What to do with Casinos/Gambling

[ВАЛТЕР]

What would we do with Casinos and gambling in general in a Socialist society? I, personally am against gambling as it encourages greed. However, many people like to go and gamble. What to do about it? I would love to just shut it down and ban it, but I feel like it would be taking away from the people that enjoy doing it. Maybe set it up in a way that all profits go to social needs like healthcare, housing, and whatnot. However, that still doesn't solve the problem of people being greedy (If that makes sense).

[EvilRedGuy]

Can't see if joking.

I don't see whats wrong with playing games and betting your personnal objects on it, money obviously wouldn't excist and even if we used labour vouchers you wouldn't be able to bet with them. Simply, casinos of today wouldn't be there but people would be able to bet like usual in any games, ofcourse it won't be a struggle to win but about having fun. I guess. Its just a gaming hobby, unless you suffer from ludomania, in that case you would be rehabilitated so you play for having fun and not to win.

I'd like to see others opinion. :lol:

[ВАЛТЕР]

Can't see if joking.

I don't see whats wrong with playing games and betting your personnal objects on it, money obviously wouldn't excist and even if we used labour vouchers you wouldn't be able to bet with them. Simply, casinos of today wouldn't be there but people would be able to bet like usual in any games, ofcourse it won't be a struggle to win but about having fun. I guess. Its just a gaming hobby, unless you suffer from ludomania, in that case you would be rehabilitated so you play for having fun and not to win.

I'd like to see others opinion. :lol:

I understand there wouldn't be money, but it still wouldn't be okay to encourage the loss of property, or the gaining of property through a way where people can be left with nothing if they lose...

[Tim Cornelis]

I understand there wouldn't be money, but it still wouldn't be okay to encourage the loss of property, or the gaining of property through a way where people can be left with nothing if they lose...

How the hell can you loose property in a casino?

EDIT: Also, I find it very arrogant to say that "I don't like gambling, therefore I would like to see it banned". To each his own.

[redtex]

I'm not a big fan of "banning" things other than hurting innocent people. Post-revolution, after money is done away with, it wont matter obviously.

I can see why you'd want to ban it. I've heard many stories of workers losing all their money at casinos because they are "addicted" to gambling. Even worse workers with children. Most gamblers are sensible and don't spend all their money at gambling so why ruin the fun of the majority to protect a small minority?

Personally I only went to a casino once to see what it was all about. I found it a disgusting waste and never went back. I look forward to the day when money is no longer relevant and the workers can convert the casinos to apartments or something useful.

[EvilRedGuy]

I mean if both individuals were aware and decided that their lose wouldn't matter for them anyway as they could always get a new toothbrush/whatever for free, only if its a really personal thing like a diary or whatever that you don't want to get rid of. It's mostly Ludomans we should be keeping an eye for as they are addicted. Otherwise both people have to be honest and know whats important for each individual instead of putting pressure on them.

Btw this is why currency/labour vouchers/whatever object you use is a bad idea, someone could steal it or "win" it, there is also no way you can't make sure that you loose it/forget it at home aswell, but thats another topic.

[ВАЛТЕР]

How the hell can you loose property in a casino?

EDIT: Also, I find it very arrogant to say that "I don't like gambling, therefore I would like to see it banned". To each his own.

I said "I would like it banned, but I don't want to take away from others who enjoy doing it"...look at the whole post.

The reference to property being lost was to the what EvilRedGuy said...when he suggested people could bet with items they owned.

[EvilRedGuy]

You misunderstood me, its okay to have bets aslong as its fair and decided so you don't force into giving you're house or whatever, which is impossible because the community would tell that bets aren't permanently and people always decide whether they want to actually keep it even if they loose.

[ВАЛТЕР]

You misunderstood me, its okay to have bets aslong as its fair and decided so you don't force into giving you're house or whatever, which is impossible because the community would tell that bets aren't permanently and people always decide whether they want to actually keep it even if they loose.

Yeah, I mean you can still play with chips and whatnot I guess, just make it where they aren't worth anything...That's probably the best way about it...

[Rss]

I think that it is going to be one of few things to be actually banned. I really cannot come up with any credible arguments for gambling, except some petty-bourgeois liberal bullshit.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think that it is going to be one of few things to be actually banned. I really cannot come up with any credible arguments for gambling, except some petty-bourgeois liberal bullshit.

Uhm, perhaps because it's the personal fucking choice of people? Who are you to tell people what they can and can't do? The conservative/theocratic/morality police perhaps?

[Rss]

Uhm, perhaps because it's the personal fucking choice of people? Who are you to tell people what they can and can't do? The conservative/theocratic/morality police perhaps?

what i just posted

It's also a personal choice of people to exploit surplus value from workers and take a huge dump on third world workers' rights.

[ArrowLance]

Property won't exist, there will be nothing to bet. The way gambling is understood now it will cease to exist.

There will be no 'personal property'. There will be things individuals become attached to in a way that may play a part in the continued distribution of goods however it will still not be their property. No one will have exclusive rights to anything. That being there will be nothing to gamble.

Gambling for 'play chips' or any such thing is a completely different game, no stakes and there isn't much to it. Perhaps if it is popular enough the prestige of 'gambling' events would be enough to replace the exchange of property as a source of thrill.

[piet11111]

Yeah, I mean you can still play with chips and whatnot I guess, just make it where they aren't worth anything...That's probably the best way about it...


Casino's could just be places to play games for chips and have fun without actually gambling real money.
I play poker with friends but for me it stops being fun if its for real money.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

What would we do with Casinos and gambling in general in a Socialist society? I, personally am against gambling as it encourages greed. However, many people like to go and gamble. What to do about it? I would love to just shut it down and ban it, but I feel like it would be taking away from the people that enjoy doing it. Maybe set it up in a way that all profits go to social needs like healthcare, housing, and whatnot. However, that still doesn't solve the problem of people being greedy (If that makes sense).

Theoretically, I don't think legal gambling would exist if a given state experienced a revolution right now in isolation in a capitalist world but this isn't to say illegal gambling wouldn't exist (as it probably would). In a hypothetical situation in which the entire world is post-Revolution or even just taking a Socialist country by itself as an example I don't think gambling and casinos as we experience them now would exist. This is a game founded within a currency based modes of production and is a byproduct of said nations and economies. I do think however perhaps games of chance would exist but there would not be the bartering of currency, goods, property, etc. So, no, casinos and gamblings as we concieve and experience them today would not exist but perhaps games of chance would in some form or another.

[Psy]

Theoretically, I don't think legal gambling would exist if a given state experienced a revolution right now in isolation in a capitalist world but this isn't to say illegal gambling wouldn't exist (as it probably would). In a hypothetical situation in which the entire world is post-Revolution or even just taking a Socialist country by itself as an example I don't think gambling and casinos as we experience them now would exist. This is a game founded within a currency based modes of production and is a byproduct of said nations and economies. I do think however perhaps games of chance would exist but there would not be the bartering of currency, goods, property, etc. So, no, casinos and gamblings as we concieve and experience them today would not exist but perhaps games of chance would in some form or another.

If we are talking about a revolution region in a capitalist world then gambling should be encouraged for capitalist tourists as it means gaining massive amount capital for very little labor value, for example if Monte-Carlo became communist why stop rich capitalists from going there to throw their money away? Yhea they probably stop going there on their own as they probably quickly see that gambling there would just be giving money to the revolution but as long as they come it is basically free money for the revolution to use on imports.

[Tim Cornelis]

what i just posted

It's also a personal choice of people to exploit surplus value from workers and take a huge dump on third world workers' rights.

No it isn't. What you describe above is unilateral and not mutually accepted.

If we ban gambling (which makes it go underground) why not ban alcohol, drugs? It's completely arbitrary!

[Dogs On Acid]

Unless we are hanging onto labor vouchers, gambling in a Gift Economy with Free Access to goods would be useless except for rare items. You wouldn't end up in poverty because poverty wouldn't exist.

So gambling would be quite benign.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Property won't exist, there will be nothing to bet. The way gambling is understood now it will cease to exist.

There will be no 'personal property'. There will be things individuals become attached to in a way that may play a part in the continued distribution of goods however it will still not be their property. No one will have exclusive rights to anything. That being there will be nothing to gamble.


Communism is not contradictory with personal property. It's private property that Communism takes issue with. In fact that is one of the thinks Marx talks about in the Communist manifesto, presumably because the working class doesn't want their personal items appropriated. If Frank wants to bet his own personal wooden table with Bill over Bill's own personal television, there's no problem since neither act as a means of production

The point is that any property that people have, they have because it is emotionally valuable to them or their family. They can't use it to accrue new property or get "valorized"


The bigger issue with gambling would be the lack of exchangeable currency.

[Dzerzhinsky's Ghost]

If we are talking about a revolution region in a capitalist world then gambling should be encouraged for capitalist tourists as it means gaining massive amount capital for very little labor value, for example if Monte-Carlo became communist why stop rich capitalists from going there to throw their money away? Yhea they probably stop going there on their own as they probably quickly see that gambling there would just be giving money to the revolution but as long as they come it is basically free money for the revolution to use on imports.

I hadn't consider the idea of this and you make an interesting point. Provided that said money is going straight to revolutionary efforts both domestic and international I don't necessarily see that as being problematic unless however the revenue was be allocated and funneled into something or someone else mind you.

[ArrowLance]

Communism is not contradictory with personal property. It's private property that Communism takes issue with. In fact that is one of the thinks Marx talks about in the Communist manifesto, presumably because the working class doesn't want their personal items appropriated. If Frank wants to bet his own personal wooden table with Bill over Bill's own personal television, there's no problem since neither act as a means of production


Exactly as you say personal property is an idea created only to make easier to swallow the idea of the revolution. If anyone has exclusive rights to anything then the revolution is not complete. Accumulation could happen and inequality can begin from there. Even without control over the means of production if someone controls the product of the means of production it gives them similar powers.

Exclusive rights to property are what need to be abolished.

[socialistjustin]

I like being able to go to a casino to blow $10 or whatever and see no reason to ban it just because some think it promotes greed or whatever. If anything its a nice release from the stress caused by the days activities.

[EvilRedGuy]

Exactly as you say personal property is an idea created only to make easier to swallow the idea of the revolution. If anyone has exclusive rights to anything then the revolution is not complete. Accumulation could happen and inequality can begin from there. Even without control over the means of production if someone controls the product of the means of production it gives them similar powers.

Exclusive rights to property are what need to be abolished.


I hope you are joking.

You don't really expect people to give up their personal property away?

[ArrowLance]

I hope you are joking.

You don't really expect people to give up their personal property away?

I don't expect them to give anything away, but it won't be their property. There will be no exclusive rights to property.

[socialistjustin]

How would that even work?

[Rss]

How would that even work?

>Location: Las Vegas

:rolleyes:

I don't know about you, but getting rid of leftover garbage of bourgie society is progressive step in my book. Cubans smashed one-armed bandits in Havana after revolution.

[socialistjustin]

I am from Vegas and am glad I can gamble. Its something to do. Thats all it is. Gambling has existed forever and nobody can outlaw it. People are always going to play poker no matter the society.

[Psy]

I am from Vegas and am glad I can gamble. Its something to do. Thats all it is. Gambling has existed forever and nobody can outlaw it. People are always going to play poker no matter the society.
What would one bet in a money-less society where society is sitting on stockpiles of produced goods? Lets say the grand prize is a car, so why wouldn't one just pick up a free car?

[ВАЛТЕР]

Because there would be nothing to really win or lose, it would take the thrill away from the games. Therefore gambling wouldn't exist in the sense that it does today. Nothing a person has, you would want since you could have it by simply going and getting it. Therefore, the games would exist, however gambling would not since it would be impossible? Right?

[Dogs On Acid]

Exactly as you say personal property is an idea created only to make easier to swallow the idea of the revolution. If anyone has exclusive rights to anything then the revolution is not complete. Accumulation could happen and inequality can begin from there. Even without control over the means of production if someone controls the product of the means of production it gives them similar powers.

Exclusive rights to property are what need to be abolished.

That's a ridiculous idea until we can completely satisfy everyone's needs without any scarcity.

[o well this is ok I guess]

I think a lot more people would enjoy casino's if money was taken out of the equation.

[Misanthrope]

I understand there wouldn't be money, but it still wouldn't be okay to encourage the loss of property, or the gaining of property through a way where people can be left with nothing if they lose...

Why would it be encouraged? Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's encouraged.

[OHumanista]

I think a lot more people would enjoy casino's if money was taken out of the equation.

This, casinos with no money involved. I know quite a number that like playing without any prospects of profit (and especially loss, including me)

[Rising Sun]

Gamble with fake currency.

Gambling as it exists now should be banned. Its unhealthy and corrupt

[KevlarPants]

I think the illegality of gambling is a joke, basically because it's really just a biblical law. Of course, there's plenty of room for hypocrisy, so that some fucking plutocrat can destroy lives "legally", as long as he has a fancy building.

The worry of the damages of gambling is understandable, since it can bring ruin to some poor working class guy with a little mental problem, but I believe that the people should be given a little trust. At least enough trust for them to be able to decide if they wanna gamble away their kid's college fund or not. Not that there will be a need for college funds, but you get it :cool:

People should be free to play games. Cuz, you know, they're games. But hell, if everybody really wants to outlaw gambling, the first type of gambling that's going down is corporate casino gambling, since it's specifically designed to make you lose as much money as possible. I find it laughable that it's more legal than a group of friends playing for spare change for fun.

Also, while I'm at it, here's a totally neat "Fuck Cops" story related to gambling:

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal

[Nox]

There could still be casinos, but the chips wouldn't be worth anything, you'd just play for fun :)