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.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

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 Das Kapital 🤔

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 · 70-79, 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 · 70-79, M

@SunshineGirl

[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].

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.

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

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.