Tags
deception, Economics, fake, history, lies, Philosophy, Politics, propaganda, vulgarity, writing
Sir Afilonius Rex and Vanessa Bell
Bloomsbury, London, 8th November 2025
Calling Bullshit on Fakery
A LinkedIn post by Thorsten Wunde (or “WundeThorsten”) shared a viral anecdote claiming to illustrate why “socialism always fails.” The story presents an economics professor in Sweden. He fails an entire class after averaging the grades to simulate socialist equality. This action leads to widespread laziness and eventual collapse. It concludes with a moral: When half the population realises they can slack off, the nation is in danger. The other half sees no reward for effort. This marks the end of every nation. This tale aims to serve as compelling evidence of socialism’s inherent flaws. However, it is deeply problematic on several levels. It is factually, logically, and empirically flawed. It’s a classic example of a fabricated parable. It is dressed up as real-world evidence. This story has been circulating online since at least 2009. It appears as chain emails and memes, often tied to U.S. politics (e.g., “Obama’s socialism”). Below, we’ll break it down systematically.
It’s Not True: The Story Is a Myth
- No evidence of the event: Claims suggest it “happened in Sweden.” However, fact-checkers such as Snopes, PolitiFact, and Lead Stories have debunked this claim. It is an unsubstantiated urban legend. No Swedish university, professor, or class matches the description. Variants have attributed it to Texas Tech, “a local college,” or even Obama-era U.S. classrooms, but none hold up under scrutiny. The earliest traceable versions date back to 2009. They predate any “Sweden” angle. This narrative has been recycled for over 15 years without a single verifiable source.
- Why the Sweden twist? It leverages the “Nordic model” myth—Sweden as a socialist utopia—to make the punchline land harder. Yet this is ironic: Sweden pursued heavy socialist policies in the 1970s–80s (e.g., nationalisations, top tax rates of 80–90%) and faced economic stagnation, capital flight (notably, IKEA relocated its headquarters), and a crisis in the 1990s. They then pivoted toward free-market reforms (deregulation, privatisation, school vouchers), boosting growth and ranking Sweden 10th on the 2023 Economic Freedom Index (ahead of the U.S. at 25th). Sweden’s success today stems from capitalism with a welfare safety net, not “socialism.”
- Viral mechanics thrive on social media echo chambers, much like the extremism we discussed earlier. It’s shared as “proof” without fact-checking, amplified by algorithms favouring outrage. Reddit’s r/thatHappened and r/socialism routinely mock it as a strawman.
It’s a Strawman: The “Experiment” Misrepresents Socialism
- Socialism isn’t “averaging grades”: Socialism, in Marxist terms, is collective ownership of the means of production (e.g., worker cooperatives running factories democratically). Even democratic socialism (e.g., Bernie Sanders’ vision) focuses on public control of key industries, universal services, and progressive taxation—not forcing equal outcomes regardless of effort. The story conflates this with crude egalitarianism, overlooking incentives such as social recognition, intrinsic motivation, or group accountability.
- Flawed analogy to economics: Grades aren’t wealth. In a real economy, “averaging” would be akin to hyper-redistribution, but socialism doesn’t eliminate markets or personal incentives—it redirects them (e.g., through profit-sharing co-ops). The story assumes zero-sum scarcity, but economies grow through innovation and cooperation, not just individual striving. Psychologists note “social compensation” in groups: High performers often help slackers to lift the collective, especially if the reward (e.g., class success) is valued.
- Predictable outcome by design: Of course, effort drops if you punish excellence and reward mediocrity; that’s not testing socialism; it’s rigging a zero-incentive game. A fairer “experiment” might involve averaging grades after progressively taxing top performers (like Nordic models), while funding tutoring for underperformers, potentially raising the overall average through collaboration.
It Oversimplifies Real-World Evidence
- Socialism’s “failures” are contextual: Full command economies (e.g., USSR, Maoist China) collapsed due to authoritarianism, poor planning, and external pressures—not just “laziness.” However, mixed systems with socialist elements have succeeded: Cuba’s literacy/healthcare outpace those of the U.S. despite sanctions; Vietnam’s market-socialist reforms have lifted millions out of poverty. Even China’s hybrid model drives global growth.
- Capitalism’s own incentives fail: The story’s logic indicts unchecked capitalism too—when CEOs reap billions while workers stagnate, why strive? U.S. inequality (top 1% hold 32% of wealth) breeds resentment and low productivity. Behavioural economics shows humans respond to fairness, not just rewards; experiments like the Ultimatum Game reveal people reject “unfair” gains.
- Mental health parallel: As we discussed, social media surfaces extremes by rewarding outrage (likes for “gotcha” posts like this). It amplifies simplistic narratives, ignoring nuance—such as how welfare states reduce poverty without undermining motivation (e.g., Denmark’s 80% employment rate).
Key Flaws in a Table for Clarity
| Flaw Type | Description | Why It Undermines the Claim |
|---|---|---|
| Factual | Fabricated story; no Swedish incident. | Relies on fiction, not evidence—erodes credibility. |
| Logical | Strawman: Averages outcomes, ignores socialist principles like democratic control. | Proves a distorted version fails, not the real thing. medium.com |
| Empirical | Ignores successful hybrids (Nordics post-reform); capitalism has incentive failures, too. | Cherry-picks to fit ideology, not data. |
| Rhetorical | Emotional appeal to “laziness” and resentment. | Manipulates biases; dodges complex trade-offs like inequality vs. security. |
Bottom Line
This post doesn’t “show why socialism always fails.” It peddles a debunked myth to score ideological points. This is much like the extremist opinions social media amplifies. Real debates on economic systems require nuance: pure socialism struggles with innovation, while pure capitalism struggles with equity. Hybrids (e.g., social democracies) often outperform extremes by striking a balance between incentives and solidarity. If the goal is learning, we should focus on actual experiments. We can study why Sweden abandoned heavy socialism for a market-based approach.
For a deeper dive, check out Johan Norberg’s Scandinavian Unexceptionalism. It debunks the “socialist Sweden” trope while affirming the country’s capitalist roots.
What do you think? Does this change how you view these viral “lessons”?
Thank you for reading and for being a critical thinker.
You may also like:
GOOD STRATEGY 