Does luxury have place?

[Action Johnny]

I'm still a novice Marxist so forgive my ignorance. If a communist society were ever achieved; how would the people treat luxury items? I'm really not hear to argue about aesthetics and we all may have different views on luxury. But, if the community as a whole received their necessities shelter/food/ect., then couldn't we say that everyone would drive a bmw m5 over a honda civic, wouldn't we all want a 5 course turkey dinner opposed to ramen noodles every night? Does luxury hold any place in communist society or is it merely a fabrication used by bourgeois to distract us?

[Old Man Diogenes]

I'm still a novice Marxist so forgive my ignorance. If a communist society were ever achieved; how would the people treat luxury items? I'm really not hear to argue about aesthetics and we all may have different views on luxury. But, if the community as a whole received their necessities shelter/food/ect., then couldn't we say that everyone would drive a bmw m5 over a honda civic, wouldn't we all want a 5 course turkey dinner opposed to ramen noodles every night? Does luxury hold any place in communist society or is it merely a fabrication used by bourgeois to distract us?

I don't see why if necessities are made equal why luxuries couldn't also, as a communist society will abolish the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, so it could abolish the concentration of luxuries into the hands of a few. As for things that are limited in stock I have not been able to come up with any suggestions.

[IrishWorker]

I don't see why if necessities are made equal why luxuries couldn't also, as a communist society will abolish the concentration of wealth into the hands of a few, so it could abolish the concentration of luxuries into the hands of a few. As for things that are limited in stock I have not been able to come up with any suggestions.

Limited stock items should be owned by the state and allocated to every worker on a time share basis free of charge.

[danyboy27]

Limited stock items should be owned by the state and allocated to every worker on a time share basis free of charge.
nothing should be owned by the state.

I dont see any problem with luxuries, and i dont see a problem with an individual accumulating luxury good if he worked hard enough to get those.

Of course, Priority should be made to produce good of first necessity, but life without luxury good would be sad.

[Action Johnny]

Sorry, I thought Marxists seek to abolish the state?

[cb9's_unity]

How big a focus there is on luxury good will probably vary from commune to commune. Workers will decide how many resources will be allocated to making 'luxury goods'.

During early socialist stages I imagine the working class will still be fond the any of the finer commodities it was actually able to grow accustom to under capitalism (i'm talking about things like somewhat fashionable cloths, relatively nice tvs, etc.)

Later, during communism, I would hope people would be encouraged to use their leisure time to fully express their individual creativity. And it is creativity which often produces finer 'luxury' items that serve to entertain us.

[Action Johnny]

What if we a encounter a commune which doesn't have the resources (not man power, rather raw materials) to create luxury items? Would some sort of trade need to be established, perhaps on a federalist scale?

[danyboy27]

What if we a encounter a commune which doesn't have the resources (not man power, rather raw materials) to create luxury items? Would some sort of trade need to be established, perhaps on a federalist scale?

i dont see anything weird in that.

communes with common framework of laws and objective could form together some sort of federation, has a matter of fact i think its inevitable, and that eventually even commune with completly differents laws and organisation would eventually join some sort of federation in order to improve their lives.

[redmist]

As a newcomer it's something that has always got me thinking. I'm not saying that we need to get rid of luxury items, but surely it's an area that can create greed. Something that could potentially cause problems. For example, people might hoard various things, as they feel it can help them have power over individuals?

[#FF0000]

I think you new guys are missing some basics here, which is fine. Remember this, though.

Marxist Socialists/Communists want to establish a classless and stateless society, eventually. We plan to do this by focusing on developing the means of production further than they are allowed to under capitalism -- to the point that human material desires can be mostly satisfied. Once that point is reached, the state will "dissolve", because it is no longer necessary in a world where people's needs can be met, because the state is there to keep the lower class (The working class in capitalism, and the former capitalist class in Socialism) down, and the upper class (Capitalists in capitalism, Working class in Socialism) in power.

Hopefully that made some things a little clearer.

As for luxury items, sure, there'll be luxury items all over the place. I mean, think about when the Xbox 360 was released. There were shortages, not because they couldn't produce enough, but because totally fulfilling need doesn't lead to profit. In socialism, where the economic forces are developed so more can be produced for the benefit of people, it's entirely reasonable to believe that people will have more access to luxury than they did before.

And that's good.

[bcbm]

Early last century, the press corps attacked Bill Haywood, leader of the leftwing "Wobblies" labor union, for smoking expensive cigars. Mocking their demand for hairshirt ascetiscm, Haywood declared, "Nothing's too good for the working class."

a communist society will be an opulent society, where as much luxury as can be had will be available to all.

[Ravachol]

a communist society will be an opulent society, where as much luxury as can be had will be available to all.

This. Seeing as communism is the living movement of the working class seeking to improve it's material conditions, thereby clashing with the bourgoisie which as a 'collective capitalist' seeks to improve it's material conditions at the expense of the working class, 'luxery goods' are not a 'problem' at all. Indeed, nothing's too good for the working class.

[AK]

Limited stock items should be owned by the state and allocated to every worker on a time share basis free of charge.
wait... a state in a communist society?

[Revolutionary Pseudonym]

All consumables should be share out eqaully amongst those who want them and all non-consumables should be free to use by anybody whenever they so wish.

[Jimmie Higgins]

wait... a state in a communist society?I agree with what most people have been saying - we want more luxury, not less. Yes, yes, yes. There will be no state in a communist society by definition. But if I'm understanding the original comment correctly, I don;t think he's far off. Some things that can not easily be produced (or are not as high priority) will need to be collectively used. For example high tech equipment or specialty equipment for engineering or medical research or film or music production might be on a reservation basis like how a grad student might reserve some lab time to work on a project.

[bailey_187]

What if we a encounter a commune which doesn't have the resources (not man power, rather raw materials) to create luxury items? Would some sort of trade need to be established, perhaps on a federalist scale?

Of course. Production should be intergrated, not taking place on isolated Communes.

[bailey_187]

wait... a state in a communist society?

In the lower stage of Communism; yes.

[RadioRaheem84]

As for luxury items, sure, there'll be luxury items all over the place. I mean, think about when the Xbox 360 was released. There were shortages, not because they couldn't produce enough, but because totally fulfilling need doesn't lead to profit. In socialism, where the economic forces are developed so more can be produced for the benefit of people, it's entirely reasonable to believe that people will have more access to luxury than they did before.

And that's good. This is key. It's not that I am against luxury, its that I am against it being concentrated into the hands of the few who use it as a statement of exclusivity.

[danyboy27]

In the lower stage of Communism; yes.

in your idea of the lower stage of communism.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm still a novice Marxist so forgive my ignorance. If a communist society were ever achieved; how would the people treat luxury items? I'm really not hear to argue about aesthetics and we all may have different views on luxury. But, if the community as a whole received their necessities shelter/food/ect., then couldn't we say that everyone would drive a bmw m5 over a honda civic, wouldn't we all want a 5 course turkey dinner opposed to ramen noodles every night? Does luxury hold any place in communist society or is it merely a fabrication used by bourgeois to distract us?

But, environmentally no system can create equal abundance as current capitalists enjoy. Not everyone can live in mansions with a driver and maid and grounds crew and people to wipe your ass. Luxury as far as logo/material possessions is subjective unless you're thinking of it in it's simplest form which is hierarchy. Most luxury items boil down to showing society you hold a hierarchical position over others. Communism seeks to create abundance and equality - this doesn't mean everyone will be living in a box while eating top ramen it means we will all work together with the help of technology to create sustainable non hierarchical abundance.

Luxury is a product of scarcity. You have it because others cannot attain it.They cannot attain it because it is in scarce supply which makes it expensive- socialism is all about creating ABUNDANCE. Not abundance of top ramen and 500 sq foot apartments to live in while wearing blue coveralls but real abundance. Technology has the power to create environmentally sustainable abundance with QUALITY of life and yes choice. Personal transportation for each [it could be a non fossil fuel BMW's or other quality vehicles] and or very up to date and efficient public transport-computers for each with free internet access- sustainable homes for each according to need. One person or small family doesn't need a mansion. That's a product of capitalism/hierarchy. A family needs more space- single people don't. Fashion as far as Versace or any Rodeo Drive overpriced bunkum is psychological and a bi product of capitalism. This isn't to say fashion or choice wouldn't exist under communism/socialism there simply wouldn't be shops on Rodeo Drive selling purses for 1 million dollars- that luxury isn't a luxury at all- in reality it's a manifestation of social hierarchy. It costs them the same amount to make a non designer logo purse but the logo purse is overpriced because of the name brand and the psychological effect of holding a hierarchical position over others. The million dollar purse is a psychological manifestation of hierarchy. Everyone could be decked in Versace with top quality watches, hats, shoes...

Everyone should have the basics and this doesn't mean some Orwellian dystopia where everyone wears blue coveralls. A communist or non hierarchical socialist society would be one which seeks to minimize time at the work place while maximizing production in order to create abundance and give people more time to actually live life studying to attain higher levels of enlightenment, doing activities such as sport/rock climbing/bowling/sex [blowlingsex LOL] - more time to socialize in the community- more time to take up hobbies- more time to flourish. Flourishing or living a quality life isn't all about driving a subjectivity valued possession [BMW] than it is attaining quality of life. Socialism seeks to raise the quality of life- the quality of the human condition.

We would need 4 earths to create corporate hierarchical "luxury" capitalist abundance for 1 earth. Also, things such as BMW's are subjective- the value is a subjective psychological human creation. There is no reason everyone on earth could not drive a BMW but if everyone did drive a BMW it would not be seen as a luxury item would it? This is your capitalist box telling you what to value. We could all drive BMW's so long as it did not run on fossil fuel and was made of recycled/sustainable material and it wouldn't be a luxury it would just be a car. I'd rather have a efficient public transport system. Usually the things which are most scarce hold higher value, so , a diamond is valuable because it is rare [some people say capitalists keep hundreds of millions of diamonds out of the market in order to create false scarcity so the price remains high]. Rare things would in fact need to be rationed in a certain way but everyone could in fact possess a BMW if they could be made from abundant environmentally sustainable material. If we created an abundance of Turkey everyone could eat turkey dinners. Assuming everyone would eat top ramen shows what you think of communism/socialism. Abundance doesn't imply abject equality it just means most things are free. Like the freeways, fire service or medicare. I'm sure some humans would do all they can to create hierarchical divisions- Ayn Rand cults of hierarchy would indeed exist all over the place.
Define value- outside of food [which obviously we all want healthy good tasting food] define what you see as a luxury and why. A gold chain? Why is the gold chain luxurious? A pair of designer label sun glasses? What makes those glasses valuable? Brand name clothes? Why would you pay 300 dollars for one pair of jeans and 50 dollars for another if both were exactly the same except for a label? The social labels and logo's are a creation of capitalism and marketing. You are told you're less than unless you wear a certain brand- you become branded. You're less than if you don't drive a Lexus. Less than if you don't own some possession that holds subjective value. Socialism focuses on things with REAL value. You need to think outside of the capitalist box you've been born into. Stop seeing socialism as some Orwellian state rationing everything. Check out the left libertarians somewhat generic video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

I'm no strict Marxist either although Marx did properly interpret and explain capitalism and also held the opinion we needed to facilitate non hierarchical worker control and abundance. Some people haven't adjusted their views to match the present/future. Marx was a genius in his time and no one can come close to his ideas but my opinion is we all need to let his ideas go from a seed into a flower...metamorphosis with time. Change from the old ideas.

[MarxSchmarx]

But, environmentally no system can create equal abundance as current capitalists enjoy. Not everyone can live in mansions with a driver and maid and grounds crew and people to wipe your ass. Luxury as far as logo/material possessions is subjective unless you're thinking of it in it's simplest form which is hierarchy. Most luxury items boil down to showing society you hold a hierarchical position over others. Communism seeks to create abundance and equality - this doesn't mean everyone will be living in a box while eating top ramen it means we will all work together with the help of technology to create sustainable non hierarchical abundance.

Luxury is a product of scarcity. You have it because others cannot attain it.They cannot attain it because it is in scarce supply which makes it expensive- socialism is all about creating ABUNDANCE. Not abundance of top ramen and 500 sq foot apartments to live in while wearing blue coveralls but real abundance. Technology has the power to create environmentally sustainable abundance with QUALITY of life and yes choice. Personal transportation for each [it could be a non fossil fuel BMW's or other quality vehicles] and or very up to date and efficient public transport-computers for each with free internet access- sustainable homes for each according to need. One person or small family doesn't need a mansion. That's a product of capitalism/hierarchy. A family needs more space- single people don't. Fashion as far as Versace or any Rodeo Drive overpriced bunkum is psychological and a bi product of capitalism. This isn't to say fashion or choice wouldn't exist under communism/socialism there simply wouldn't be shops on Rodeo Drive selling purses for 1 million dollars- that luxury isn't a luxury at all- in reality it's a manifestation of social hierarchy. It costs them the same amount to make a non designer logo purse but the logo purse is overpriced because of the name brand and the psychological effect of holding a hierarchical position over others. The million dollar purse is a psychological manifestation of hierarchy. Everyone could be decked in Versace with top quality watches, hats, shoes...

Everyone should have the basics and this doesn't mean some Orwellian dystopia where everyone wears blue coveralls. A communist or non hierarchical socialist society would be one which seeks to minimize time at the work place while maximizing production in order to create abundance and give people more time to actually live life studying to attain higher levels of enlightenment, doing activities such as sport/rock climbing/bowling/sex [blowlingsex LOL] - more time to socialize in the community- more time to take up hobbies- more time to flourish. Flourishing or living a quality life isn't all about driving a subjectivity valued possession [BMW] than it is attaining quality of life. Socialism seeks to raise the quality of life- the quality of the human condition.

We would need 4 earths to create corporate hierarchical "luxury" capitalist abundance for 1 earth. Also, things such as BMW's are subjective- the value is a subjective psychological human creation. There is no reason everyone on earth could not drive a BMW but if everyone did drive a BMW it would not be seen as a luxury item would it? This is your capitalist box telling you what to value. We could all drive BMW's so long as it did not run on fossil fuel and was made of recycled/sustainable material and it wouldn't be a luxury it would just be a car. I'd rather have a efficient public transport system. Usually the things which are most scarce hold higher value, so , a diamond is valuable because it is rare [some people say capitalists keep hundreds of millions of diamonds out of the market in order to create false scarcity so the price remains high]. Rare things would in fact need to be rationed in a certain way but everyone could in fact possess a BMW if they could be made from abundant environmentally sustainable material. If we created an abundance of Turkey everyone could eat turkey dinners. Assuming everyone would eat top ramen shows what you think of communism/socialism. Abundance doesn't imply abject equality it just means most things are free. Like the freeways, fire service or medicare. I'm sure some humans would do all they can to create hierarchical divisions- Ayn Rand cults of hierarchy would indeed exist all over the place.
Define value- outside of food [which obviously we all want healthy good tasting food] define what you see as a luxury and why. A gold chain? Why is the gold chain luxurious? A pair of designer label sun glasses? What makes those glasses valuable? Brand name clothes? Why would you pay 300 dollars for one pair of jeans and 50 dollars for another if both were exactly the same except for a label? The social labels and logo's are a creation of capitalism and marketing. You are told you're less than unless you wear a certain brand- you become branded. You're less than if you don't drive a Lexus. Less than if you don't own some possession that holds subjective value. Socialism focuses on things with REAL value. You need to think outside of the capitalist box you've been born into. Stop seeing socialism as some Orwellian state rationing everything. Check out the left libertarians somewhat generic video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vu8J_UKKa-c

I'm no strict Marxist either although Marx did properly interpret and explain capitalism and also held the opinion we needed to facilitate non hierarchical worker control and abundance. Some people haven't adjusted their views to match the present/future. Marx was a genius in his time and no one can come close to his ideas but my opinion is we all need to let his ideas go from a seed into a flower...metamorphosis with time. Change from the old ideas.

Exactly. Luxury has a social dimension that is predicated on scarcity and hierarchy, not inherent quality or use value. Without those constraints, a good ceases to be defined luxurious and it is no longer as expensive. Our goal, in many respects, can be summed up by the idea of a BMW in every garage.

[hammer&sickle]

Lots of good thoughts about luxury and scarcity.

I think one thing we are forgetting is that a good part of the world's population lives on less than $2.00/day. The standard of living of even the "first world's" population is being seriously erroded. If present trends continue life will be intolerable except for the very rich. At the same time we have a situation where technology has advanced to a point where scarcity is manufactured and abundance is in the realm of possibilty. These two facts create..no demand..that they be reconciled.

Increasingly the products of the world's production cannot be distributed with money, they can only be distributed on the basis of need..that, comrade, is communism.

[Kommrad Stalen]

Stalin lived a very humble life with only a small cottage and ate like a normal worker or farmer..... more than I can say for Herr Trotsky with a mansion and personal train etc..

[bcbm]

Our goal, in many respects, can be summed up by the idea of a BMW in every garage.

i think our goal could be much more accurately summed up in the idea of a continuous festival; a life permeated by abundance, sure, but defined primarily by the level of human interaction and joy made possible. what we seek is primarily a transformation in human relations, not the proliferation of goods.

[danyboy27]

Stalin lived a very humble life with only a small cottage and ate like a normal worker or farmer..... more than I can say for Herr Trotsky with a mansion and personal train etc..

cut the crap would you?

[Robespierre2.0]

This seems like a simple problem to me. Post-revolution, when there is still scarcity, in the case of consumer goods- things that become personal property, we should operate on a 'nobody gets seconds until everyone gets firsts' principle.
I think many of these other 'luxuries' that take considerable resources to produce could be shared- Instead of one rich family having a $1,500 coffee machine and everyone else drinking swill, it could become communal property until enough are produced for everyone to own one as personal property.

Personally, I'd prefer it if 'luxury' became public- You know, public toilets made from gold and platinum, coffee drinking fountains, free cultural events-
Ideally, party bureaucrats would adopt this attitude of self-sacrifice, and tolerate working in cramped offices with poor ergonomics, while janitors, bin-men, and factory workers- those regarded as the 'bottom of the barrel' in bourgeois society, would be given priority.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

I'm still a novice Marxist so forgive my ignorance. If a communist society were ever achieved; how would the people treat luxury items? I'm really not hear to argue about aesthetics and we all may have different views on luxury. But, if the community as a whole received their necessities shelter/food/ect., then couldn't we say that everyone would drive a bmw m5 over a honda civic, wouldn't we all want a 5 course turkey dinner opposed to ramen noodles every night? Does luxury hold any place in communist society or is it merely a fabrication used by bourgeois to distract us?

Communists love luxury.

We just want everyone to have it.

And we want everyone to have luxury in countless ways greater than most could have now - along with "luxury" of consumption, people should have the "luxury" of security, the "luxury" of being able to work at what you like, the "luxury" of being considered an equal, and considering others as one too. These things which are considered luxuries in capitalist society would be the norm in a communist one.


(Possibly you might of been misled by some communists position against what they would probably call the fetishation of consumption, which occurs in a capitalist society. We don't see any reason for people to buy things just because they cost a lot, rather than any need on the part of the consumer.)

Hope this helps, and don't worry about asking any questions!