I want Communism for Land, Socialism for Necessities, and Capitalism for Luxuries.

I don’t think that puts me into any of the existing labels to be quite honest.

You don’t need a ruling class to have a social welfare state. It’s possible to just have everyone not work in theory.

Nah, it’s cyclical. Kings, Lords and Peasants were capitalist too, and clearly far worse than even what we have today.

People argue that Feudalism is separate, but really those differences were political, not economic. A small number of people owned almost everything, and forced the labour of the rest of the population to survive because of that.

Labour isn’t voluntary under capitalism either, it’s required to survive. Modern capitalism just gives us the illusion that it’s our choice.

I mean, the current 3-tier standard for social classes directly disagrees with you. Middle class people do get a new tier just by being more productive(perceived or actual) than another.

The 3-tier system is archaic at best, and more likely intentional propaganda.

Either there should only be 2 classes of people(those who work to live, and those who profit off other people enough to not need to work) or there should be a dozen classes to encompass things like the homeless, welfare supported persons, retired people, people who make part of their income from profit and part of their income from employment, etc.

The definition of communism I’ve already mentioned is one of those theories, but you’re arguing it isn’t real. An economic system where there is no private ownership of the means of production. That’s it, no discussion about social classes or anything.

Other alternatives span a range from no private ownership of anything (normally it’s just the means of production) to group ownership rather than being some sort of universal system.

Canada

You’re stretching the realities here with your assertions. The vast majority of what the government does is in the interest of workers. It could be better, absolutely, but it’s a far cry from some dystopian corpo-state. The government could move towards more positive worker benefits, but a lot of those workers won’t actually vote for them if they did because people aren’t entirely rational. So we’re essentially getting what we deserve right now.

Profit-bound but still owned by the state would still be socialist. There’s no requirement that the means of production not generate profit to qualify as being owned by the workers.

Yup, we always treat ourselves differently than others.

Again, that’s not how productivity works. Productivity is the ratio of input to output.

If I have to produce 40 widgets, and it takes me 40 hours. I have a productivity of 1 widget per hour.

If I reduce my workload, and only need to produce 20 widgets, and it takes me 20 hours, I still have a productivity of 1 widget per hour. There has been no increase in my productivity.

The only way to improve the productivity is to do something more efficiently, I could get better at a task, I could use a tool that helps, etc.

There is likely a non-zero adjustment in dropping your workload, but only if you’re already massively overburdened and just from reducing the stress associated or perhaps getting some extra sleep. There’s not going to be any significant difference in the number of burgers a McDonalds worker can produce in an hour between a 30 hour work week and a 20 hour work week.

You clearly don’t understand how many countries operate. Or you’re somehow misunderstanding what “means of production” or “workers” means.

My local electricity provider, and all of it’s power production equipment, transmission lines, meters, etc. are owned by the government. So is every hospital in the country. Almost every road is public.

Means of production is any sort of capital used to build value, so things like infrastructure, buildings, factories, machinery, tools, etc.

Workers does not mean the people that work in a particular building or factory, it means the class of people as a whole.

It’s pretty obvious that if the government owns something, under a democracy that thing is is owned by the citizens of the region. Even Marx mentions that socialism would use the state for collective ownership.

You’re wrong.

Communism can be entirely defined as an economic system with no private ownership.

The classes concept is a symptom, not the cause. It’s true that without private ownership there wouldn’t be a working class vs upper class, but we would hardly be classless at that point. There would still be people working, and people not working under communism. Some people can’t work, they simply aren’t capable, and some will choose not to work because there will already be enough to go around from the people who choose to work just for something to do. If you don’t think that classes will form because of those difference, you don’t know human nature very well.

Marx gave a single definition of communism, there are plenty of others.

that’s not really how productivity works…

It’s important to consider the fact that an economy does not have to be entirely Capitalist, Socialist, or Communist.

Most countries already have Socialist and Capitalist components at this point.

What I’d personally like to see is Land be a communist system. Necessities be Socialist. Luxuries be Capitalist.

Every citizen of a country should own and share in the land of the country equally. It should not be possible to privately own land. If land is leased or rented from this pool for individual or corporate use, that money should be given to everyone equally. Likely that would be handled by a government in reality, but it should be fairly hands off other than facilitating the transfer of value.

Necessities like Basic Housing, Basic Food, Public Transportation, Medical Care, Parks, Rec Centers, Schools, Police, Courts, etc. should be all handled with socialism. Where the government collects taxes from the land value and capitalist markets, and operates these systems itself for the benefit of everyone who needs them.

If you want more than necessities, capitalism should stick around to handle those desires. Want a bigger fancier house, some fancy oranges from another country, a suit made of silk, go ahead and buy it on a capitalist market either with the money you receive from your portion of land ownership value, or through participating in the capitalist market yourself.

You can gloss over that goal if you don’t consider Marxism the only form of communism.

There are other types of communism possible, some that even already exist in smaller groupings of humans than at the state level.

I think I know exactly what stupid means.

If you had to remove a screw to access a battery compartment, and reached for a hammer. I’d call that stupid.

If you need to know what temperature to cook a steak to for it to be healthy and called the police to ask. I’d call that stupid.

There are ways to get things done that are generally accepted as “reasonable” and asking Social media users to answer a question that 30 seconds of reading Wikipedia would answer is clearly the wrong tool for the job.

I disagree, people should use the correct tools to achieve the outcome they are looking for. If you want a basic answer to a common question, you should search for material that has already answered that. Asking it in Lemmy or another social media site is wasting the time of people who could use that time to answer questions that aren’t already answered or have nuance to them that current discussion would help.

The question itself isn’t stupid, it’s a very good question, but asking other people instead of looking it up is stupid.

Technically they apply to Persons, Persons hasn’t been tested against an extra-terrestrial Alien in court yet. I would suspect that it would apply if they are intelligent enough to travel to earth to be quite honest.

Removed by mod

The simple answer is fear.

They’re worried about many of the facets that relate to this, primarily how it will affect them personally via things like job losses or increased personal costs (electricity rates are a big one right now).

It’s amusing because the “It’s bad for the environment” crowd is either a) really stupid or b) using it as an excuse because they don’t want to say they’re worried about their jobs.

These people care very little about their environmental impact via other aspects of their life that are FAR more significant than AI will ever be. Meat production alone consumes like 20-25% of global energy usage, and AI is at around 0.3-0.4% of global total energy use. People eating meat one day less per week would save more energy than AI is even predicted to use in a worse case scenario in the next 20 years.

Now clearly there are some vegetarians around these days, but even most of those are doing it for ethical animal reasons rather than because of energy use issues. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10100114/

However, while I continue to see these people drive their SUV home from the AI protest, stop at the grocery store to pick up a steak for dinner, and then cook it in their 2500 square foot house that only holds 3 people I’m going to ignore their whining about energy and the environment. They’re nothing but scared hypocrites.

It’s likely because 3.25% is just what comes out of a cow (on average) the other percentages all require other adjustments before they get homogenized.

The first chicken Egg was laid by a non-chicken. However, that’s more theoretical than realistic. The mutational difference between generations of offspring isn’t enough for us to call the offspring a different species, it’s not a hard line. It’s only on a much broader scale across a population and large timeframe that they can differentiate enough to be considered a different species.

A) That datacenter is breaking the law, and the government isn’t enforcing it. The government absolutely should shut them down.

B) That’s only a single datacenter, we’re discussing Global usage and trends, not individual situations. As far as I know that’s the only datacenter doing that. There’s individual idiots who burn tires in their backyard too.