid system that steals resources from those who have it to give it to those who do not, and inevitably collapses because it disincentivizes effort or success.
@Implicit88, the community isn’t the one demanding the snack be shared, the Leadership is.
@I Are Lebo, agreed
@I Are Lebo, “the more the goverment does stuff, the more socialisty it is”
@griffinstorme, yeah, lets totally take the word of a man whose ideology killed hundreds of millions of people. Seems reasonable to me. 😐
@I Are Lebo, *misses the sarcasm in my fake quote*
@griffinstorme, I didn’t even read the quote, and it’s funny that you’d criticize me for ‘failing’ to recognize your sarcasm when you missed the literal sarcasm smilie.
@I Are Lebo, *downvotes and replies directly to a comment*
“I didn’t even read it” #surejan
@griffinstorme, you downvoted both of my comments and replied with an idiotic quote attributed to a moron. Whether or not the quote was true doesn’t matter to me. It was a stupid comment and I pointed out that it was a stupid comment.
There is no point to you being a dick here. You will not anger me.
@I Are Lebo, and yes, I get that it’s disingenuous to simplify Karl Marx to being a ‘moron’, but the ideology he founded led to hundreds of millions dead, and so anyone who reveres Karl Marx is a moron. I simply cut out the middle man.
@I Are Lebo, My argument makes perfect sense if you don’t think of it as the teacher being the government taking it as redistribution. Think of it as protection payment and it makes sense just fine.
Cause and effect. The cause of the effect is the broken rule. In my argument lets assume the reason he was confronted was for opening food in class. No other reason than that.
Would he have had to give up if he opened his back pack and the snack fell out and he immediately put it back in the bag, “and the teacher saw that it fell out accidentally”? If not then the cause for him having to give some to others is because he broke a rule and not for any other reason. Which makes it a punishment.
If the teacher saw it in the bag and made him share even though he never opened it in class or took it out of the bag because he was saving it until lunch. Then yes, the socialism argument would apply.
And if this doesn’t make sense to you. Its because you need to broaden your viewpoint.
@Seohn, no, that’s s valid point. Socialism seeks to redistribute private wealth, not just publicly revealed wealth. It seems kind of like socialism as punishment in a way.
Of course, any time you translate the actions of groups of people to the actions of individuals, it changes the scenario.
It’s fun to think about and argue over, but I concede this one to you.
@I Are Lebo, I definitely see your point of view though. Without a doubt I would’ve called it socialism back when I was in school and someone opened a snack in class. And had to give everyone some.
Im a believer that rules and laws should only exist for a good reason. And I know why the no snack rule is there. But I feel like as long as you don’t leave a mess. Wheres the harm.
However it never occurred to me when I was younger to see what would happen if you actually did bring enough to share with the class when confronted by a teacher who says that.
@Seohn, I’m betting that most teachers would not be happy with a student bringing snacks for everyone. In addition to it being a big disruption, they also may be making a mess.
@I Are Lebo, True. But as someone that finds it interesting to find loop holes. If the option is givin by a teacher to share. It would be interesting to see the surprise if someone actually said, Why yes I do have enough for everyone.
It’s also a product of communism
@Jolee Bindo, Main export, actually
Red is dead
@RamenNinja, better dead than red
Sign me fūck up
@Skateboarding Hippie, +the
@WelI Obviously, a little exited I’m sorry
My kids going to play this one day and then theyll truly understand why i hate communists
DEMOCRACY IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
Do I look like a gift shop