In our current educational system, grades are a measure of value, determined just as arbitrarily as USD or Euros, by just as an arbitrary an authority.
You can think of grades as educational fiat currency.
The people whom are getting Fs are the ones who'd be on welfare. And they'd have no incentive of getting out.
The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat.
I'm saying before a complete collapse you would trigger peoples survival instincts and they would work - just to survive (similar to china from the 50s-70s).
At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly, contributing value to their community).
But, in a socialist system, whom would hire these people who would be on the brink of survival?
As for the less extreme cases (let's say a mixed economy), whom will pay them for the creation of value, and who will judge the value created, and who will thwart value creation through placing incorrect judgments?
Do you see where I am getting with my questions?
> But, in a socialist system, whom would hire these people who would be on the brink of survival?
I'm saying it would never get to that. Just like if you lose your job now, you don't wait until you "are on the brink of survival" before you find another job.
>whom will pay them for the creation of value, and who will judge the value created, and who will thwart value creation through placing incorrect judgments?
I'm not sure what answer you are looking for here. You are clearly driving to a point, without actually making it. How about you make it, rather than the socratic run-around.
> Do you see where I am getting with my questions?
No, I don't. Because you never actually made a statement in your response.
> I explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that are not simulated by grades.
Of course. Everyone has a set of values that they follow through virtuous action or otherwise, whether they realize it or not. Some seek the values that ultimately lead them to their demise, others to their success. This does not, however, preclude that some values are good and others bad for a given individual. So if achieving good grades were the standard of value in a school system, then it follows that the driver of success in that context were the grades. Yes, in the real world, there are other factors (and if grades were analogous to currency, then the acquisition of wealth is not the only thing I'd be after - and I'd certainly not be accumulating in fiat currency).
> The example in the OP illustrates a 'crash' of a socialist system, by saying everyone gets Fs, if you convert that into money, you are talking about a complete crash of equity (i.e there is no money to share around). Meaning there is no welfare, meaning they all starve, with their families. You don't die, if you get a bad grade, you do die, if you don't eat.
Of course in a crash of an economic system, wealth allocated by individuals in worthless financial instruments (made worthless because their worth had been sanctioned by fiat) would be wiped out. Those individuals whom will have invested in other stores of value prior to such a crash would prosper, while others would live in squalor or perish (with some room for those in other parts in the middle of the spectrum). Such collapses have happened in the past, and are likely to happen again. Look at what is going in Europe for some early warning signs. There's no true socialism anywhere, but there are very serious attempts at implementing some of the philosophy of socialism. In places where the attempts are the most honest, the crashes shall be the most drastic. The places where they are the most honest, are the places most analogous to the classroom example in the OP piece.
> At less extreme cases people will always want to improve their living situation, and thus will strive to generate more capital (or more directly, contributing value to their community).
Yes of course in less extreme cases of socialist-like socio-economic systems (as in the US), those who see the writing on the wall will attempt to improve their situation - at any cost - and some without even realizing that they are doing so. I think that many entrepreneurs are in this class.
Now as to the reality of the failures of socialism... and its various interpretations... is the analogy of the OP piece I posted clear? Does it make sense, given what I've written above?
Socialism doesn't have to be the huge stifling of wealth.
China is generating wealth with Socialism with Chinese Characteristic™
Australia has highly socialist policies (free health care, study allowance, subsidised education, pensions, unemployment benefits), yet still boasts a robust capital-generating society, that has avoided recession (so-far) post GFC.
There are no "true capitalist" (true being 'everyone is a capitalist') countries either, because it simply doesn't work. One needs to exploit something (usually someone) in order to generate capital, and if everyone were looking to do this, there would be no one to exploit, and thus no surplus value, no profit, thus no motive for business.