Politics & News

Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

This concept is Marxist. You wouldn't think so, but the definition fits.

Notice, I'm not saying Socialist. I'm saying Marxist because the concept is a mirror image of that Marx line in the Gotha Programme ("From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." )

The concept is insurance. ALL insurance.
You might have heard all kinds of definitions of it, but there is only ONE: A pot of money a large number of people contribute to, with the idea that some people take from it for an unexpected illness or death.
(That is the ONLY correct definition of insurance. I used to be licensed to sell health and life in Florida and had to pass the state exam. I REALLY didn't know the correct definition was that.)
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.

I didn't say Socialist because Socialism is where government OWNS all the means of production in a country. That is the proper definition.
(No, it's not government spending. You can't say paying taxes to maintain roads or pay cop salaries is Socialism.)

Notice, I'm not condemning the concept. Not saying if it is right or wrong, good or evil. Insurance is a part of our life.

(By the way, Social Security is NOT an insurance program, as much as recipients would give you a black eye if you suggest it is. According to the original administrators of Social Security, they argued before the Supreme Court that Social Security was a WELFARE program that is financed by government's ability to tax the population. If anything, Social Security as a financial tool would most likely resemble a life annuity in the private sector. I used to sell those as well. You have to be life licensed to sell them if they come from a life insurance company.)

Again, this isn't a political debate. This is a fact, according to the material. And again, I'm not knocking it. Just giving the right definition.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

CountScrofula · 41-45, M

Okay I'm going to break down some terms here for you because I think your political definitions are coming from personal inference.

Marxism is a [i]way of thinking about things[/i] and particularly capitalism. It understands capitalism as a class conflict and applies concepts such as historical materialism and dialectical reasoning to the way society and economy works so you can understand why things they way they are.

Socialism is a very very broad umbrella term for an array of political ideologies and movements that places the "social question" at the forefront of how you order a society. It arose in the early 19th century as a response to the liberal movement.

You can be an almost entirely command economy and have some capitalist policies. Or you can be an entirely capitalist society and have socialist policies.

Or you can be a form of socialist that doesn't want the government to own anything at all. Libertarian socialism was the first kind of libertarianism.

Anyways that's long way of saying insurance is not Marxist. It's a private for-profit industry and a mechanism of capitalism.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@CountScrofula @CountScrofula
[quote]Okay I'm going to break down some terms here for you because I think your political definitions are coming from personal inference.[/quote]
You would be wrong. My definitions come from ECONOMICS textbooks.
[quote]
Marxism is a way of thinking about things and particularly capitalism. It understands capitalism as a class conflict and applies concepts such as historical materialism and dialectical reasoning to the way society and economy works so you can understand why things they way they are.[/quote]

If you want the Marxist way of thinking about things, it's very simple: Abolition of private property, and abolition of the family and abolition of countries and nationality.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm

The concept of "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. The two concepts are about as opposite as it gets.

BohemianBoo · M

[quote]I didn't say Socialist because Socialism is where government OWNS all the means of production in a country.[/quote]

😆

Stop getting all of your info from right-wing media. Read a book sometime.

View 5 more replies »

BohemianBoo · M

@Reason10 You just debunked your own point.

[quote] And those governments brought about the very scenario Marx railed against in the Communist Manifesto.[/quote]

Yeah, because none of those countries were communist or socialist. They used those terms in their propaganda to gain support, but all of those societies were capitalist. In the case of countries like the Soviet Union, they had State Capitalism. Nazi Germany had more traditional Capitalism. And because neither country was democratic, the workers didn't control the means of production. Democracy is the first step of Socialism.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

GlitterEater · 36-40, F

I'm no sociologist, but I'm pretty sure Marxism doesn't mean compatible with an out of context Marx quote.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@GlitterEater @GlitterEater You probably need to find Marx's critique of the Gotha Programme, in order show us your opinion of the concept of the quote. How is it different from the concept of insurance.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@GlitterEater [quote]I'm no sociologist, but I'm pretty sure Marxism doesn't mean compatible with an out of context Marx quote.[/quote]

Marxism is not a sociology subject. It is a subject of ECONOMICS, which is basically the science of human behavior.

ArishMell · 70-79, M

An insurance company - covering any area not just health - charging by abilities to pay. Now there's a thing.

That would raise a hollow laugh in the UK where all the car and home insurers have greatly increased their premiums for no clear reason... other than bigger profits of course..

That misunderstanding about Social Security in the USA has its UK parallel where you often hear people complain about not enough pension or long NHS waiting-times parroting the myth, "I've paid into it all my working life!"

No you haven't!

The myth probably arose because when employed we pay two sets of tax, above a certain low-pay threshold. One is [i]Income Tax[/i]: clear and self-explanatory. The other is called [i]National Insurance[/i], and that's likely the source of the confusion because it is a tax not an insurance policy!

When established NI was intended to support the National Health Service, State Pension and other State Benefits but was still not "insurance". Since then it became just another type of Income Tax, not "ring-fenced"; and those using those services were and still are paid from the taxes others are paying.

Most employed people are on a "Pay As You Earn" scheme by which the employer deducts the two taxes due by you according to your personal Tax Code and pay, plus any separate, company pension contributions, from your Gross Pay, and pays HMRC for you. Your pay-slip itemises the Gross Pay, deductions and Nett Pay: probably most employees in any but very small businesses are now paid monthly by direct-debit. Not cash or cheque in hand.

View 3 more replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

@ArishMell Seems unReason was throwing personal insults at you because he doesn't have an adequate response. Now he is throwing around buzzwords in an attempt to bluff and bully you out of the debate. Behind the bluffing is a pretense that the US insurance market is highly efficient, and competition keeps all prices low. Don't be bluffed; car insurance rates jumped over here as well.
[quote]In 2023, the average U.S. rate for full auto coverage rose to $2,019 per year, up 24% from $1,633 in 2022 and nearly 29% from 1,567 the prior year,[/quote]
[quote]Car insurance rates jump 26% across the U.S. in 2024, report shows[/quote]
[b]https://www.cbsnews.com/news/car-insurance-rates-2024-inflation-climate-change-bankrate-report/[/b]

Up 24% in 2023; up another 26% this year; yeah we're getting big profit taking too.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

ArishMell · 70-79, M

@ElwoodBlues His responses don't exactly do him any good...

Those car insurance increase rates are broadly similar to those in the UK. They have tried to blame it, here at least, on the rise in parts prices and labour charges, but that is not the whole story. In the UK many of the insurers also cover homes and they are probably loading all premiums to cover an unusually high number of flood-damage claims.

.
I don't know if health-insurance costs here have similarly risen because I do not use private health-care - I can't afford that! There are plenty who do use private health-care paid by commercial insurance, but it is not cheap and no doubt hedged with all sort of restrictions and conditions.

The National Health Service does contract some of its work, mainly elective surgery and dental treatment, to private companies but if you are an NHS patient the hospital treatment is still free to you. You pay some of the dental costs though.

Prescription medicines are also paid for partly by the patient, until age 60 when they become free to the patient. That did surprise me when I went to collect some medicine just after my 60th birthday, and the pharmacist told me I no longer pay for them! The standard fee, which goes to the NHS not the pharmacist, was £7 as I recall last paying but it was that for all medicines and can't have been the full price.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

Burnley123 · 41-45, M

@jshm2 👍

You crack me up.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

There are similarities, but I'm pretty sure Karl Marx didn't have the insurance market in mind when he wrote [i]Das Kapital[/i] 🤔

Insurance is based on the concept of pooled risk. Money is distributed according to need, but only to those who were admiyted to or who could afford to join the scheme in the first place.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@SunshineGirl @SunshineGirl Again (and this is why one should pay attention to the first post of this thread) the Marxian angle in this is from the Gotha Programme critique: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." You won't find any mention of Marx considering the insurance market. He had been dead long before the first insurance policy was created.

Insurance is based on the single concept of a group of people putting money in a pot with the idea that SOME of them will need to take some money out to pay for an unforseen accident, injury or death. That is the OFFICIAL definition of insurance. I had to take the state test. That's how I know.

The thing that makes the original insurance different from Marxism is the VOLUNTARY concept. Marxism, and later on Socialism, is all mandatory, with zero choice.

SunshineGirl · 36-40, F

@Reason10 I would call the concept 'cooperative' (which does have historical connections with socialism).

No system of government is voluntary. In the best scenario you give a democratic mandate to a particular party, but once they are in you can't opt out of laws that you don't agree with. Limited taxation under a conservative government is no less or more coercive than a more redistributive tax regime under a left wing government.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@SunshineGirl [quote][quote]No system of government is voluntary. In the best scenario you give a democratic mandate to a particular party, but once they are in you can't opt out of laws that you don't agree with[/quote][/quote].

The reason for the American Revolution (which created the greatest country in the world) was a bunch of laws the founding fathers didn't agree with. And they had to pay the price in order to get a government they wanted.

[quote]Limited taxation under a conservative government is no less or more coercive than a more redistributive tax regime under a left wing government.[/quote]

We learned better from the Kennedy, Reagan and Trump administrations. They cut taxes and (1) the economy soared and (2) the expansion of the economy meant better times, less crime, and peace in the world. (with the one possible exception of the Kennedy/Johnson Vietnam War.

Of course with Democrat fascist administrations (Johnson, Carter, KKKlinton, Obama,) WAR raged throughout the war, our economy tanked and liberties were slashed. The Johnson Administration in particular slashed the liberty of young men who did not want to fight in a war on the other side of the world.

Of course, NONE of this has anything to do with the subject of the thread. That subject is along the lines of pure ECONOMICS.

redredred · M

Up until1983 social security was an insurance program. Senator Joseph Biden led a move to replace a funded insurance program with a welfare program by moving the SS fund into the general fund ancvreplacing it with T-bills, IOUs essentially.

View 7 more replies »

redredred · M

@Reason10 one other big difference. No one (backed up by armed law enforcement) in the private insurance market, legally requires you to pay in

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@redredred There are other differences, but I admit that's a biggie.
Here's an even bigger one.
If insurance companies or ANY investment companies that sell annuities did their accounting the way Social Security did, the federal government would shut them down.

redredred · M

@Reason10 the social security program with annuity and disability support as structured, would be illegal to sell in all fifty states of the US.

ElwoodBlues · M

"From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs."

Sorry, dude, insurance companies don't charge based on ability to pay; they charge based on estimated risk. Ever bought life insurance??

That amounts to a fundamental flaw in your argument. [big]NEXT!![/big]

View 2 more replies »

ElwoodBlues · M

@Reason10 So you are denying that insurance companie charge based on estimated risk?? That's EASILY disproven!!!

Just look at the life insurance rates and see how they increase vs age!! These are 30 year term costs by month (non-smokers, Preferred health rating)

Men

Women

Source: [b]https://www.financialsamurai.com/how-much-does-life-insurance-cost-by-age-and-gender/[/b]

Face it, dude, your "Gotha Programme" comparison FAILS!!

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@ElwoodBlues [quote]So you are denying that insurance companie charge based on estimated risk?? [/quote]

Trying to 'splain this to lowbrow liberals like you is like trying to explain quantum physics to kindergarteners.

I have never denie that insurance companies charge based on risk. In fact that subject (which in the industry is called UNDERWRITING) hasn't even come up in this discussion.

Underwriting is an accounting technique to keep the legal reserve above legal limits without having either the government shut the company down or it have to charge huge premiums to maintain that legal reserve.

You really need to stick to simple political subjects. This is WAY over your inferior blue state education.

I don't know where I could even start to explain it to you, since you have such a closed mind and such limited knowledge.

This comment is hidden. Show Comment

JimboSaturn · 51-55, M

But don't insurance companies make money? Sounds very capitalistic to me.

Reason10 · 61-69, M

@JimboSaturn @JimboSaturn
[quote]But don't insurance companies make money? Sounds very capitalistic to me.[/quote]

Oh, you're 100 percent right about that. Insurance companies are an old bastion of profit based CAPITALISM. They definitely make profits, most of which comes from investment returns on the legal reserve they are supposed to maintain for paying claims.

Remember, I said the CONCEPT of insurance (from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs) is what is MARXIST.

therighttothink50 · 56-60, M

Add a comment...