Luxuries

[DaComm]

Time and again the old anti-communist argument is espoused, proclaiming that in a Communist society, if people are rewarded exclusively in subsistences, that leaves no room for luxuries of any sort. Clearly this is not what Marx envisioned (a world with only needs), but then again, I can recall none of Marx's works explaining just how the distribution of luxuries would specifically work. My best conjecture is that there would be a reasonable fixed limit of luxuries that people could get in the span of a month, that resets monthly. This enables egalitarianism, no one is deprived of needs (this goes without saying), and people would be able to obtain luxuries in a fair fashion. I must know however, what are your views on this?

[Niccolò Rossi]

What defines a luxury?

Nic.

[mikelepore]

I'm an unpopular person around here because I believe that

* the only classless society possible is one in which workers will get paid by the hour and they will use that income to buy whatever they want to buy

* to entertain any notion of doing otherwise was the worst mistake ever made in developing Marxism

[meow]

give me your luxaries and i will distribute them.

[lulks]

I'm an unpopular person around here because I believe that

* the only classless society possible is one in which workers will get paid by the hour and they will use that income to buy whatever they want to buy
I think essential things like food, water, housing and medicine should be free and distributed according to need but for other things I agree with you.

[Niccolò Rossi]

something that is a "nice to have" but not esential? drugs, food items that are consumed because they taste nice (or similar reason) rather than because you can survive off them (e.g. chocolate and coffee), jewelry etc.

What defines 'essential'? Essential for sustaining life in it's most primative form, ie. physically necessary or essential for sustaining life at a given level of social development, ie. socially necessary. Either way it is a very blurry notion in my mind.


i can think of two ways to distribute luxurys that are in short supply. first is a ration system, the second a lotary system.

It depends what you mean by ration. What am I going to do with 1/8th of a pearl necklace? Either way, a 'lotery' is a rediculous idea. What am I going to do with a performance sports car if I don't drive?

Nic.

[(A)(_|]

"Essential" itself has a pretty subjective definition; like someone said earlier in this thread, the most practical society would be one in which workers were paid for by the hour.

Yes, a society could reach a subjective consensus as to what exactly is essential and these materials/products could be distributed or rationed. You can't say however that there wouldn't be any kind of acknowledgement for harder-working people ie: luxuries. It fits perfect. I don't think it would be fair or appropriate to establish any kind of system to satisfy the distribution of "luxuries". Granted of course that the people agree upon this democratically.

[Zanthorus]

To back up mike's point:

The only thing anyone has ever been able to come up with to show that Marx supported some kind of "free-access" is the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" from the Critique of the Gotha Program. Now there are three things to keep in mind here. First of all this is the only time Marx ever uses such a slogan. In the description of a socialist society in Das Kapital he talks only about distribution according to labour time. And the GothaKritik was never actually intended for publication anyway. It was a private letter. Second of all the slogan was originally thought up by the social-reformist Louis Blanc, a man who opposed the Paris Commune. Marx had studied and written on the history of the 1848 revolutions and it's aftermath so it's unthinkable that he didn't know what the source was. And third of all it is not clear exactly what the phrase means anyway. If we are going to be distributing according to need then surely we would need some kind of mechanism to measure need? Paul Cockshott has pointed out that the slogan could easily be used to refer simply to free-at-the-point-of-access welfare programs.

[DaComm]

To back up mike's point:

The only thing anyone has ever been able to come up with to show that Marx supported some kind of "free-access" is the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" from the Critique of the Gotha Program. Now there are three things to keep in mind here. First of all this is the only time Marx ever uses such a slogan. In the description of a socialist society in Das Kapital he talks only about distribution according to labour time. And the GothaKritik was never actually intended for publication anyway. It was a private letter. Second of all the slogan was originally thought up by the social-reformist Louis Blanc, a man who opposed the Paris Commune. Marx had studied and written on the history of the 1848 revolutions and it's aftermath so it's unthinkable that he didn't know what the source was. And third of all it is not clear exactly what the phrase means anyway. If we are going to be distributing according to need then surely we would need some kind of mechanism to measure need? Paul Cockshott has pointed out that the slogan could easily be used to refer simply to free-at-the-point-of-access welfare programs.


Compensation via hourly pay? Can you make up an example then of what this society might look like?

[Zanthorus]

Compensation via hourly pay? Can you make up an example then of what this society might look like?

Well I'm not quite sure what kind of example you're looking for but a broad outline would be that society owns the means of production in common and produces a product which is owned by society as a whole. Now a part of this product goes back into repairing damaged means of production or to providing raw materialist for the new production period but another part of it consisting mainly of means of consumption is divided up among society. This division is done according to labour time, so everyone gets some kind of proof that they performed X hours labour which they can use to go into stores and buy things with. Labour time would also serve as an objective unit for performing economic calculation and distributing means of production accordingly.

[DaComm]

Well I'm not quite sure what kind of example you're looking for but a broad outline would be that society owns the means of production in common and produces a product which is owned by society as a whole. Now a part of this product goes back into repairing damaged means of production or to providing raw materialist for the new production period but another part of it consisting mainly of means of consumption is divided up among society. This division is done according to labour time, so everyone gets some kind of proof that they performed X hours labour which they can use to go into stores and buy things with. Labour time would also serve as an objective unit for performing economic calculation and distributing means of production accordingly.

Such society is noted by Marx to be a phase of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, among other phases that will eventually lead to Pure Communism, which is, evidently very different from this.

[Zanthorus]

Such society is noted by Marx to be a phase of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat,

No it is not. In the Critique of the Gotha Program it is labelled as the "lower phase of communism". The dictatorship of the proletariat is the form that the state takes between capitalist and communist society. Such a society is also outlined in the section on commodity fetishism in Das Kapital and is said to be the only form of society in which production strips off it's mystical veil and becomes consciously regulated. That is, the post-capitalist society or communism as it is called elsewhere.

[DaComm]

No it is not. In the Critique of the Gotha Program it is labelled as the "lower phase of communism". The dictatorship of the proletariat is the form that the state takes between capitalist and communist society. Such a society is also outlined in the section on commodity fetishism in Das Kapital and is said to be the only form of society in which production strips off it's mystical veil and becomes consciously regulated. That is, the post-capitalist society or communism as it is called elsewhere.

Would pay vary for different jobs?

How many Orthodox Marxists actually adhere to eventually acheiving said system?

If this is the lower stage, what is the higher?

When working in such a society, is the prime incentive really to meat a human need, or to generate self-profit?

[mikelepore]

Compensation via hourly pay? Can you make up an example then of what this society might look like?

See Marx's description near the end of "Critique of the Gotha Programme." He describes all of society's products being pooled together. Out of this total is taken what is needed to run and expand industries and services, general administration, an emergency reserve fund, etc. Then the remaining amount of products is what can be distributed to individuals in proportion to each worker's "certificate" for performing some number of work hours.


I think essential things like food, water, housing and medicine should be free and distributed according to need but for other things I agree with you.

To do that, any products that are distributed for free would come out of the deduction from the total inventory, at the same time the deduction is made to supply the industries and services. That's the bookkeeping aspect of it.

[mikelepore]

Would pay vary for different jobs?

That will require a judgment. If the majority of the people of the future want that, that's what they will establish. I believe that the people will want some small amount of variation, and therefore I believe that it will occur. I would vote to have small difference in income to compensate for the degree of discomfort, exertion, etc. in some kinds of work. I believe that this represents equality at its best, because what the individual gives to society isn't just the time, but the time X difficulty product.

To be fair to any new learners, I should report that a group like worldsocialism.org believes that I'm absolutely wrong about this whole compensation issue. They want all work to be unpaid, all products distributed for free, and nothing similar to a currency to be in use for anything. What goal is best, each person will have to study and decide.

[Zanthorus]

How many Orthodox Marxists actually adhere to eventually acheiving said system?

Historically speaking - Marx, Lenin, Daniel DeLeon and Amadeo Bordiga all come to mind as examples of people who advocated the "lower phase of communism" as the first iteration of the post-capitalist society.


If this is the lower stage, what is the higher?

The famous "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" stage which is only actually ever mentioned once and is subject to varying interpretations.

I for one don't think that this second stage is desirable however.


When working in such a society, is the prime incentive really to meat a human need, or to generate self-profit?

What is the problem with getting something in return for the work you do as long as you aren't exploiting anyone else?

[syndicat]

Free provision would make sense in the case of health care. People generally don't enjoy having medical procedures done for their own sake.

Water could be provided free up to some limit that would be the normal per person consumption variation, say. But it would not be advisable for water at any level of consumption to be free as that would encourage waste.

Freedom does require roughly equal access to the means to develop and maintain your potential, and both health care and education pertain to this. It seems reasonable to make both education and health care provision free.

But as a general rule, a person needs to be free to decide what things they want to consume, as most is actually for individual consumption and tastes vary from person to person. Hence the idea of a personal budget.

The rule about remuneration for work effort applies of course only to people who can work, are of the right age to work (not too old or too young), and who can find a job. Snce it is the society's obligation to provide opportunities for meaningful, selfmanaging work, if no jobs are available for someone or a person is between jobs, then they can be simply carried by society at average social consumption level, as far as their consumption entitlement is concerned.

Also, children need to be treated separately. Having a child is not a personal consumer good. And we need to ensure that children have equal access to resources in the course of early childhood, and this would include things like univeral pre-school, but also providing parents with child allotments to cover expenses of their children.

I think the basic rule should be that people who work are to be remunerated on the basis of their work effort and sacrifices for us in their work contribution. This can be judged by looking at: how many hours do they work, how intensely do they work, how harsh or onerous are the working conditions.

we can try to roughly equalize jobs as far as distributing the least desireable tasks, but there may still be some variation. to the extent this isn't significant, we can just pay the same rate per hour.

[DaComm]

Zanthorous, I'd like you to read this phrase in the Critique of the Gotha Programme:

"But one man is superior to another physically or mentally so supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labir, to serve as a measure, must be defined by it's duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment and thus productive capacity as natural privileges. It is therefore a right of inqeuality, in it's content, like every right. Right by it's very nature can only consist in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals in they were not unequal) are only measurable by an equal standard in so far as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only, e.g., in the present case, are regarded only as workers, and nothing more seen in them, everything else being ignored. Furthermore, one worker is married, another is not; and one has more children than another and so on and so forth. Thus with an equal output, and an equal consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right instead of being equal would have to be unequal."

(Typed word for word out of the book) Marx explains inherent flaws that are not adressed in your proposed "lower stage", thus the logical solution would be "working to one's ability, and receiving according tone's need", and I think it's very clear what Marx was implying here.

[Wolf Larson]

The difference between luxuries in this modern corporate consumer culture and a communist society would stand in stark contrast to each other. Most luxuries are a bi product of hierarchy. There would no reason (outside of sustainability) everyone could not drive a BMW. Fashion is also a creation of capitalism. The value or price of the clothes is subjective. There would be no reason various styles of clothes could not be available to all. no one is advocating orwells 'nineteen eighty four'. blue coveralls and rations for the party members while the proles live like peasants enduring a mundane mediocre existence.

Fuck capitalist materialism. give me real materialism. real needs. not the manufactured needs capitalists have instilled in us with endless PR and advertising campaigns.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

To back up mike's point:

The only thing anyone has ever been able to come up with to show that Marx supported some kind of "free-access" is the slogan "from each according to his ability to each according to his need" from the Critique of the Gotha Program. Now there are three things to keep in mind here. First of all this is the only time Marx ever uses such a slogan. In the description of a socialist society in Das Kapital he talks only about distribution according to labour time. And the GothaKritik was never actually intended for publication anyway. It was a private letter. Second of all the slogan was originally thought up by the social-reformist Louis Blanc, a man who opposed the Paris Commune. Marx had studied and written on the history of the 1848 revolutions and it's aftermath so it's unthinkable that he didn't know what the source was. And third of all it is not clear exactly what the phrase means anyway. If we are going to be distributing according to need then surely we would need some kind of mechanism to measure need? Paul Cockshott has pointed out that the slogan could easily be used to refer simply to free-at-the-point-of-access welfare programs.

Guilty as charged for an appeal to authority here, but a Marxist-sympathetic prof told my class about that quote last term. In passing, she mentioned it as a common misconception about Marxism. As you mentioned, it originated with Louis Blanc who Marx opposed. She claimed the quote was used in a context where he was criticizing utopian socialism. Now I haven't read the work and this was a passing comment so I can't really evaluate it myself. But it makes some sense considering where the quote originates.

Personally, I think fancy quotes are pretty, but it doesn't matter much. How about just taking care of the needs of people? Everyone can work as much as they feel they are able and is appropriate, which I would agree with Marx will not be problematic. They will be motivated to work in the majority of cases. Incentives for labor can be altruistic (helping others) and reputation-based. Not need to create material inequalities when it isn't necessary, though minor inequalities aren't automatically unacceptable. It's means of production that matter, not whether one person got two pieces of pie that day.

Luxuries are by definition unnecessary items, are they not? I mean what constitutes a luxury is rather subjective. I think society should seek to maximize the happiness of its members, which entails some luxuries.

For instance, the extremely poor might consider an expensive bed a luxury. The person with a healthier back, better rest, and comfy bed might disagree. Air conditioning? For many people in many areas, it's a luxury. However, it can make their lives better.

People wrongfully assume people will lose everything fun in communist society. They'll gain more. Only the rich will be crying, and that's the "really" rich. Well maybe the egoists who like feeling above others will be upset. A variety of people won't like it but overall, things will improve.

So luxuries in terms of life improvement, sure. Luxuries in terms of using a rare mineral that costs 1.1 million to extract for the sole purposes of making a pretty necklace. A necklace that's quality would only be recognizable by an expert and could easily be replicated for $10.00 and its owner wouldn't be the wiser. That kind of luxury. No, it has no place in society.

[Zanthorus]

Marx explains inherent flaws that are not adressed in your proposed "lower stage", thus the logical solution would be "working to one's ability, and receiving according tone's need", and I think it's very clear what Marx was implying here.

The passage is true to some extent. It would not really be fair to give out e.g healthcare, water, heat etc on the basis of who worked the hardest as most of these are basic human goods. These would indeed have to be aportioned out "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

However the problem comes when deciding what to do with high-tech laptops or sportscars. We can't give out high-end servers "from each according to his ability to each according to his need, therefore some kind of rationing system is required.

[Kotze]

If there are different income levels, you can derive what a luxury is from consumption patterns.

[Old Man Diogenes]

The rule about remuneration for work effort applies of course only to people who can work, are of the right age to work (not too old or too young), and who can find a job.

I've often wondered about the right age to work and the right age at which retirement begins (and I assume retirement would be voluntary, unless the person had reached an age it which they were no longer able to work and continuing to do so would endanger the safety of other people), how would that be decided?

Adding, that in my opinion the right age to start work begins after education has ceased, and retirement at between 60-70.

[DaComm]

The passage is true to some extent. It would not really be fair to give out e.g healthcare, water, heat etc on the basis of who worked the hardest as most of these are basic human goods. These would indeed have to be aportioned out "from each according to his ability to each according to his needs".

However the problem comes when deciding what to do with high-tech laptops or sportscars. We can't give out high-end servers "from each according to his ability to each according to his need, therefore some kind of rationing system is required.


Yes well, I do not recall Marx ever having talked about those things being free, and anyway rewarding in accordance to labor time automatically creates financial gaps between those capable of mass work intensity/hours and those that can only by physical or mental limitations, work so much. Working to your ability is fair and moral, this I do not think Marx denies and having a super-abundance allows people to take what they need from local commissaries, you do not need a mechanism to measure need.


As for your second part, is it totally impossible to produce differing varieties of cars at different factories, thus allowing sports cars chosen to those who seek to ride at unecessarily fast speeds? And as for "high-end servers", if you are referring to internet access, frankly internet is not necessary; the people of the 80's made out fine.

[Kotze]

Here is an idea an idea for curbing luxury production.

It is said that people vote with their wallet. In a sense, having points to allocate to different decisions can make people more happy than majoritarian decisions, because the intensity of preference gets expressed. There is a problem: People have different amounts of money votes, some people have more than 1000 times the votes of what is usual or even 1000000 times the usual amount.

Imagine the wealth distribution gets resetted (for example by convincing the ultra-rich with arguments, just kidding) and everybody gets an equal endowment of currency. Some people's work is in strong demand, that is, it is deemed to be very important by a mechanism that is hyper-democratic. It is hyper-democratic because everybody has the same amount of votes, they can allocate their points in a way to have a stronger influence on things they think are important, and they use the mechanism every day. But the moment you start paying people according to the importance of their work for society as measured by the hyper-democratic mechanism to motivate them, they get different amounts of votes. We know that when your income changes you don't buy the same stuff as before just in a different quantity, but your buying patterns change considerably. We know that the richer somebody gets, the more he spends on luxury relative to essentials. We know that when some people get lots of money they start to use some of that money to get more money. The moment the hyper-democratic mechanism is used to reward people it falls apart. What to do?

Imagine workers receive different amounts of electronic points. When I buy stuff for my consumption and I have twice your income, I can buy the same stuff you bought, twice. But there is something under the hood: Each point people spend carries a voting signal. Because we are talking about a real democray here, every adult citizen has the same voting signal power, so when I have twice your income, my voting signal per point I spend is half of what your signal per point is. The received voting signals are used to determine how important providing some good or service is, that is the voting signals determine whether production of an item should be increased or decreased.

[Paul Cockshott]

Here is an idea an idea for curbing luxury production.

It is said that people vote with their wallet. In a sense, having points to allocate to different decisions can make people more happy than majoritarian decisions, because the intensity of preference gets expressed. There is a problem: People have different amounts of money votes, some people have more than 1000 times the votes of what is usual or even 1000000 times the usual amount.

Imagine the wealth distribution gets resetted (for example by convincing the ultra-rich with arguments, just kidding) and everybody gets an equal endowment of currency. Some people's work is in strong demand, that is, it is deemed to be very important by a mechanism that is hyper-democratic. It is hyper-democratic because everybody has the same amount of votes, they can allocate their points in a way to have a stronger influence on things they think are important, and they use the mechanism every day. But the moment you start paying people according to the importance of their work for society as measured by the hyper-democratic mechanism to motivate them, they get different amounts of votes. We know that when your income changes you don't buy the same stuff as before just in a different quantity, but your buying patterns change considerably. We know that the richer somebody gets, the more he spends on luxury relative to essentials. We know that when some people get lots of money they start to use some of that money to get more money. The moment the hyper-democratic mechanism is used to reward people it falls apart. What to do?

Imagine workers receive different amounts of electronic points. When I buy stuff for my consumption and I have twice your income, I can buy the same stuff you bought, twice. But there is something under the hood: Each point people spend carries a voting signal. Because we are talking about a real democray here, every adult citizen has the same voting signal power, so when I have twice your income, my voting signal per point I spend is half of what your signal per point is. The received voting signals are used to determine how important providing some good or service is, that is the voting signals determine whether production of an item should be increased or decreased.
It is an interesting idea, it would involve some thought to work out just how the combination of voting signals and points combined to guide production decsions.

[Spear Of Sankara]

lets just get all the world fed clothed and housed before we talk about jewelry comrade