__________
#28 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-07-13 10:07 AM
For example while they claimed they were going eliminate private property they never did especially for the elite Germans.
Yeah, read the Mises.org link about that - it explains why they "never did" that, and "total control" didn't mean "total ownership" as communism/Marxism demanded - their socialism was different from Marxism. And even in Soviet Union they "never eliminated private property, especially for the elite Russians." And shortly after the Great Revolution of 1917, they had to institute "New Economic Policy / NEP," which went well beyond even National Socialism in allowing private property and commerce to save the communist economy from ruin.
www.britannica.com (brief)
en.wikipedia.org
Same in Cuba, and other "socialist/Marxist" countries where the elites enjoyed privileges of dachas and private investments and accumulated great wealth.
Hitler didn't make the mistake of abolishing significantly more efficient large private industrial enterprises (again, see reasons in mises.org link and elsewhere) - which allowed rapid rebuilding of the Wehrmacht economy - but he did, for example, force Ferdinand Porsche to create Volkswagen ("People's car") for the masses, etc. etc.
What most fans of "socialism" are trying to imply is that, on one hand, "socialism" can have many forms other than failed "communism" and be "good, benevolent" - yet in another breath they insist that only Marxist "socialism" (Marx himself didn't distinguish between "socialism" and "communism") was the only and true one, and there can be no other (like German National Socialism) which we all know has definitely not been the case.
Even in Soviet Union there were several different socialist groups. the largest of which were Bolsheviks (far-left faction of the original Marxist Russian Social Democratic Labour Party [RSDLP]) led by Lenin, Stalin, Dzerzhinsky et al(eventual, and the only winners) and more bourgeois-socialist Mensheviks, led by Trotsky, Axelrod, Dan, Martov et al., which were eventually outlawed and subjugated or eliminated.
Historians generally agree that Nazism was a distinct ideology separate from traditional socialism
Mo, historians, like Hitler and Goebbels, generally agree that Nazism is different from Marxism ("traditional"?? socialism) - which would be correct.
Like I said, unless you think that "traditional socialism / Marxism" (i.e., "total government ownership of means of production" and total elimination of private property / enterprises) is the only form of "socialism" then it's difficult to explain the existence of [and attachment to] "other/benevolent forms(?)" of "socialism."
... but their core ideology was centered on race, nationalism, and state power...
Yes, and as my posts and links show, none of these exclude "socialism" - after all, the core of socialism is state power and "patriotism"
Repeat: Communism requires "total ownership of means of production"; fascism imposes "total control over means of production" - but both are socialist totalitarian regimes (government 'uber alles' / above individual rights).
Who better to learn this from than the chief propagandist of ideology?
It is well known now that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime frequently used deception and propaganda to mask their true intentions and advance their agenda.
Yes, so do/did every other socialist/communist country - that's why need for total control/ownership of the media. In USSR "samizdat" (underground press) was prosecuted, and typewriters issued only to "good communists."
__________
__________
#4 | Posted by oneironaut at 2025-07-28 10:21 AM
How dare they use math. --- #3 math?
Yes, math - algorithms that adapt to variations of supply and demand.
These aren't free market principles. This is no different than a social scoring system. Earning or lising points because government wants you to behave a certain way.
This is EXACTLY "free market principles" - Delta is not the government and can't force you to buy anything, only incentivize you by cheaper prices or upgrades when supply exceeds demand and they have open seats to sell [for marginal profit], or raise prices when seats are in short supply and demand exceeds supply.
|------- If passed, the law would allow anyone to sue companies found unfairly using AI, lawmakers explained in what's called a "one-sheet." That could mean charging customers higher prices - based on "how desperate a customer is for a product and the maximum amount a customer is willing to pay" - or paying employees lower wages - based on "their financial status, personal associations, and demographics."
Hepner pushed lawmakers to support the legislation... suggesting that could help "restore fair, transparent, and predictable pricing." Otherwise, "there is no such thing as a good deal when every consumer is charged a different price"
-------|
Really? What is "a good deal" to him? "One size/price/wage fits all" is a "good deal"?
More [class] lawsuits and/or government interference and regulations based on someone's "perception" of being "gouged" by "predatory" airlines or employers that take into account education, experience (demographics), work history, mental capacity, etc.?
That will only raise costs and, correspondingly, prices for everyone.
|------- Delta denied that its AI system used personalized data for individualized pricing. Instead, it apparently relies on AI to forecast demand for certain flights... factors like... customer demand, and competitive offers that perhaps that customer is known to be weighing also influence the AI's pricing, which lawmakers and critics may be interpreting as individualized pricing.
Delta said: "There is no fare product Delta has ever used, is testing or plans to use that targets customers with individualized offers based on personal information or otherwise. A variety of market forces drive the dynamic pricing model that's been used in the global industry for decades, with new tech simply streamlining this process." -------|
This is just an extension of what Sen. Warren and Bernie Sanders and Ron Wyden tried last year, to blame Kroger and/or other grocers or companies in other industries (like real estate/rent management company RealPage, etc.) that used tech and math ("algorithmic pricing" / "dynamic pricing") for so-called "algorithmic collusion" (aka "hi-tech price fixing") and "gouging" ("corporate greed") while in reality it usually benefits both the consumers and companies, e.g.:
www.npr.org - Why supermarkets are adopting dynamic pricing: Dynamic pricing is an increasingly common phenomenon - NPR, 2024-03-06
Now the same "usual suspects" using the same terms ("gouging, fair wages, inequality, exploitation...") are trying to redefine "algorithmic collusion" as "AI spying / surveillance-based pricing" and also sneak into the bill "AI-based wage discrimination."
This is just one example why voters don't usually trust Democrats on the economy.
No thank you!
If you read the entire article and understand what this bill is really about and what it's actually trying to do, you would say not only "No thank you!" but "Hell, no!"
__________