I am not a libertarian. I am also neither a Republican, nor a Democrat. I've already apologized for the mistake of posting something that doesn't have attribution and is baseless. Still, I appreciate your input.
FYI: Please don't submit comments complaining that a submission is inappropriate for the site. If you think something is spam or offtopic, flag it by going to its page and clicking on the "flag" link. (Not all users will see this; there is a karma threshold.) If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did.
I think the "don't comment, just flag" guideline is often counterproductive. Just look what happened here: my comment got you to read the site guidelines. You wouldn't have even known I flagged the post.
So, I ignore that particular guideline, and you can feel free to downmod my comment; I assure you I don't mind.
"Karl Heinrich Marx (5 May 1818 – 14 March 1883) was a German philosopher, sociologist, economic historian, journalist, and revolutionary socialist who developed the socio-political theory of Marxism. " -Wikipedia article
If you tell me that Wikipedia is not a legitimate source for the above information, shall I point you to 10 other sources that will corroborate the above??
The point I was making is that what Marx believed is called Marxism and not socialism. They differ in a number of ways.
1.One is the Marxism is derived from the Hegelian German tradition of a dialectical view of social change.
2.Marxism argues that socialism is a possible, but not necessary step between capitalism and marxism. The more revolutionary the more likely this step should be avoided.
3. Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism and notice how they use socialism and in what context. They use it in opposition of Marxism and Communism.
Marxism is a step further than socialism. It's not nearly the same, there is wild disagreement on which rights/liberties should be respected. There is plenty of material about that in Wikipedia, too, try not to restrict yourself to one quote.
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.
I explained, there are more drivers than 'success' in the real world, that are not simulated by grades.
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).
So are you effectively saying that a socialist system would not collapse, because people would to survive and that in less extreme cases, people will strive to generate more capital...
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?
> 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.
First of all, thank you for staying on point and keeping your rational train of thought. You have been the only one to realize the purpose of my post: stirring rational discussion about a very difficult issue that deserves attention from entrepreneurs. Also, thank you for calling me out on the Socratic run-around and lack of direct statements. Here are my counter-arguments (and notes of agreement, where possible), one by one.
> 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?
It would make more sense, but there are clear examples of socialism working in various forms, throughout Europe, China, Australia. So when reality counters a fairly weak and stretched analogy. I am skeptical (to say the least).
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.
An evenly-weighted average over each student's separate score bakes in a lack of collaboration or competitive advantage. The most outstanding "producer" was mathematically barred from compensating for even two poor ones, much less giving them assistance. This wasn't socialism, but communism (imposed across a wing of prisoner's dilemma cells), and the author of such a piece ought to know the difference.
Bailing banks out and nationalizing them are virtually equivalent.
Giving a corporation truck loads of money in exchange for next to nothing and absolutely zero equity is virtually equivalent to taking ownership of a corporation?
That citation appears to say it's pure propaganda, which really makes me wonder why you'd post something you know to be untrue both on your blog and on Hacker News.
I could post my own fairy tale about how a teacher decided to divide grades equally among a whole class and the newfound accountability to their fellow students pushed the slackers to become hard workers and everybody not only received an A but earned it. They're both plain fantasies that exist only to pander to people who already agree with the message.
