That's not quite true. A firm wants to sell at a higher price to a customer who can afford it but also sell at a lower price (above cost) to one who can't afford the "regular price" but would buy it cheaper, thus maximizing profit both via margin and volume. There's nothing socialist about it.

[–] betanumerus@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

While surveillance pricing maximizes profit for the business owner, which is optimized capitalism, it also reduces the gap between wealthier buyers and poorer buyers, which is a socialist purpose. So we're making a distinction here between business owners, wealthier buyers and poorer buyers. Now I don't know how and where exactly left-leaning parties are looking to reduce the wealth gaps these days. The gap with business owners or the gap with wealthier buyers? Both I suppose, but with surveillance pricing, there's a tradeoff.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 40 minutes ago* (last edited 28 minutes ago)

Comrade, socialism isn't about reducing wealth inequality within the classes who get paid for their labour. Whether that's labour done for a decent salary or minimum hourly wage. Socialism is about people getting paid what the businesd owners withold above what people get paid. Tackling intra-working class wealth equality is a misc matter for socialism or perhaps a communist matter that is counterproductive to tackle before we've gotten our surplus value back.

E: But I do understand your point about how algo pricing can provide more product to wider parts of society. That's actually a very interesting perspective. If we didn't have the other problem I mentioned this could be interesting to consider as a way to distribute commodities.