The Ants and the Grasshopper.

Original

The ants were spending a fine winter's day drying grain collected in the summertime.
A grasshopper, quite hungry, passed by and begged for a little food.
The ants asked him, "Why didn't you gather up food during the summer?" He replied, "I as too busy having fun to work. I passed the days singing."
They then said in mockery: "If you were foolish enough to sing all the summer, you must dance without supper to bed in the winter."

Moral: One can not get through life without a little work

Revised Version

The ants were spending a winter’s day drying grain collected in the summertime.
A grasshopper, who was obviously chronically mal-nourished, he was so hungry that he had literally subjected himself to going around asking for food.
The ants asked him, “Why poor fellow, why are you in such dire straights at this time of year?” The Grasshopper replied in an anxious voice. “I was busy during the summer due to the fact that I am classified as a psychological hedonist. It is literally impossible for me not to pursue pleasure over pain. Thus during those glorious summer months while you were collecting your bounty for the winter, I was dancing and singing.”
The Ants were shaken by the excuse, but they felt sorry for the fellow because they believed that he had a psychological condition that had prevented him from collecting food. They told him, “We personally don’t have much to share with you dear grasshopper, but surely the united way will help you.”

Moral: One can rely on society to save one from dire situations.

Now I made up the revised version myself, but which one is the better moral? It should tell me what type of political phil. u fall into.

I think the ant in the first story is greedy scum, and should burnt with a magnifying glass.
The first moral was pretty damn dumb, but the revised version had no moral which is even damn dumber.

Ask the super rich that recieved their wealth from their parents estates. They don't have to work for their money at all.

nico, the two are inherently exclusive, your revised version is a metaphor for socialogical/economic infrastructure, whilst the former is more a metaphor for life in general, and as such is applicable in any socio/political environment.
The first is a matter of philosophy, the second is a matter of politics, you just used the same components for your example.

the grasshopper moves into the ant colony, because it harbours some delusional political/nationalistic idealogy based on faux religious rhetoric. This rhetoric has the grasshopper believing that somehow he is a decendant of the ants, and as such has some sort of divine right to the ant colony, so he moves into the ant colony, kicks most of the ants out, and the ones that stay he ghetto-ises them.

;)

The Ant and the Grasshopper.

One day a Grasshopper met an Ant.

The Ant called a hundred of her buddies and they swarmed over the Grasshopper. They pulled it into Grasshopper chunks with their sharp jaws and dragged its dismembered pieces back to their lair to sustain them.

The Moral: Ants eat Grasshoppers.

[edit for unfairness]
Sorry... my original retort was unfair... a combination of
1) Truth's rather obtuse retelling of the Little Red Hen, and
2) The movie A Bug's Life, where grasshoppers beat up ants.