Did Marx approve of personal luxuries?

[Makarov]

I am interested in Socialism, so I started to read The Communist Manifesto.

I have been always told that in communism you cannot have personal luxuries; I believed this for a long time. But became interested in why people where communist. And the idea of it (so far) is attracting.

Anyway, I came across this: (extract)

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

Now, am I right in to thinking that he did approve of personal luxuries? Or am I misunderstanding something?

By "Personal Luxuries" I mean things that are uneeded, but a benefit. Such as a Television.

Sorry is this sounds stupid, but I have only been taught that Socialism is bad, and to stay away from it. So I do not understand much. And is this the right section? :confused:

[Yazman]

Wait, what? Who taught you that we think you can't have personal luxuries? We're not against personal property.

When communists talk about abolishing "private property" we're not referring to you owning your computer, your table or your favourite book. We're talking about ensuring that no individual can own factories, that sort of thing. We don't want there to be bosses than have authority over workers and decide the fate of their lives, whether they can work, etc

What you call 'personal luxuries' are just a fact of life, and are important. Why would we abolish tvs? How do you define whether it's a luxury anyway? Computers for example in today's society are not a luxury and are outright required for a range of things. For example, at all stages of education from primary school to post-graduate study at universities, one must have a computer in order to do a lot of the work.

But yeah, I'm not sure why you would get the idea we don't want people to have personal property. That's not what we think at all.

[prolcon]

I don't think Marx did at all, but I don't really care. The man died in poverty, anyway, so he's not really an authority on consuming luxuries.

[Hiero]

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

I think what he is saying here, is that you can still consume the products produced in a society; "appropriate the products of society". Here I would assume he means small individual consumption, like a computer, car etc. You can't however subjugate the labour of others through such appropriations. You can't have a means where by you can appropriate large amounts of products through hiring/buying someones labour, you can't own a company that expliots labour so you can own the products they create, to resell on a market. Nor could you set yourself up to be a trader.

That is my reading of the sentance.

[Beeth]

I don't think Marx did at all, but I don't really care. The man died in poverty, anyway, so he's not really an authority on consuming luxuries.

I thought the man was very rich because of his friend Engels and also because he married into royalty?

[Beeth]

Wait, what? Who taught you that we think you can't have personal luxuries? We're not against personal property.

When communists talk about abolishing "private property" we're not referring to you owning your computer, your table or your favourite book. We're talking about ensuring that no individual can own factories, that sort of thing. We don't want there to be bosses than have authority over workers and decide the fate of their lives, whether they can work, etc

What you call 'personal luxuries' are just a fact of life, and are important. Why would we abolish tvs? How do you define whether it's a luxury anyway? Computers for example in today's society are not a luxury and are outright required for a range of things. For example, at all stages of education from primary school to post-graduate study at universities, one must have a computer in order to do a lot of the work.

But yeah, I'm not sure why you would get the idea we don't want people to have personal property. That's not what we think at all.

While Marx didn't condemn the idea of personal property, shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? A rich man with his million dollar mansion and private jet could say he doesn't own luxury items because everything is relative. One is therefore forced to distinguish between needs and luxuries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I am interested in Socialism, so I started to read The Communist Manifesto.

I have been always told that in communism you cannot have personal luxuries; I believed this for a long time. But became interested in why people where communist. And the idea of it (so far) is attracting.

Anyway, I came across this: (extract)

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

Now, am I right in to thinking that he did approve of personal luxuries? Or am I misunderstanding something?

By "Personal Luxuries" I mean things that are uneeded, but a benefit. Such as a Television.

Sorry is this sounds stupid, but I have only been taught that Socialism is bad, and to stay away from it. So I do not understand much. And is this the right section? :confused:

Hi, don't worry, this is a common thing people are told about socialism/communism/anarchism. Because the so-called socialist countries of the 20th century were beurocratically managed and not run by workers these states often managed poverty and so the right-wing in places like the US would say that communisms's desire for equality means we all share poverty together.

But this is not actually the case for revolutionary anarchism and marxism. In fact most of us think that workers should have more and better products and services.

It's actually capitalism which tends to restrict acess to luxuries; common areas and natural lands are privitized and then fensed in; capitalism creates artificial barriers in the internet to prevent information sharing in order to defend privite property rights for programs and music; and fundamentally, capitalism takes all the wealth created through our collective labor efforts and puts it to its own use, only paying us a fraction of it which means that all the luxuriies created by us are not available to us.

If workers ran production for the purposes of use rather than making profits, then we'd probably want to make good products, engourage the use of digital sharing which would make production easier and more automatic, and so on.

[hobbsicle]

While I myself am not positive, I don't think that's what he's talking about lol:)

[Makarov]

Hi, don't worry, this is a common thing people are told about socialism/communism/anarchism. Because the so-called socialist countries of the 20th century were beurocratically managed and not run by workers these states often managed poverty and so the right-wing in places like the US would say that communisms's desire for equality means we all share poverty together.

But this is not actually the case for revolutionary anarchism and marxism. In fact most of us think that workers should have more and better products and services.

It's actually capitalism which tends to restrict acess to luxuries; common areas and natural lands are privitized and then fensed in; capitalism creates artificial barriers in the internet to prevent information sharing in order to defend privite property rights for programs and music; and fundamentally, capitalism takes all the wealth created through our collective labor efforts and puts it to its own use, only paying us a fraction of it which means that all the luxuriies created by us are not available to us.

If workers ran production for the purposes of use rather than making profits, then we'd probably want to make good products, engourage the use of digital sharing which would make production easier and more automatic, and so on.

Thank-you for clearing that up. I have read "The communist manifesto" now and understand it a lot more, I am going to read some of Lenin's literature next; as I want to look at a few different ideologies.

It's funny now, now I realize how much the government hold back, and that they go to so much extreme extent to hold back socialist ideas.

Also, thank you to the other people who posted, I have read through them.

[Prof. Oblivion]

I thought the man was very rich because of his friend Engels and also because he married into royalty?

Marx died poor because he spent so lavishly.

[Comrade #138672]

While Marx didn't condemn the idea of personal property, shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? A rich man with his million dollar mansion and private jet could say he doesn't own luxury items because everything is relative. One is therefore forced to distinguish between needs and luxuries.Well, he can only have so much more than everybody else by exploiting other people's labor. But at first, yeah, I would say that we should confiscate most of their possessions and redistribute them.

[Yazman]

While Marx didn't condemn the idea of personal property, shouldn't we draw the line somewhere? A rich man with his million dollar mansion and private jet could say he doesn't own luxury items because everything is relative. One is therefore forced to distinguish between needs and luxuries.

I think the comparison between a million dollar mansion and a private jet with a personal computer and a phone is laughable at best. While things may be relative I think it's a pretty hard argument for you to make that a million dollar mansion and a private jet constitute mere "personal luxuries." I think those particular things go far above and beyond that category.

[Unapologetic]

If I go out into the woods and fell a tree, chop it into pieces, and make a table out of it it is my personal possession.

If I go out into the woods, chop down every single tree, build a factory, and mass produce thousands of tables with proletarian labor it is my private property.

[Beeth]

I think the comparison between a million dollar mansion and a private jet with a personal computer and a phone is laughable at best. While things may be relative I think it's a pretty hard argument for you to make that a million dollar mansion and a private jet constitute mere "personal luxuries." I think those particular things go far above and beyond that category.

Most workers do compare. They say the rich earned their mansions and jets, just as we earn our phones and pcs. They go further and say even phones are luxuries to a starving child - and hence we are no different from the rich. It is all relative. Not my argument but the argument of most workers.

[Dennis the 'Bloody Peasant']

I don't mind of he did or didn't...I'm keeping my DVD boxsets and HD TV.

[Luís Henrique]

By "Personal Luxuries" I mean things that are uneeded, but a benefit. Such as a Television.

Information is uneeded?

Luís Henrique

[Anarchocommunaltoad]

Information is uneeded?

Luís Henrique

Spongebob and Jershey shore is unneeded. The poster should edit his post to say cable (but than again tv isn't really needed when newspapers, the internet and the neighborhood Mcdonalds are all easily available.

[The Jay]

I thought the man was very rich because of his friend Engels and also because he married into royalty?

Nope, he did have money at one point but not for long. Engels did send him money and help with rent but he lived in a crappy apartment and had cold winters.

[prolcon]

My understanding had been that Marx died in abject poverty, but I didn't know it had to do with excessive spending.

[Green Girl]

"Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such appropriations."

I like that quote but it brings up some things I've had questions about for some time. In the final stages of communism when we have enough abundance to fulfill everyone's needs and desires that we do away with money, I think people might go a wee bit overboard in the beginning filling their homes up with crap and non perishable foods until it dons on them that they don't have to clutter up their homes, they can pick up things when needed at the distribution center and leave their homes clutter free. Does that make sense to anyone else?

Also we would gain free time by not having to track things with money, I am guessing that the pay/cost paperwork part of the economy may account for as much as half of all work. However during the early "hogging" stages of free consumer goods, will we all be working a lot of extra hours to keep up with the demand?

Also I would guess that most TVs distributed would be big screen once money is removed from the equation.

No matter what problems arise, I think eventually a money-free society would be utopia.

The only crimes would be crimes of passion. Afterall why break into someone's home and steal their stuff when one can just go to the distribution center and pick it up anything one desires? :)

And if this is the end game, why isn't everyone on the Planet a communist?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I thought the man was very rich because of his friend Engels and also because he married into royalty?

I don't think royalty is the right word. King Marx? :lol:

[Luís Henrique]

Spongebob and Jershey shore is unneeded.

If you consider Spongebob a luxury... :scared:

I would rather call it garbage.

But anyway, my opinion on record players isn't related to what opinions I may have of John Philipp Souza, Franz Lehar, Britney Spears or Bruno & Marrone.

Luís Henrique

[Klaatu]

If I go out into the woods and fell a tree, chop it into pieces, and make a table out of it it is my personal possession.

If I go out into the woods, chop down every single tree, build a factory, and mass produce thousands of tables with proletarian labor it is my private property.

To paraphrase Obama, "you didn't build that"... (your workers did!)

[Lowtech]

I like that quote but it brings up some things I've had questions about for some time. In the final stages of communism when we have enough abundance to fulfill everyone's needs and desires that we do away with moneythe amount spent on the US defense budget alone is enough to end hunger, also there are more iphones produced everyday than people bieng born. I feel the most powerful thing convincing me that communism is the solution is the fact that artificial scarcity produces all hunger/poverty.
However during the early "hogging" stages of free consumer goods, will we all be working a lot of extra hours to keep up with the demand? Actually, work hours required to maintain this level of value would decrease as artificial scarcity was eliminated.
No matter what problems arise, I think eventually a money-free society would be utopia.interestingly enough, the only real "utopia" is the capitalist utopia of the few living in incredible luxury while the majority labors away to produce all the value propagated in our economy; which they maintain through vile force
And if this is the end game, why isn't everyone on the Planet a communist? we're made to be psychologically dependent on a market economy. :(

[Ocean Seal]

If you consider Spongebob a luxury... :scared:

I would rather call it garbage.

Did you have a childhood/teenage years/adulthood?

[Luís Henrique]

Did you have a childhood/teenage years/adulthood?

I did. Spongebob is still garbage.

Luís Henrique