The little red hen

[Edric O]

I came across this interesting political fable while surfing the internet. And you'll see what makes it so interesting after you read it - it's one of the best allegorical explanations of how our world works.

You have no doubt heard the story of "the little red hen". Some conservative pundit repeats it every so often. The story may be boiled down as follows. The little red hen is hungry and wants to bake herself a cake. She goes around to the other barnyard animals asking for help, which no one gives. Then when the time comes to enjoy the product of her own labor, everyone in the barnyard wants a piece. The conservative uses this tale to justify the deprivations of the poor - on the basis that they have "earned" their position through their laziness. The well-to-do on the other hand, have likewise "earned" their material prosperity through their own "hard work".

The moral lesson of the story is simple enough, and not really very debatable. The problem for the conservative is that it has very little to do with corporate capitalism. In fact, this very same fable can be used to turn the tables on conservative apologists for corporate capitalism. You see, the conservative makes important assumptions in the story that aren?t valid.

Notice something really interesting about the story. Whose oven is it? Does it belong to the little red hen, or is it available to everyone in the barnyard? If anyone has access to it, it is a simple matter for any of the other animals to make their own cake. But if this barnyard is like the real world, not only do the other barnyard animals have no guaranteed access to the oven, they have no guaranteed access to the raw materials from which cakes are made. They couldn?t make their own, if they wanted to.

Notice another possible assumption of the fable. Does everybody who helps in the enterprise get an equal share of the product of that enterprise? I don?t think the conservatives are prepared to say that anyone who contributes to production of a finished product is entitled to an equal share of that product. That sounds like socialism - something I?m sure that conservatives didn?t intend to assume in their fable.

Let?s re-write the fable, and make it a little more accurate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be true to the world of corporate capitalism, somebody owns the oven. We?ll assume the owner is the little red hen. Unfortunately, owning the oven only creates a mere possibility for producing anything with it. The little red hen quickly learns that gathering the wheat, grinding it to flour, obtaining the other materials, and producing the actual product is work.

The little red hen isn?t industrious at all. In fact, she?s rather lazy. Soon, she begins to wonder is there isn?t a way to get somebody else to do the work. So she goes around to the other animals. They don?t have ovens, so naturally they are interested in using her oven. In fact, the other animals are perfectly willing to give her a share of what they produce, since she does have certain responsibilities. She has to clean the oven. She has to pay for the energy to run it. She may even obtain the materials from which cakes are made. When she approaches them to ask for their help - notice that the little red hen needs the help of other people, she isn?t a "rugged individualist" at all - they want to know what the terms of the deal are.

"Do I get an equal share of what we make in the oven?" they ask.

"Well, the cake we make is only so big. Since it?s my oven, I get half, and all of you can split up the other half."

Each animal then figures out that he will expend more energy baking the little red hen?s cake than its worth. "Not I," they respond to this deal.

The little red hen could then respond with a better deal. After all, with so many people helping out, there is no reason why the oven can?t produce enough for everybody. In fact, working together the barnyard animals could produce a surplus for sale making everybody fat and prosperous. They could organize a labor cooperative. "Why not engage in large scale production, with a piece of the surplus for every animal assisting in the enterprise," the horse suggests as a counterproposal.

That sounds good to the little red hen, at first. Then she gets to thinking about it. Remember, the little red hen is lazy. She doesn?t really want to do the work herself. On the other hand, her oven is the one critical piece of equipment she can use to bargain with the other animals.

Unless they get their own ovens. Then she has nothing to use as an inducement for them to work using hers. All of this surplus production for sale, means that eventually the other animals won?t need her oven any more, and she?ll be right back where she started. The other animals haven?t figured this out. She has, because she?s lazy and conniving. She wants those animals in a position where they have to work at her oven, and can?t ever build their own.

So she goes to the farmer. It seems that he provides the raw materials. That?s what every animal in the barnyard eats. "Why are you just giving it away," she asks him. "I could turn it into delicious cakes, sell them and make you a tidy profit. Give me control of the resources, and I will make both of us rich." A couple of days later, feeding time comes and goes, but the farmer never shows up. The animals are all wondering if something happened to him, when the little red hen wanders by.

"Oh, he and I are partners now. He gave me all of the corn and the wheat and feed for use in my bakery business. If you?re hungry, I?d be happy to sell you a cake or a loaf of bread fresh from my oven."

Of course, the barnyard animals have no money to buy anything - which she well knows. When they point this out, she makes them an offer. They can work in her bakery and she will feed them.

"What about a share in the profits," they ask.

"Take it or leave it," she tells them.

Obviously, they take it, for a while anyway. It isn?t long of course, before they realize that she can?t make the first nickel of profit from her enterprise without their help. Individually, they have little power to negotiate better terms. Together, however, they can pretty much dictate terms to her, in the same manner that she dictated terms to them. So one of them - the horse for example - starts talking to the other animals. "If we stick together and refuse to work, she?ll have to offer us a better deal," he tells them.

The little red hen catches wind of this, and realizes the spot she?s in. Not only is the horse right, none of these animals is going to have to least sympathy for her. She has to do something. Finally, she comes out of her pocket and pays a little bit more than she would like to.

But not to everybody. That would be too expensive.

Instead she goes to the dog. "Listen, Fido. You?re smarter than these other chumps. You?re not really one of them. You?re a predator. You?re strong, you?re fast. You deserve more they do. I?m going to give it to you. All you have to do is protect my interests. You can start by doing something about that big mouthed horse."

That doesn?t work for long. The barnyard animals soon figure out that she can?t threaten all of them. They might pay a price, but sticking together is still the best defense. So she comes up with something really ingenious. She figures out how to keep them from uniting.

There are ten animals in the barnyard. She decides she only needs eight to work in her bakery. So she calls all of them together.

"Listen," she says. "I?ve been thinking. You?re right, the people who work in my bakery deserve a bigger share. In fact, I?m willing to give each of you a 25 percent increase in pay."

This brings cheers and applause. "We?ve won," they say.

Not quite. "I?m willing to increase you?re pay, but you?re going to have to prove that your worth it. I only need eight of you. So the two of you who produce the least today, will just have to find something else to do." Now she has eight animals working for a little better pay, and two who are unemployed. It doesn?t cost an extra cent, since she is now paying the same overall amount split eight ways instead of ten. The 'unemployed' have nowhere to go, she controls all of the food, and she has nothing for them to do - or she says she doesn?t. So they begin to starve.

Now, she?s got them where she wants them. They don?t dare talk about 'organizing'. They don?t complain too much about their pay, and they work as hard as she demands that they work. After all, there are two starving animals who would love to take their place. She doesn?t even have to worry about them organizing secretly. The fear of losing their job and facing starvation will cause one or more of them to 'inform' in an effort to secure his own position. The only problem she has is the two starving animals. She is perfectly willing to let them waste away. What choice does she have? The minute they have any bargaining power they will demand an even greater share. Worse, they might set up their own competing enterprise.

On the other hand, once the two 'outcasts' are gone, she will have to create two more, narrowing the work force to six. Then to four. Soon, she will paying the small number left entirely too much, and she will need all of them. She needs to keep the two outcasts going. On the other hand, she has to be careful. Too much 'generosity' might be interpreted as weakness. It isn?t long before a few of the animals come to her with an humanitarian plea.

"We can?t just let these other animals starve," they say. Some of the other animals - playing right into her hands - ask why not. "Why should we support those deadbeats," they ask, oblivious to the fact that the little red hen has created the whole problem to start with. They even tell the story of the "little red hen" to justify leaving these 'slackers' out in the cold. After a little pro forma protesting, she finally agrees to establish a 'humanitarian' welfare system. "I?m willing to commit two percent of my take to feed them if you will commit two percent of yours." Isn?t that fair of her?. She has agreed to pay a minuscule portion of her huge surplus, if the other animals will commit a portion of their already meager cut. With this regressive welfare system and a small fund keeps the two 'outcasts' barely alive - until she needs them to replace any of the unruly or complacent animals. Of course, she doesn't even consider "full employment" as the solution to their starvation. That would wind up empowering the animals doing the work. In fact, poverty and near starvation becomes a cruel lottery, with all of the animals taking a turn in utter destitution.

The last time I checked, the little red hen was living in a brand new air-conditioned ten thousand square foot chicken house. She is the queen of the barnyard. She is respected. She is feared. She is hated. She attributes this hatred to 'envy'. In fact, for all her wealth and power, she is miserable, because she can never rest. She spends her days on the roof of her chicken palace looking at the other animals in the barnyard, and wondering. When will they figure out the game? When will they ask why all ten of them can't work in her bakery? When will they figure out that the starvation of the two is being used as a weapon against the other eight? When will they realize that they and the two 'deadbeats' are being screwed by the same little red hen? When will they unite - once again - and force her to offer them a fairer deal? When will they realize that they don?t need her at all, and her oven can cook more than just bread and pastry?

I hear oven baked chicken is delicious.

[TMA_1]

lol edric, gone a little too far? good gravy wonder what the lord thinks of that idea.lol

Frankly she isnt a good person in my opinion (the hen that is, this is getting weird). You share freely with all, even those that dont deserve it. You give to those who abuse you and use you. You also give to those who cant help themselves. I mean wouldnt christ say the same? The red hen is just an old stick in the mud.lol

roast chicken is tasty, but I dont think it is right. Especially since the chicken can talk! hehe ;)

[Egeides]

roast chicken is tasty, but I dont think it is right. Especially since the chicken can talk! hehe

That may be due to a bit too high dose of God knows what...

The tale is nice, but it isn't meant to show all aspects. Some businessmen are working hard, and some people in generalare being lazy. But it is simply some. Anyway, a complete view necessarily needs some nuances.

[Inoculator9]

The problem with our system in my opinion, is it forces our country to be reliant on the people that are getting led around by the hen. People accepting low paying jobs with poor hours, conditions, and benefits because if they didn't our economy would fall apart. Eventually, companies lose room for advancement, and people trade off dead end jobs for dead end jobs at other companies. Not the exact message of your little tale Edric (good by the way) but it's still a point I feel most disheartened by.

My grandfather for example owned conveyor belt company, that prior to it's sale (to some rival company, lol) made 26,000 dollars a day. For those that don't know the conveyor belt business, it's extremely menial, basically an assembly line. Despite that, my grandfather never skimped, and everyone that worked for him was paid well, and for numerous reasons my grandfather was actually invited to and had dinner at numerous of his employee's homes. Any company can treat it's employees well, and these massive ones forget that their business is built on the everyday person's labor, or they just don't care.

[danielsh]

Small businesses don't have the same efficiency fetish that larger ones do. Had your grandfather been an immoral man (read: future executive) he might have realized that paying good wages in return for good work was expensive, and therefore inefficient. He might have decided that the best way to dominate the conveyor belt industry would be to pay less money, demand more work, crush the unions, and so on. Either way, though, there can be good men who work in a bad system.

Loved the story, Edric :).

[Inoculator9]

My point was however, that it is economcially viable, for all concerned. CEOs can live well, yacht and go to spas, while still paying decent wages. The same situation goes for my great uncle who owns a metals company. It makes several dozen times more than my grandfather's company did, and he's still a good person. If you haven't guessed, the general spirit in my family is that of principled entropeneurialship ;)

[danielsh]

Heh, well, that's better than unprincipled entrepreneurship, at least. As I said, there can be good people in a bad system, but they're in the minority and don't justify the system itself. CEOs tend to follow the example of the red hen rather than the principled great uncle :).

[Inoculator9]

Like I said, lol, I know... I'm just saying it's possible for big business men to be decent people and rich at the same time.

[Edric O]

Of course it's possible. However, the good and decent people tend to be eaten alive by the ruthless exploiters, because the ruthless exploiters make bigger profits.

As for the story of the little red hen, I'm surprised none of you noticed that it's an allegory for the history of capitalism.

The little red hen represents the bourgeoisie (the capitalist ruling class).

The farmer who gives her control of the resources represents the old feudal nobility.

The other farm animals are the workers - and the dog is the middle class.

Notice how they form a union, how they gain a few concessions in the beginning, how the little red hen fails to crush them by force and how she eventually figures out how to play them against each other.

[Egeides]

And maybe that Marxism isn't the only solution that can be proposed to this. If you do not promote individuals to act, they will less incentive to build the economy (with some exceptions). So a middle-road exists, which may be based on some different rules.

PS: TMA, did you say that gravy was God's wonder or something? :D

[Edric O]

Errr... what do you mean? ???

If you're bringing up the old "incentive" argument again, I think we already discussed that one a thousand times. ;)

[Anathema]

And how does the religious class fit in your allegory Edric? ;)

Seriously though, since in socialism everybody can take what he needs, how will you get people not to consume more then they contribute to production?

[Egeides]

What I mean Edric, is that many, if they can consume more and produce less, will tend to do so.

[Wolf]

What's the incentive argument again? That capitalism provides more incentive for profit, as socialism does not? With possible objections being that capitalist incentive is an illusion and/or socialim can create incentives?

[Egeides]

My point is that humans tend to work less if they can, and use more wealth if they can. It is not true of everyone, but without an appropriate structure, this is what tends to happen. If you do not give a goal to people that has to do with themselves (the product of their work, like any farmer), then those who were able to be constructive for this thing at the end will no longer be as constructive.

[Edric O]

Seriously though, since in socialism everybody can take what he needs, how will you get people not to consume more then they contribute to production?

First of all, that happens in communism, not in socialism. Socialism involves a democratic central authority (i.e. the state) which is responsible for the management of resources. People don't simply take what they need. They are guaranteed a certain basic standard of living, and above that level they are rewarded according to their work.

Communism, of course, is different. People do indeed take what they need. And it is assumed that by the time we get to this stage, everyone is educated and intelligent enough to realize that he cannot take more than what he puts in. It shouldn't be too hard to comprehend this simple logic - if capitalist company owners and managers can understand it (as you can see from the fact that they don't all bankrupt themselves), why not everyone else?

My point is that humans tend to work less if they can, and use more wealth if they can.

Of course. And what is wrong with that? The purpose of any political and economic system is to ensure the happiness and welfare of the people. If working less makes them happy, then so be it! Working less means trading wealth for leisure (they will be less wealthy, but they will have more free time). And if they want to make this trade, it is their right to do it.

In practice, most people will always find a balance between wealth and leisure. They won't work too little because that would make them poor, and they won't work too much because that would leave them with no spare time.

What's the incentive argument again?

The "incentive" (or "motivation") argument for capitalism: In brief, this argument claims that capitalism provides a greater motivation for workers than socialism or communism, because in capitalism you can actually have a miserable life and/or starve to death, so you are motivated to work hard to avoid such a fate (and to become as rich as possible, so you can live in luxury while others suffer in poverty).

This argument is flawed in 3 different ways:

1. You are not justified to threaten people with poverty and misery in order to get them to work harder any more than you are justified to threaten to blow their brains out with a gun in order to make them work harder.

Nazi death camps provided a lot of incentive to work. So does laissez-faire capitalism. But do you really want to live in a society with such brutal "incentives"?

2. Socialism guarantees basic food, clothing, housing, health care and equal education to every citizen. To get anything beyond the basics required for a decent life, however, you must work. So, just as in capitalism very few people are satisfied to work for a minimum wage job, in socialism very few people will be satisfied with just having their basic needs met. They will want a better life, so they will work for it. And, most importantly, they will not be exploited like they are under capitalism.

The socialist incentive to work is the promise of getting rich, not the threat of becoming poor.

3. In communism, people work together and use the products of their labour together. The incentive to work is similar to the one in socialism, except a bit more community-oriented: If you do your share of the work, everyone will benefit, including yourself. If you don't, then you are only screwing yourself in the long run.

Communism relies on people working together because they know that they will all benefit from it.

[Wolf]

Hmm, I'm not sure I totally agree with your description of capitalist incentive. From what I've seen of what I know of capitalism, it seems that no one really thinks of the "threat" more than they do of the "promise". I believe that when capitalists argue that there is more incentive for them to work, they feel that they have more direct control over their standards of living (this is debatable, but, for the sake of this argument, let us just say that they "feel" they have more control), and, therefore, more opportunity to get rich. I, personally, have never heard even self-proclaimed capitalists to speak of incentive as a threat, and I believe it would be both a mistake and an overgeneralization to characterize capitlism in this manner. I am sure some modern-day capitalists do this, and I know it was done in the past, but, in the modern world, I believe that capitalism focuses on the warm and fuzzy incentive of becoming rich more than anything else.

Furthermore, I think that socialism & communism have the same basic moral & ehtical incentives; the incentives to better oneself and to better society. I do not think that even socialism says that, "follow me, and you will become rich", I think socialism is more of a compromise. "Work to better yourself and your quality of life, but help others, and improve their quality of life, too". From my understanding, I feel that the only difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is the "do your part" for others bit. Capitalism's incentive is all about working for oneself, while socialism/communism's incentive is for onself, but also for others.

This provokes some interesting thought. If capitalism is so appealing because it allows you to work for yourself and for you alone, what does that say about human nature? Furthermore, could there be circumstances in socialism/communism where a human being is faced with a conflict of interest? For example, what if working to better one's quality of life must unavoidably come at the cost of others'? Or, what if to better the quality of life of others, one must unavoidably do harm to himself? What is the socialist or communist to do, then?

[Edric O]

Hmm, I'm not sure I totally agree with your description of capitalist incentive. From what I've seen of what I know of capitalism, it seems that no one really thinks of the "threat" more than they do of the "promise".

The "threat" and the "promise" are two different arguments. The one I talked about in my previous post was strictly the "threat" argument, since this is the one most often used by capitalists (at least in my experience). The "threat" doesn't exist in socialism and communism, but the "promise" does.

The argument about the capitalist "promise" isn't really a valid argument at all, since the "promise" exists in socialism and communism just as much as it exists in capitalism.

Socialism doesn't prevent you from getting rich; it only prevents you from getting rich from other people's work, and it ensures that you will never be poor.

Communism eliminates the notions of "rich" and "poor", since private property no longer exists. But the "promise" still functions, because your living standards will increase if you work harder or better.

I, personally, have never heard even self-proclaimed capitalists to speak of incentive as a threat, and I believe it would be both a mistake and an overgeneralization to characterize capitlism in this manner. I am sure some modern-day capitalists do this, and I know it was done in the past, but, in the modern world, I believe that capitalism focuses on the warm and fuzzy incentive of becoming rich more than anything else.

Of course, they always try to put capitalism in a good light by showing you the positive side of the equation (one man becoming rich) and forgetting about the negative side (many other people becoming poor). They also don't take into consideration the fact that perhaps the rich man didn't deserve to become rich, because a large part of his fortune was actually earned by others and he received it without doing any work.

The problem with capitalism is not that some people are rich. The problem is that many others are poor, and that most of the rich don't deserve to be rich and most of the poor don't deserve to be poor.

Furthermore, I think that socialism & communism have the same basic moral & ehtical incentives; the incentives to better oneself and to better society.

Yes, they do. And this is particularly true in communism. But that doesn't mean that the individual material incentive is forgotten.

I do not think that even socialism says that, "follow me, and you will become rich".

Of course, you are correct. Socialism says something along the lines of: "Follow me and I will show you how both you and your neighbor can be happy and live good lives, rather than one of you being rich and the other poor."

"Work to better yourself and your quality of life, but help others, and improve their quality of life, too".

"...because if you do that, both you and everybody else will benefit."

From my understanding, I feel that the only difference between capitalism and socialism/communism is the "do your part" for others bit.

That's only one out of a great number of differences. Capitalism is far from being a warm and fuzzy system where everyone works for himself and minds his own business. Capitalism is a system of individual ownership, yes, but this individual ownership is coupled with social labour. Just about every product of modern society is the result of collective work. And some of the greatest problems and injustices of capitalism arise from the fact that this collective work is done for individual owners. Capitalism is not very individualistic at all. Rather, it is a system in which individualistic owners can profit from the collective work of others.

This provokes some interesting thought. If capitalism is so appealing because it allows you to work for yourself and for you alone, what does that say about human nature?

First of all, the fact is that capitalism is remarkably UNappealing. No other system in history has faced so much opposition. Capitalism came close to annihilation not just once, but several times in the recent past. And a huge chunk of the world was outside capitalism (and fighting against it) for over 45 years. Feudalism or the ancient world never had these sort of problems.

Second of all, capitalism does NOT allow you to work for yourself and you alone. In capitalism, you work for your boss - and a lot of the value of your work goes into his pockets (see this topic).

And third of all, I have explained the matter of human nature extensively in this topic.

(looks like I have a topic for every issue :) )

Furthermore, could there be circumstances in socialism/communism where a human being is faced with a conflict of interest? For example, what if working to better one's quality of life must unavoidably come at the cost of others'? Or, what if to better the quality of life of others, one must unavoidably do harm to himself? What is the socialist or communist to do, then?

Of course, my own moral conviction is that I should help others as much as I can, no matter if it comes at a cost to myself. But socialism and communism cannot (and will not) impose any moral code on anyone. They are only social and economic systems.

As for the situations you describe, I don't understand how they apply to economics. Remember, we're not talking about personal moral issues here ("run into the fire to save a child", for example). We're talking about the way the economy (and society in general) should be organized.

[Wolf]

Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification. I do not think that you and I are in any real disagreement, it is just that I have much to learn about socialism and communism and I appreciate your patience.

As always, I have questions. In that last segment about "how does this situation apply to economics...", I think I am trying to articulate the following the scenario. What if a man is faced with two situations with no other alternatives. In one, his work generates money & wealth for himself at the cost of others. In another, his work will benefit others while leaving himself with nothing. Now, I understand that these are extreme measures that probably will not occur often in any economic system, but, what would happen in this sort of situation?

[Edric O]

Ah, I see, thank you for the clarification. I do not think that you and I are in any real disagreement, it is just that I have much to learn about socialism and communism and I appreciate your patience.

You're welcome. That is the reason why I am here, after all. :)

As always, I have questions. In that last segment about "how does this situation apply to economics...", I think I am trying to articulate the following the scenario. What if a man is faced with two situations with no other alternatives. In one, his work generates money & wealth for himself at the cost of others. In another, his work will benefit others while leaving himself with nothing. Now, I understand that these are extreme measures that probably will not occur often in any economic system, but, what would happen in this sort of situation?

In that situation, the man would follow option 2 (his work will benefit others while leaving himself with nothing), but afterwards, the state/community would give back to him the reward he rightfully deserves for his work. Problem solved.

[Wolf]

I see, so, even though he does not directly benefit himself by working for the community, the community (since it is most probably working through the same principle) in turn works to improve his quality of life in the end. It seems like a very simple solution a complex conflict of interest. So, to assure the man who must initially sacrifice for the community, he must have faith in the commuinty's ability to help him in order to work for the benefit of others? Since it does not seem plausible that every man must do it out of the goodness of his heart.

[Edric O]

Relying on faith? No, of course not! What on Earth gave you that idea? The obligations of the state/community towards the individual will be clearly written down as laws.

[Wolf]

Good, because that makes more sense than some ambiguous system of working "for the betterment of others". Personally, I didn't think this was a faith-based system, and I was just wondering how it would all work. I decided to assume it was this in order to compare how the system really works with a faith-based system. I.e., is this a clear-cut, well-defined doctrine of what must be done? If so, how does this conflict with a person's right to choose? So, if helping everyone else out is a set of laws, does no one have the right to opt out without turning into a hermit? Or, are these like taxes?

[Edric O]

You're talking in much too vague terms... What exactly do you mean by "helping others" in this context?

In socialism, "helping others" is mainly achieved in the same way as in our modern welfare states: through taxation. Also, since a socialist economy is a planned one, production can be focused on the items that are most necessary to the greatest number of people. I don't know if you could consider this a form of "helping others" as well...

In communism, since all property is shared, people naturally help each other as part of regular daily business.

A "hermit" is, by definition, anyone who cuts his ties with society. So of course that anyone who cuts his ties with society becomes a hermit... If you opt out of the system, then you become a "hermit" because a "hermit" simply means a person who opts out of the system.

[Edric O]

The story in the first post of this topic was written precisely as a reply to capitalist fables like the one recently posted by Emprworm, so I'd like to draw your attention to it again.