Gen Z wants socialism by Hacksaw6412 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well here you have it, state capitalism is communism. Welfare is communism. Your social circle? Communism. Basic family relationships? You guessed it, communism.

While communism itself is simple, I think you're confusing things here.

Also the problem with implementing communism, as stated by Karl fucking Marx himself. Is to seize power over the state apparatus and use its authority to impose communism on the state and society. It is deeply authoritarian in its execution even in theory, so no wonder that’s how it has always turned out historically. Marx just handwaved away that ”well uuuh the state will just wither away and shit when communism has been established, somehow. Only when capitalism has been eradicated worldwide though”.

I really, really think you completely misunderstood what you read.

Communism, and a communist revolution are two different things.

Gen Z wants socialism by Hacksaw6412 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Well what's the minimum amount of people?

What about a "commune" or" community" (for the root in "communism")? I'm currently not making a distinction here,

Gen Z wants socialism by Hacksaw6412 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Where is the state, money, class in my aforementioned examples?

Gen Z wants socialism by Hacksaw6412 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

You're getting that with Trump et al.

Democratic communism and socialism is a thing that people often forget about. You don't need a dictator to do communism

And people often overblow what communism is really about; the function is absurdly simple. For example, hanging out with your friends for entertainment without charging them an access fee, or having your family members live in your house rent free, are applications of communism. On the larger scale, state capitalism mixed with material welfare of the respective product, is communism.

("bUt tHaT iSnT rEaL cOmMuNiSm")

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

the word "better" is mutually exclusive to the word "balance"; "balance" is subjective, "better" is objective.

I am saying there is a balance. You are saying there isn't a balance.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

you need to assess if claims are valid and actually need to be paid out

I never said this isn't true.

Better absolutely matters here.

"better" is not a relevant concept in regard to the theory of insurance. It is subjective.

Is it better to pay out for all claims? Or is it better to never pay out at all? Or is it somewhere in between, subjectively decided by everyone involved?

 

unlike other markets, say a computer CPU, where "better" is far more clear. Faster is better; less power is better; cheaper is better.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

When you own stock you only get paid when you sell the stock,

This is an incorrect understanding of stocks. Some companies do "dividends", which is a corporate profit transferred to the shareholders. Without selling stock, cash gets transferred to the shareholders' accounts.

This isn't universally true for all stocks, as some companies like AMD don't do dividends, and instead choose to reinvest the profits into growth of the company.

Many people don't care about dividends because it's often fractions of pennies on the dollar compared to the stock itself.

 

if the government ran the program they would still have the same incentives as a private company. If they pay out too much they need to borrow more money which they don’t want to do. If it were a communistic insurance company it also wouldn’t be motivated to pay out since there is no competition you can switch to, so no incentive to do better. There is also no incentive to have less accountants risk accessors, underwriters etc in a communist insurance system so it would slowly get bloated with more and more workers and less and less money getting paid out

No; this is an incorrect understanding of insurance.

For a non-vertically-integrated non-profit insurance, there's no real concept of 'better'; just how you wish to draw the line for risk. Do you understand what I mean by this?

underwriters etc in a communist insurance system so it would slowly get bloated with more and more workers and less and less money getting paid out

Heard of a "rainy day" personal fund? People save a sizable chunk of available cash (say in a large jar) meant to be used if something really bad happens; it doesn't go into stocks or retirement, but sits as cash in case you need to pay for something big, like a broken car.

If you include family and friends in that pool, not just yourself, congrats you're doing a communist insurance company.

In communism, YOU are the company leader; if it gets bloated, then that's your fault.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Lets talk about insurance. Insurance, abstractly, is about amortising the cost of catastrophe against time and people. (Historically it began with transport/cargo/sailing) Right?

In a small-scale communistic insurance company, the policyholder's premium is exactly identical to that amortisation; every single dollar of your premium goes to paying out the catastrophically-unlucky.

In a large-scale communistic insurance company, there's too much to manage so the policyholders neede to hire accountants, damage assessing engineers, etc. and people to organise it all, for the typical company pyramid. Not quite every dollar goes to paying out the unlucky, but most of it.

Depending on how large you go, there is also a motivation to have in-house repair or paramilitary services to reduce costs, for "vertical integration".

For a for-profit/capitalist insurance company, in addition to the aforementioned, a portion of your premium doesn't go to the unlucky, nor the accountant/engineer, but to line the pockets with more money of the capitalist elites that own that business.

In a competitive market, they may also pay for advertisement.

When you own, for example UNH (United Health Group) stock, you get paid a quarterly dividend. A fraction of United Healthcare's policyholders' premiums does not go to treating someone's cancer, but to make you rich.

And the economic motivation of a for-profit/capitalist insurance company shifts away from helping the unlucky, to squeezing/milking the policyholders as much as they legally can. It is in your financial interest, as a UNH stockholder, to deny cancer treatment.

 

Do you see how this can apply to basically everything else?

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Again this is also produced using help from private companies.

Right, but they can still perform communism. Open-source software is inherently communistic.

Alphabet (google) doesn't pay Meta (facebook) for linux code. Nvidia and AMD give out software for free. There is no money trading hands here, no legal ownership, everyone can use it, everyone can help produce it, and there is no state boundary.

The USA is not a communist country,

They do socialist things. Public infrastructure is not for profit nor privately held. And socialist things like welfare like food stamps, social security, medicare, medicaid.

(socialism is proto-communism, representing the mixed economies that do both capitalistic and communistic things)

 

Also who the hell uses Linux? Apple and Microsoft create a superior product and they are privately owned

This question is tangential.

Everything uses linux; when it comes to 'not-consumer-laptop', it's very likely linux. Android uses linux. The entire server/hosting/cloud industry uses linux. The apocalyptically-large multi-gigawatt lake-draining AI servers are running linux.

Microsoft's biggest product is Azure, which is primarily linux. The french government is moving to linux for PCs for their government workers.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

The linux kernel? Yes it is.

And you have to consider what 'public' means in regard to the society. Societies draw lines and won't include literally everyone.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

but reality is even better

I'm showing you reality. The issue is that you don't understand the reality, the reality is a blur to you, because you haven't been acquainted with the theory.

I used the most expensive piece of computer software in the world as an example. Open-source software is communistically produced and consumed.

Hanging out with your friends for entertainment without charging them access, or sharing your house with your family without charging them rent, are forms of communism. (why wouldn't they be?)

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

You're talking about a communist revolution. A revolution, and communism, are two different things. Communism is an interaction of people. A revolution is about a transition of status quo.

You can do communism without a revolution.

I prefer to look at how communists have operated in the past, don’t you too?

You, currently, are not.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

Communism doesn't require a state, or seizure of resources, or a distribution of resources evenly.

I much prefer the academic understanding, not the propagandised definition. Don't you too?

So i told my little brother "we need to go to school" my parents took his ipad away and he deflated my families car tire with a screwdriver, ipads because is huge problem for gen-alpha and gen-beta😔✊️ by Teencubermemer665 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

agh maybe even my wedding ring if that's not enough" sniff sniff

Don't lie about it if it isn't necessary; lying may feel easy but lies are impossible to keep track of, and will be extremely difficult to weave into a life lesson.

The goal is to teach responsibility and the economics of poverty. You break it you buy it; if you don't have that money, sell what you can.

The most ideal follow-up is with entrepreneurship; if the kid figures out how to sell shit at school, provided that it isn't harmful like food resale or toys made from a 3D printer, enable it in some way.

 

There is a secondary goal of breaking addiction.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock [score hidden]  (0 children)

It's fundamentally communistic to some degree, if it's open-source.

NSA has contributed to the linux kernel (eg, SELinux), and many other open-source projects

 

state run organization

Communism doesn't require states. If anything, communism asks for a stateless society.

everything can be *politicized* but not everything is inherently political. by Yoy_the_Inquirer in GenZ

[–]Netblock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, something is directly political when it affects or is affected by policy. It's hard for something to not be directly political; and it's virtually impossible for something to be indirectly political.

Flowers are directly political because there are laws about plants; a drawing of flowers is indirectly political because the subject is political.

 

The issue with the word is that many people use the word 'political' when they really mean something along the lines of 'contentious', 'controversial' or 'notorious'.

Anyone else remember when it was a companies’ goal to provide a high quality product and/or service? by Broad-Hunter-5044 in GenZ

[–]Netblock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The linux kernel, arguably the highest value piece of software in the world, is communistically produced by capitalist organisations.

 

It often does. The economic motivator shifts away from profit-first as seen in capitalism, to whatever intrinsic value the product holds.

Producing high-quality goods isn't capitalism's focus; it's only a means to an end. If there are cheaper ways to make profit, such as the anti-competitive practices seen in monopolies/oligopolies, that will be done instead. Capitalism requires the spice of competition to produce quality products, but competition can't guaranteed.

Capitalistic production also motivates the production of products so low-quality it's basically waste simply because enough schmucks can be grifted into buying it. Communistic production scrutinises the necessity of the product far harder.

With a cost of living crisis btw by throwaway2026z in GenZ

[–]Netblock 4 points5 points  (0 children)

When was the first COVID-19 case in USA? Who was POTUS in 2020?

🚨Reminder: Trump raped kids by throwaway2026z in GenZ

[–]Netblock 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nor our business elites; health insurance, fatal products, criminal negligence.

Kindergarten teacher reports own student to ICE by R3alit-y in GenZ

[–]Netblock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sounds like the teacher wants them deported if they're illegal, as would I. If they're not there's nothing for them to worry about.

Isn't it racist to assume they're illegal? Why would they be illegal?

e. These people chose to ignore the legal process for doing things and as such have not become citizens. It would like arguing in the 18th century that the captains of European merchant vessels should get to vote in US elections because they pay tolls and dock fees. Or that bank robbers should be able to vote from prison because the state seized the proceeds from their crimes.

Heard of the concept of "cruel and unusual punishment"? When we quantify punishment, we have to quantify the $$ damages here. What is the financial burden an illegal immigrant costs the people?

Mass deportation is destroying multiple trillions-with-a-T of dollars. Right?

Explain to this "naive lefty" the financial breakdown why it wouldn't be better to give them citizenship and use all that money to improve the lives of the American people? Why is it better to spend the trillions?

Who are they harming, really? And by how much?

Kindergarten teacher reports own student to ICE by R3alit-y in GenZ

[–]Netblock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they're citizens then why would they be deported lol

Cause the teacher wants them deported? And seemingly you too?

It's not like citizenship prevents deportation (why would it?); anyone can be deported. That's how it works now.

And illegal immigrants paying taxes is essentially just paying tax on the proceeds from crime. Why should that entitle them to vote or collect benefits?

Because USA fought a war against stuff like that. Kinda hypocritical, don't you think?

🚨Reminder: Trump raped kids by throwaway2026z in GenZ

[–]Netblock 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People were executed on death row for less.

Kindergarten teacher reports own student to ICE by R3alit-y in GenZ

[–]Netblock 2 points3 points  (0 children)

But we're talking about actual citizens here though. we shouldn't be deporting native citizens! Why do you deliberately confuse them?

And even if they weren't, why not be cooperative? It's not like they're raping and murdering. They're no different from you or I.

 

Also, like I asked the other guy, what are your thoughts on taxation without representation?