Luxury goods.

[Profunc]

I am a Marxist–Leninist. I say this because it could help with the topic below.

A couple of questions, comrades. I want to discuss and gather viewpoints on a few particular holes I may have in my understandings.

First of all, luxury goods. How should we approach them in our current societies? I'm talking about things like expensive cigars, expensive liquors, clothing that isn't only practical, but might have a stylish quality to it, etc. Is it acceptable for us communists to buy these goods knowing full well that we'll be increasing the capital of the companies that produce them?

The other question I have, is when we refer to the concept of internationalism and world communism, we Marxist–Leninists are expressing favour moreso with the interdependence of nations involved in the revolutionary struggle, co-existing together, as oppose to the globalisation and amalgamation of communist nations, yes? Why should globalisation be seen as unfavourable to the communist?

Thanks, comrades.

[subcp]

Denying yourself 'luxury items' (a term widely open to interpretation) would be a moral choice, unrelated to your politics. Capitalism is not a choice- you can not 'opt out'. Whether you as an individual (or even a shitload of individuals) all making the same consumer choices forces furriers out of business, bankrupts a couple high end cigar manufacturers, etc. it does nothing to the cycle of capital accumulation. Even if there were no 'luxuries' of any kind: clothing is only practical, nothing ostentatious is made, no pricey cigars or top shelf liquor, etc. the accumulation of capital and capitalist social relation will go on.

Denying yourself things that add quality to your standard of living (however fleeting) is like Opus Dei member's flogging themselves, when all the other Catholics just go to confessional once a month. In both cases a lay person and sect member are Catholics, but 1 takes it further and becomes a martyr for their beliefs. Same thing here. Being a communist doesn't mean you don't have to buy things to survive, and it doesn't mean you have to live like an aesthetic.

[Philo]

As subcp said, you can't "opt out" of capitalism by "ethical consumption." Trying to deprive certain companies and support others through one's purchasing and lifestyle habits is a distinctively liberal tactic. Society's mode of production is capitalism, based on exploitation, and where you buy from is not going to change that.

From my perspective, as a communist, nothing is too good for the working class. The problem is not with luxury goods, but that we live in a society where so few have access to them. It's moralism to think we have to "skimp" or "stop being materialistic," not revolutionary socialism.

[helot]

We're not some giant Christian sect that shuns worldly pleasures. Luxuries are of vital importance. Luxuries are all these little things the lack of which makes life hollow.

Btw, even cheap cigars are luxuries. Cheap beer, too. Whether a cigar costs 1p or £100 is irrelevant to whether it's a luxury item.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

From the standpoint of communist ethics, I would say that the problem with "luxury" goods is not the fact of their existence, but the fact that not everyone can enjoy them.

[YouthLiberation]

I am a Marxist–Leninist. I say this because it could help with the topic below.

A couple of questions, comrades. I want to discuss and gather viewpoints on a few particular holes I may have in my understandings.

First of all, luxury goods. How should we approach them in our current societies? I'm talking about things like expensive cigars, expensive liquors, clothing that isn't only practical, but might have a stylish quality to it, etc. Is it acceptable for us communists to buy these goods knowing full well that we'll be increasing the capital of the companies that produce them?

The other question I have, is when we refer to the concept of internationalism and world communism, we Marxist–Leninists are expressing favour moreso with the interdependence of nations involved in the revolutionary struggle, co-existing together, as oppose to the globalisation and amalgamation of communist nations, yes? Why should globalisation be seen as unfavourable to the communist?

Thanks, comrades.

Well, when I think of luxury goods I think about million dollar yatchs and ridiculously expensive sports cars. Stuff you can't afford if you are working class or even petty bourgeois, so my answer is: If you call yourself a Communist you can't afford "luxury goods" anyway, so there is not really a dilemma.

[Profunc]

Great. Thanks, comrades. Good to know. I like Anarcho Fox's use of the term, "ethical consumption". The general consensus seems to be that consumption of luxury goods is not a political matter, and that makes perfect sense.

Often times, people will criticise me for "not being a very good communist", because I buy video games or own a laptop and a smartphone. How could we go about silencing that type of critique. In what way could we explain to non-communists that the consumption of luxury goods does not make you any less communistic?

[subcp]

The problem is not with luxury goods, but that we live in a society where so few have access to them. It's moralism to think we have to "skimp" or "stop being materialistic," not revolutionary socialism.

Indeed- it's like old first hand accounts of Wobblies doing unofficial work-to-rule's and slowdowns, sometimes on the level of 1 worker, simply to do less work and get paid the same (or French watchmakers taking the boss hostage and demanding 10 years' salary as severance when the factory closed). I think the image of the hard-working factory prole who takes pride in his/her labor and has dignity in their job has a tendency to manifest in communist politics- when in reality, all of us don't want to do things we don't want to to survive. In most of the places I've worked, people who act like they have dignity in their job and talk about their pride in 'a job well done' have been ass-kissers to the boss, snitches on 'slacking' fellow workers, etc. Another example of one's politics turning into a moral choice- and often related to questions of ethical consumerism (i.e. trying to 'be' the proper proletarian militant).

[YouthLiberation]

Great. Thanks, comrades. Good to know. I like Anarcho Fox's use of the term, "ethical consumption". The general consensus seems to be that consumption of luxury goods is not a political matter, and that makes perfect sense.

Often times, people will criticise me for "not being a very good communist", because I buy video games or own a laptop and a smartphone. How could we go about silencing that type of critique. In what way could we explain to non-communists that the consumption of luxury goods does not make you any less communistic?

Hmm...good question. How about saying you think working class people, including yourself, deserves only the best and the bourgeois is bad because of their role in the economic system and the way they amass their wealth, not because they have expensive things?

[Profunc]

Hmm...good question. How about saying you think working class people, including yourself, deserves only the best and the bourgeois is bad because of their role in the economic system and the way they amass their wealth, not because they have expensive things?

So, in other words, having an x amount of personal property (whether it be "luxury goods" or "regular goods") says nothing about your political philosophy, so long as you don't have any control over the means of production?

Even in disagreeing with communism, a non-communist should be able to see the logic in that.

A lot of people criticise Guevara for owning a Rolex watch, but the truth is, is a Rolex watch anything in comparison to the value of owning the factories, the machines and the tools which can produce it?

^^^^^^^^^

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Great. Thanks, comrades. Good to know. I like Anarcho Fox's use of the term, "ethical consumption". The general consensus seems to be that consumption of luxury goods is not a political matter, and that makes perfect sense.

Often times, people will criticise me for "not being a very good communist", because I buy video games or own a laptop and a smartphone. How could we go about silencing that type of critique. In what way could we explain to non-communists that the consumption of luxury goods does not make you any less communistic?

How about this: self-denial does nothing to improve other peoples' access to luxury items. How could it? It's not as if denying yourself things magically puts money or goods in other people's pockets.

[YouthLiberation]

Well, if you put it that way you may be countered with the "why don't you donate the money (e.g to charity)" argument.

[Hit The North]

First of all, luxury goods. How should we approach them in our current societies? I'm talking about things like expensive cigars, expensive liquors, clothing that isn't only practical, but might have a stylish quality to it, etc.



Our approach? We should steal them at every opportunity.


The other question I have, is when we refer to the concept of internationalism and world communism, we Marxist–Leninists are expressing favour moreso with the interdependence of nations involved in the revolutionary struggle, co-existing together, as oppose to the globalisation and amalgamation of communist nations, yes? Why should globalisation be seen as unfavourable to the communist?

Globalisation in the era of capitalism is the all-encompassing extension of the capitalist mode of production and, therefore, the extension of exploitation and wage slavery. Under communism, globalisation will be the extension of universal brother-and-sisterhood and where the preconditions for the development of the individual is the basis for development of humanity as a whole.

But from a practical, revolutionary point of view, capitalist globalisation also expands the numbers of the proletariat which remain the gravediggers of the capitalist system. So its effects are not unfavourable to communists.

[YouthLiberation]

So, in other words, having an x amount of personal property (whether it be "luxury goods" or "regular goods") says nothing about your political philosophy, so long as you don't have any control over the means of production?

Even in disagreeing with communism, a non-communist should be able to see the logic in that.

A lot of people criticise Guevara for owning a Rolex watch, but the truth is, is a Rolex watch anything in comparison to the value of owning the factories, the machines and the tools which can produce it?

^^^^^^^^^

Yes, that what I meant. So, what if Guevara had a Rolex as long as the bourgeois owns factories that produce hundreds of those? They are way wealthier.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Well, if you put it that way you may be countered with the "why don't you donate the money (e.g to charity)" argument.

Even if one gave away everything except the barest essentials necessary to survive, there would still be millions going without. Charity is at best a band-aid solution.

[Profunc]

Globalisation in the era of capitalism is the all-encompassing extension of the capitalist mode of production and, therefore, the extension of exploitation and wage slavery. Under communism, globalisation will be the extension of universal brother-and-sisterhood and where the preconditions for the development of the individual is the basis for development of humanity as a whole.

But from a practical, revolutionary point of view, capitalist globalisation also expands the numbers of the proletariat which remain the gravediggers of the capitalist system. So its effects are not unfavourable to communists.

So, that boils down to globalisation of capitalist mode of production v. globalisation of communist mode of production. In essence, capitalism is a global system requiring a global class to defeat it, yes? Solidarity, yadda, yadda.

World worker control is the only favourable outcome of our struggle, yes? And then we can all relish in the fruits of our labour, and janitors and doctors alike can enjoy the luxurious goods as well.

[Kindness]

It seems highly hypocritical to me for a revolutionary socialist to indulge in the excesses of capitalism and the disgusting consumerism which they produce. I live a simple life because of my commitment to my principles of anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and wealth equality. Consumerism is fundamentally bourgeois and unkind, and it should be shunned.

[Hit The North]

It seems highly hypocritical to me for a revolutionary socialist to indulge in the excesses of capitalism and the disgusting consumerism which they produce. I live a simple life because of my commitment to my principles of anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and wealth equality. Consumerism is fundamentally bourgeois and unkind, and it should be shunned.

So how much equality have you created as a result of your enormous sacrifice?

[Profunc]

It seems highly hypocritical to me for a revolutionary socialist to indulge in the excesses of capitalism and the disgusting consumerism which they produce. I live a simple life because of my commitment to my principles of anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism, and wealth equality. Consumerism is fundamentally bourgeois and unkind, and it should be shunned.

Actually, it seems to me that by collecting that which the capitalist creates, and sharing it with those less fortunate, you would serve a more "true" revolutionary purpose.

It makes sense now, that depriving oneself of something has nothing to do with our basic viewpoint that we should control what we make. It's even counter-revolutionary, in a sense, to deprive ourselves of luxury goods at the same time as advocating that we all deserve to have access to luxury goods.

[homegrown terror]

hell no! i'd never give up my fish (a luxury item since they serve no purpose other than to swim, explore, eat and make my family happy) but i do, whenever possible, make the choice to buy them from individual home-breeders rather than meat-market pet stores. i put my money in the hands solely of the person whose hard work produced a beautiful fish, rather than a corporation of bourgeois millionaires exploiting a buck out of everyone from their own breeders, to the shippers, to the store employees to the animals themselves. (and if you could see the conditions pet-store fish are bred and kept in, you'd see even more reason for my attitude and spending trend) this, i think, is the best way to handle "luxury" items, buy whatever you can from individual craftspeople, not from a capitalist behemoth.

[subcp]

Actually, it seems to me that by collecting that which the capitalist creates, and sharing it with those less fortunate, you would serve a more "true" revolutionary purpose.

But that's charity- completely within the bounds of 'the spectacle'/modern capitalism. Individuals aren't revolutionary by choice- it takes a generalized movement of the working-class to put individual actions in the context of revolutionary activity. If there were movement toward large, generalized struggles, and you (and a lot of other people) took food out of a warehouse or grocery store and set up the means to give it away while that process was ongoing, it would be revolutionary

[The Intransigent Faction]

I am a Marxist–Leninist. I say this because it could help with the topic below.

A couple of questions, comrades. I want to discuss and gather viewpoints on a few particular holes I may have in my understandings.

First of all, luxury goods. How should we approach them in our current societies? I'm talking about things like expensive cigars, expensive liquors, clothing that isn't only practical, but might have a stylish quality to it, etc. Is it acceptable for us communists to buy these goods knowing full well that we'll be increasing the capital of the companies that produce them?

"Possessions are burdens. What we have can be taken away, so wealth breeds fear."-Darth Caedus.

Seriously though, I personally am pretty happy with what I have and see a lot of good in not drowning oneself in luxuries, but I guess it's more of a personal ideal to aspire to than some requirement for being a revolutionary.

This feels tricky, though. Sure I'm not going to go and tell some very committed revolutionary that he's no true communist just because he enjoys a cigar now and then, but I feel like there should be some sort of line (i.e. those unionized professional athletes with multi-million dollar contracts pass it), but I would withhold judgement because I have no idea exactly where to draw that line.

That said, our job is not to choose between the firm that is poisoning the environment and the firm that is exploiting children (or more than likely two brands controlled by the same corporation doing both). It is to challenge the economic structure of capitalism that allows such things to happen.


The other question I have, is when we refer to the concept of internationalism and world communism, we Marxist–Leninists are expressing favour moreso with the interdependence of nations involved in the revolutionary struggle, co-existing together, as oppose to the globalisation and amalgamation of communist nations, yes? Why should globalisation be seen as unfavourable to the communist?

Thanks, comrades.

Well I'm sure someone's gotten to this already but "globalization" is a term typically used to refer not just to the "global village" that allows us to communicate instantly with people on the other side of the globe. If anything tht can do wonders for revolution if used rightly. Typically, "globalization" is a euphemism for global capitalist development, i.e. the growth of foreign markets sending their stuff to the West for consumption. I'm sure you're well aware of the exploitation involved in this and why any communist would oppose it.

I won't get into the stuff on third-wordlist anti-imperialism or I'd be filling up pages here, but suffice it to say none of us supports "globalization" understood as exploitation of workers in places with far fewer labour laws.