Socialism Gambling/Casinos

[tradeunionsupporter]

Would/Will Socialism outlaw or ban Gambling/Casinos is Gambling a part of Capitalism/Capitalist Exploitation by the Rich/Wealthy ?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12465204

[Ilyich]

Under socialism, production would be done for use rather than for profit. There would be no transfer of money, so gambling would serve no purpose

[freenation26]

This is an interesting question


Under socialism, production would be done for use rather than for profit. There would be no transfer of money, so gambling would serve no purpose

What about gambling items instead of money?

[Old Mole]

I guess that's why its called "Russian roulette".

No seriously the desire to gamble to gain wealth I guess would be kinda off in a society that fulfills the needs for everyone...

[The Idler]

You'll be able to play poker for poker chips if you want but you won't be able to cash them in.

[dude6935]

I guess that's why its called "Russian roulette".

No seriously the desire to gamble to gain wealth I guess would be kinda off in a society that fulfills the needs for everyone...

Assuming that a society can fulfill the needs of everyone, it cannot fulfill the wants of everyone. People will still gamble in an attempt to satisfy their wants.

[Bright Banana Beard]

In this city, they depend on casinos and entertainments.

However, I think Gambling should still be legal but without any money involved. Leftovers or rare items made by communities or individuals will be aware if won if desired so, not money.

Plus, employees should be able to be gamble, and remove customer loyalty program.

[Hebrew Hammer]

Under socialism, production would be done for use rather than for profit. There would be no transfer of money, so gambling would serve no purpose

I don't think games are going to die during the revolution. I would gamble even if no money were involved, it's just fun.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's hard to say if people would still find it fun to barter through wagers... children will barter their toys in bets and so on, but is that because it's a fun way to circulate interesting items or is it because people are just used to these kinds of exchanges in capitalism even at a young age since people don't have access to toys in like a library where they could be accessed at any time.

At any rate, I would be shocked if people didn't play games, but I'm not sure what the stakes would be: just pride and bragging rights or some material "trophy"or maybe some unique thing with sentimental value that would make a more high-stakes trade.

[hatzel]

It's hard to say if people would still find it fun to barter through wagers... children will barter their toys in bets and so on, but is that because it's a fun way to circulate interesting items or is it because people are just used to these kinds of exchanges in capitalism even at a young age since people don't have access to toys in like a library where they could be accessed at any time.

I would personally put my money on the former (see what I did there? :rolleyes:)

That is to say...it's probably linked to the 'I dare you to do it! I'll give you this if you do it!'-thing and the whole competition for a prize thing that kids seem to like doing. I don't think that a child has to have been 'conditioned' in a capitalist society, or aware of the concept of deed-for-reward (which, in the grown-up world, is the origin of wages) to add these kinds of incentives to challenges or competitions. Perhaps it's only later on, when they are exposed to gambling games, that they develop a more formal structured game, but I feel that the underlying feature here, that of incentivisation and rewarding, isn't necessarily a result of society. I don't really feel that very young children are aware of scarcity, so doubt that free access will stop that. I also don't feel that kids snatch all the toys from their siblings (conveniently as soon as said sibling wants to play with it) for any reason other than just wanting to have them all, and I guess that too is similar, and would continue even in a situation of plentiful toys...

[Hammilton]

Whether it's legal or not, it's going to continue. Even people who already have all of their needs met continue to gamble. The desire for more is innate in humanity.

In the present society I think of casinos as one of the few places I can truly beat the capitalists. In those times when I've been short on cash I've supplemented my income playing blackjack. I taught myself to count cards a few years ago and even with occasional practice I'm still sharp enough that I consistently win. When I was still green I was caught once in Minneapolis- though they didn't 'ask' me to leave until I started losing a bit.

[Tablo]

I'm would gamble with my labor vouchers/rations. Half the fun of gambling is the potential loss. I imagine if we went gift economy we would gamble favors and probably do more stuff like strip poker.

[Kotze]

With an electronic payment system, gambling could be regulated by setting a spending limit for each individual account.

[ComradeMan]

Absolutely no- no fucking gambling or casinos other than a private "gentileman's" wager! ;) Or the odd game of poker....

[Tablo]

With an electronic payment system, gambling could be regulated by setting a spending limit for each individual account.
Why shoud some higher authority tell someone what they can and can't do with their money/whatever?

[Kotze]

Why shoud some higher authority tell someone what they can and can't do with their money/whatever?Like hiring somebody?

[Tablo]

Like hiring somebody?
Why would someone want to be hired when they are provided everything they need to live comfortably? Maybe you and I have a different idea of what socialism is.

[Kotze]

Why would someone want to be hired when they are provided everything they need to live comfortably?You are making a big gamble with that statement. We do not know to what extent workers will be replaced by machines and we do not know to what extent voluntarism will work. If post-scarcity was really an option there would be no need for class struggle since the cappies wouldn't have any motivation to do what they are doing. Stuff is limited, and cappies get a bigger share by exploiting others.

The reason why authoritah should interfere with what individuals do with "their money/whatever" is that these activities affect other people. Smoking affects others in the same room, drunk driving affects others in traffic. But suppose there is an activity that is only potentially harmful to those directly partaking in it, and when it damages, it is very damaging. Suppose I'm not a psychopath, so even in a case with virtually no externalities I have an interest that people harmed get help (a psychological externality, if you will). Suppose I'm not purely altruistic either, that means I have an interest that risky behaviour is curbed and regulated, that taking part in risky yet legal behaviour carries cumpulsory insurance payments.

I don't think gamblers are a good example for over-regulation.

[Tablo]

You are making a big gamble with that statement. We do not know to what extent workers will be replaced by machines and we do not know to what extent voluntarism will work. If post-scarcity was really an option there would be no need for class struggle since the cappies wouldn't have any motivation to do what they are doing. Stuff is limited, and cappies get a bigger share by exploiting others.

The reason why authoritah should interfere with what individuals do with "their money/whatever" is that these activities affect other people. Smoking affects others in the same room, drunk driving affects others in traffic. But suppose there is an activity that is only potentially harmful to those directly partaking in it, and when it damages, it is very damaging. Suppose I'm not a psychopath, so even in a case with virtually no externalities I have an interest that people harmed get help (a psychological externality, if you will). Suppose I'm not purely altruistic either, that means I have an interest that this risky behaviour is regulated, that taking part in risky yet legal behaviour carries cumpulsory insurance payments.

I don't think gamblers are a good example for over-regulation.
Don't mind making a gamble. ;) I'm not even talking about post-scarcity either. If someone wants to spend a large portion of their already limited rations/labor vouchers/pseudo-currency to pay someone else to do something for them then what is the problem? The individual paying them won't be able to accumulate anything by paying some guy to paint his house. The means of production are owned collectively in socialism so how is the bourgeoisie supposed to do anything, especially when they don't exist? If anything the guy getting paid would be the one accumulating wealth. But all of this ignores the fact that socialism operates under a planned economy. Why would someone pay someone else for a service that is already offered through the planned economy? I really am not following you. If some higher authority were to tell people they aren't allowed to gamble with their money would they also tell them they can't spend it on drugs? Why should we be told what to do by someone else above us? How does wasting our own money gambling hurt anyone else around us? This isn't anything like smoking around other people or drunk driving. I'm not sayign their shouldn't be rules, but the idea of having a higher authority limit my gambling doesn't sound right.

Btw I don't even like the idea of "currency" under a socialist economy as it is.

[RichardAWilson]

Casinos and such would be state owned, regulated and managed. They could, for instance, be used as a method of “lifestyle taxation:” Whereby individuals would contribute to the General Fund through voluntary choice.

[Hexen]

Casinos/Gambling is basically a metaphorical depiction or caricature of capitalism.

[RichardAWilson]

If it's operated for greed. If it's operated for fun and entertaining, I don't see the issue. Hence: State ownership and regulation of gambling.

[Kenco Smooth]

I think a better question would be whether the outlawing of gambling, with or without wagers, is in anyway feasible or at the very least wouldn't be a massive blackhole of resources in a socialist society.

[Old Mole]

Assuming that a society can fulfill the needs of everyone, it cannot fulfill the wants of everyone. People will still gamble in an attempt to satisfy their wants.
True, but the "wants" under communism arent the same as under capitalism, for obvious reason. A Casino is a capitalist establishment, and so visiting it is impossible in another historical epoch, if not there will be gambling in a "communist form", which is as of today, unheard of.

[dude6935]

True, but the "wants" under communism arent the same as under capitalism, for obvious reason. A Casino is a capitalist establishment, and so visiting it is impossible in another historical epoch, if not there will be gambling in a "communist form", which is as of today, unheard of.

Maybe the wants will be different. But that is immaterial. The wants are still unfulfilled because wants are infinite. Gambling and other forms of trade will emerge to satisfy peoples' wants.

While items such as food could be produced so effectively that it would make no sense to gamble it (a position i don't hold), it could still be scarce locally (ie the last coke in the room). So two people could trade a chance to have a coke against a chance of having to walk down the hall to get another coke.