How would we deal with the issue of gambling?

[Craig_J]

As someone who works behind the bar at a racecourse now I'm waiting to go to uni, I was on my cigarette break (dirty habbit, I know!) when I was thinking about all the people there who were gambling. I never bet more than a pound a time, as I think it's waste of much needed money to bet more, and that's only when I really want something which I can't afford at the time. But plenty of people love putting their money on the line witht he chance to win more, whether it's at horse racing, casinos or simply playing poker or some other game with a group of friends. Betting really isn't my thing, I have an addictive personality and once I turned 18 it took me ages to even work out I could gamble. For the first week I spent all the money I had (which was only £15 as a student!!) on it, then I realised it's just another ploy to make money of people expecting some kind of dramatic lifechange from what they put their money on.

But for some people it gives thrills, excitment and an adrenaline rush. How would we in a socialist/ communist/ anarcho-collectivst or what ever name you wish to attatch to it societ deal witht he problem which is gambling? Toleration is always nice, but if two people are betting with each other one has to 'win' thus creating inequality. But it's hard to say we could ban it, as two people can bet with each other without anyone needing to know. And it's all well and good to say "everyone would have what they need" but quite a few gamblers have what they need already and still choose to bet as a way of profiting or simply providing a rush.

This question stumped me for a few weeks, which is why I thought I'd share it with you lovely guys and girls to see what your opinions are! :)

[Polaris]

I'm going to apply this question to a society where you can basically just take whatever you need/want from the community.

This first question is what would the gamblers even be gambling with? Money is out. There is no point in gambling with any common product that you can just get more of-- that is, I doubt anyone would gain satisfaction from betting with, say, apples especially if the loser could just go get more apples for free and play again. That seems like it would be quite dull.

So, that leaves scarce/unique items. For example, someone might be tempted to bet a laptop, which I suspect that in such a society the demand of would exceed the supply, or a one of a kind painting by some famous future artist. If they want to do this, there isn't really any way to stop them, even if it was necessary. Of course, if they had an addiction they could go get help for it.

This would really only become a problem if one person consistently won their bets and thus ended up with too much of a scarce item, e.g. three laptops. Obviously something would have to be done in this situation; someone, whether it be an official or just a do-gooder in the community would need to seize their extra items and return them to the community, just like they would if someone with a mental illness kept hoarding something that they did not have a use for. Repeat offenders might need to be forced into rehabilitation if they cannot help themselves.

I really don't think that this would even be an issue in such a society where everyone's needs are met, or at least it would be much less severe/common than it is today.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's really not a big deal IMO. Putting up some stakes in a game isn't really exploitation or anthing like that. If there was no money gambling stakes might become symbolic or people would use other tradebale things to heighten the risk. People do this all the time as it is. Items can be considered valuable for all sorts of non-market reasons.

I don't really like gambling - I'm too much of a cheapskate and I feel like it's throwing money away because I can have just as much fun playing no-stakes card-games or whatnot. But in general I think one of the main points of a liberated society is to have more time for whatever we want - if people want to use leisure time getting kicks from gambling or playing video games or whatever, I'm all for it.

Also in a society where "debt" is basically impossible, most of the problems associated with gambling addiction would become non-issues. The only way I could see such an addition becoming a problem is spending too much time playing games and becoming disconnected from other (non-playing) friends and missing sleep by staying up all night and so on.

[Karlorax]

There are far more pressing issues than what to do about gamblers, for example, what to do about fans of dubstep.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I suspect "gambling" would probably cease to exist as such, since, after all, what would one have to gamble? I mean, I suppose people could still put up personal possessions, or, say, trivial amounts of work ("I'll do your dishes for a week") - but I think that amounts to harmless fun, and not a restoration of commodity exchange.
That said, it sounds like it could be a fable about the origin of alienated labour, eh? Two people playing poker, one of them is losing right bad, and says, "I'll bet the product of my labour in perpetuity."

[piet11111]

At the risk of making myself out to be a total freak but i just play poker for chips instead of money.

I know right its crazy gambling over something that is totally worthless just to be able to "win" a game and getting some fun out of that.

[Karlorax]

At the risk of making myself out to be a total freak but i just play poker for chips instead of money.

I know right its crazy gambling over something that is totally worthless just to be able to "win" a game and getting some fun out of that.

That doesn't work because there is little incentive not to take any risk.

[piet11111]

That doesn't work because there is little incentive not to take any risk.

Thank you for proving my point that i am a freak for playing just for chips instead of real money.

[ckaihatsu]

On a more serious note, I'd imagine that there would probably be *regulations* on such activity, like anything else with the potential for damage -- speech, etc.

Some *could* very well get addicted to the thrill of the stakes -- then, as now -- and could be foolhardy in what they put up for a bet, as others have mentioned here. So, for example, today there's the common understanding that one should not *promote* illegal drug use -- the guidelines could be similar for post-capitalist gambling, where people would generally know that there would be no such thing as betting away your family name, or anything like that.

[Ace High]

The only problem I have with gambling is the corrupt people who run the industry.

Even if I had a problem with it by itself, after a revolution, what will you gamble with? Money? A true post-revolutionary society would be resource-based anyway, not monetary. If people want to gamble using sex or something weird like that, go for it. But it really would be a non issue in a post revolutionary society.

[Sam_b]

Can we also not categorise poker in the same way as 'gambling' on horses and so on? There's a huge difference, namely that it is in many cases classified as a skill game with luck elements, which is something much different than, say, looking at a form guide and backing a horse.

[BIXX]

On a more serious note, I'd imagine that there would probably be *regulations* on such activity, like anything else with the potential for damage -- speech, etc.

Some *could* very well get addicted to the thrill of the stakes -- then, as now -- and could be foolhardy in what they put up for a bet, as others have mentioned here. So, for example, today there's the common understanding that one should not *promote* illegal drug use -- the guidelines could be similar for post-capitalist gambling, where people would generally know that there would be no such thing as betting away your family name, or anything like that.

For the most part I agree with your post, however, I don't agree with regulations on speech. I can't imagine any good coming of it. I imagine it would just lead to more and more discontent, and eventually a counter-revolution.

[Ace High]

On a more serious note, I'd imagine that there would probably be *regulations* on such activity, like anything else with the potential for damage -- speech, etc.

Some *could* very well get addicted to the thrill of the stakes -- then, as now -- and could be foolhardy in what they put up for a bet, as others have mentioned here. So, for example, today there's the common understanding that one should not *promote* illegal drug use -- the guidelines could be similar for post-capitalist gambling, where people would generally know that there would be no such thing as betting away your family name, or anything like that.

You want to take away peoples' right to speak about certain subjects just because people "could get addicted" to gambling you want to limit their free speech? That is a very right wing ideology, isn't it?

[ckaihatsu]

For the most part I agree with your post, however, I don't agree with regulations on speech. I can't imagine any good coming of it. I imagine it would just lead to more and more discontent, and eventually a counter-revolution.





You want to take away peoples' right to speak about certain subjects just because people "could get addicted" to gambling you want to limit their free speech? That is a very right wing ideology, isn't it?


To clarify, I mean to suggest that matters of civil liberties would most likely have to be spelled-out and formalized, and also enforced somehow. I think this realm would probably *not* be overwrought, as it is today as a distraction from larger, more important political issues. Socialism would be far more concerned with matters of collectivist *production*, so acceptable social behavior would take place within *that* context, not under the bourgeois regime of which-propertied-party-has-more-official-sway.

[Ace High]

To clarify, I mean to suggest that matters of civil liberties would most likely have to be spelled-out and formalized, and also enforced somehow. I think this realm would probably *not* be overwrought, as it is today as a distraction from larger, more important political issues. Socialism would be far more concerned with matters of collectivist *production*, so acceptable social behavior would take place within *that* context, not under the bourgeois regime of which-propertied-party-has-more-official-sway.

Well sure, I can agree that today it is used to distract. But still, I mean, what type of speech limitations would you place exactly and how would they be enforced? Would it be a punishable crime?

[ckaihatsu]

Well sure, I can agree that today it is used to distract. But still, I mean, what type of speech limitations would you place exactly and how would they be enforced? Would it be a punishable crime?


I'm really not seeing how this would be so controversial from a revolutionary perspective -- wouldn't there have to be some collective group discipline to make the revolution happen in the first place -- ?

Committed revolutionaries would not be so careless as to use (political) speech casually or insincerely, but for those who are newer or less-experienced it would probably be in our collective class interest to make certain things explicit, as through formal guidelines.

Since I'm not the guy who tells you what to do, I can't cite specifics per your request. But perhaps speech that advocates a return to privatization, or the encouragement of reckless gambling, could be widely understood to be socially deleterious and undesired, and would be discouraged.

[BIXX]

I think that if you limit speech in any society it is a problem. It weakens the society as well as limiting freedom.

[BIXX]

I'm really not seeing how this would be so controversial from a revolutionary perspective -- wouldn't there have to be some collective group discipline to make the revolution happen in the first place -- ?

Committed revolutionaries would not be so careless as to use (political) speech casually or insincerely, but for those who are newer or less-experienced it would probably be in our collective class interest to make certain things explicit, as through formal guidelines.

Since I'm not the guy who tells you what to do, I can't cite specifics per your request. But perhaps speech that advocates a return to privatization, or the encouragement of reckless gambling, could be widely understood to be socially deleterious and undesired, and would be discouraged.

If we do not FORCE them to not say these things, and the only effect is social (ie. their standing in the community), then that seems to be simply a self-regulation than and external one, which is what it seemed you were previously advocating.

[Ace High]

I'm really not seeing how this would be so controversial from a revolutionary perspective -- wouldn't there have to be some collective group discipline to make the revolution happen in the first place -- ?

Committed revolutionaries would not be so careless as to use (political) speech casually or insincerely, but for those who are newer or less-experienced it would probably be in our collective class interest to make certain things explicit, as through formal guidelines.

Since I'm not the guy who tells you what to do, I can't cite specifics per your request. But perhaps speech that advocates a return to privatization, or the encouragement of reckless gambling, could be widely understood to be socially deleterious and undesired, and would be discouraged.

Well sure, discouraged yeah. But isn't that the point of having a revolution? The revolution would bring about new social values. We don't have to stop people from having their freedom of speech. Instead, we should just teach them. I mean if the revolution is successful, our post revolutionary society will hold these ideals as the new morals right? So I wouldn't think we would have to worry. But that's just my opinion, I won't try to convince you otherwise or anything.

[ckaihatsu]

If we do not FORCE them to not say these things, and the only effect is social (ie. their standing in the community), then that seems to be simply a self-regulation than and external one, which is what it seemed you were previously advocating.





Well sure, discouraged yeah. But isn't that the point of having a revolution? The revolution would bring about new social values. We don't have to stop people from having their freedom of speech. Instead, we should just teach them. I mean if the revolution is successful, our post revolutionary society will hold these ideals as the new morals right? So I wouldn't think we would have to worry. But that's just my opinion, I won't try to convince you otherwise or anything.


Your senses of social etiquette and delicacy around this matter are appreciated, from both of you, but you're *also* relying on a sense of privilege from victory -- the tricky part is when the ongoing revolution is only *partly* successful, and proletarian triumph is far from certain.

Here's a pair of sample scenarios:





What's missing here is an acknowledgement that real-world *conditions* of revolution may vary -- we would have to speak in terms of best-case and worst-case scenarios.

Best-case is that everything happens quickly and money instantly becomes obsolete and anachronistic -- this would equate to the resounding defeat of the bourgeoisie on a worldwide mass basis and the quick dissolution of its state. It would be replaced more-or-less in a bottom-up organic way with production rapidly reorganized on vast scales (for economies of scale and efficiency).

Worst-case is that there's an ongoing situation of dual-power where contending forces from the bourgeoisie and proletariat linger on in protracted labor-based battles, both political and physical. World public opinion remains divided and the class war takes on the characteristics of a country-by-country civil war between the classes. In such a situation it would be more-than-understandable for revolutionary forces to call for the seizing of the state, and to use it in an authoritarian, top-down way in the interests of the workers' forces, against the imperialists. This could include a system of labor vouchers, in an attempt to assert some kind of consistent economic valuation system, as counterposed to imperialist/colonialist resource extraction, corporatist/militarist syndicalism, and market-type commodity-production valuations.

[BIXX]

I believe that the usage of the state in such a way will not ensure a revolution. At best I feel we'd achieve a USSR styled system. I doubt that we'd see the authoritarian state begin to be less authoritarian after the "complete" revolution.

[ckaihatsu]

I believe that the usage of the state in such a way will not ensure a revolution. At best I feel we'd achieve a USSR styled system. I doubt that we'd see the authoritarian state begin to be less authoritarian after the "complete" revolution.


At best what you're saying here is principled politics, but, at worst, it's idealism -- we don't know what transitional conditions will be like, real-world, so it's entirely inappropriate to say in advance that "This is what we'll do, and this is what we won't."

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

That doesn't work because there is little incentive not to take any risk.

So I take it you've never played any kind of arcade or video game in which the player can amass "points" which are totally meaningless in game terms, except perhaps for a ranking on a scoreboard?

[cyu]

From the point of view of an anarchist society where people make no promises to obey any property law, or even contractual law, there really wouldn't be many consequences from gambling - it would just be another game.

Even if we say "winner gets to punch the other guy in the face" - after the game, an anarchist might still say, "f**k you, I ain't gonna obey yer stinkin' rules" :D

[BIXX]

At best what you're saying here is principled politics, but, at worst, it's idealism -- we don't know what transitional conditions will be like, real-world, so it's entirely inappropriate to say in advance that "This is what we'll do, and this is what we won't."

Sorry, I should have made it clear I was just stating my personal feelings. I agree that we can't decide that now, but we can give our input as to how we feel this or that will work.

[Craig_J]

Thank you for proving my point that i am a freak for playing just for chips instead of real money.

Hey, no one's saying your a freak for gambling money, more power to you. But the truth is most people do play for money. Whether you do or not, of coure playing cards and other things can still be enjoyable but quite a few want to feel they're gaining something if they win. Doesn't make you a freak as quite a few people do it, but the majority will want to "raise the stakes a little bit" as the saying goes.


Even if possesions come in to account, it could still allow a taletned gambler to become much more prosperous than his comrades, whilst allowing much less talented gamblers to lose more and more possesions. And it would be hard not to admit a unlucky/ less talented gambler with an addiction also would find it hard not to offer to undertake labour in order to "pay" for losses

[Comrade Jacob]

I guess we can't really stop gambling, sadly. However I do think we can change the large majority of people's view on gambling and preach to them the detriment of creating inequality. Tell the people why it is bad to make fellow humans unequal and they will think twice.

[ckaihatsu]

[T]he majority will want to "raise the stakes a little bit" as the saying goes.


Even if possesions come in to account, it could still allow a taletned gambler to become much more prosperous than his comrades, whilst allowing much less talented gamblers to lose more and more possesions. And it would be hard not to admit a unlucky/ less talented gambler with an addiction also would find it hard not to offer to undertake labour in order to "pay" for losses


Since economics and politics would be one and the same thing in a post-capitalist order, one's *social status* could suffer by often being 'the one' to have to request more (collectivized) production from others, *for* others.

This little thought-exercise also gives us a glimpse into how more-delineated social standings could give way to entrenched favoritism, patronage, and a slip back into full-blown privatization.