Recreational Equipment, The Koch Brothers, The Disabled ...

[T.A.Frawley]

So as I keep reading I have random questions run through my head that are not always connected.

I'm an avid Fly Fisherman and tie my own flies as such I spend as much as my free time as possible doing on or the other as possible. I also enjoy going to a local range and shooting about once per week. Since these are clearly not survival needs would recreational equipment and supplies even be available for purchase in a communist society?

Also what happens to the Ultra Rich like the Koch Brothers who have likely never done an honest days work in their lives. Whose only income has always been made by exploiting the working class?

Also what about the those with debilitating physical and mental disabilities? I spent 5 years leading a program that provided food to the homeless and extremely poor and providing empowerment services to help them help themselves. From experience and according to statistics I can tell you that here in the U.S. nearly 100% of the chronically homeless severely debilitating mental and developmental disabilities. Would something be done to provide for them?

What about luxuries - I mean items, trinkets, fine close, dining out, attending theater, movies, etc. if in communism there is no physical currency would these things disappear?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Recreational equipment would be produced in relation to demand, like everything else. There would likely be issues of shortages due to certain rare minerals, so some recreational items might be somewhat short in supply but basic things like fishing equipment would be easy to deal with. Under communism, the purpose of production is direct consumption, not the act of bringing it to market like it is now. So what we want to consume will be produced and things we don't want will remain safely locked away inside our minds.

So if under communism no one feels the need to watch tv for some reason, we'll stop producing them. If after that we decide we do actually want TVs afterall, then we'll start producing them again. Production corresponds directly to our wants and desires, rather than some inhuman entity known as 'the market'.

People with disabilities are a source of incredible waste within our society, and not due to any of their own actions. The vast majority of people with disabilities are still able to perform useful tasks but are prevented from doing so for a lot of reasons that are not necessarily directly related to the economy. There's no guarantee that a transition to communism would imply a fully inclusive environment, but it would remove a significant hurdle to living independently, so there is that at least. Anyone who wants to take part in daily social activity should be able to, this goes for children and the elderly as well. Alternatively anyone who doesn't want to do so should be free to do whatever they would prefer to do instead.

As for the really high levels of the bourgeoisie, it seems likely to me that many of them will try to make a military stand of some sort during the transition and we probably won't have to really deal with this problem. Those that want to go along with it should be left alone in my opinion though. It's not as if they have supernatural powers. If a revolution has really been successful, their past prestige or material power is meaningless. Alternatively we'll make them all train as caricature artists and staff them at amusement parks and street fairs.

[Creative Destruction]

So as I keep reading I have random questions run through my head that are not always connected.

I'm an avid Fly Fisherman and tie my own flies as such I spend as much as my free time as possible doing on or the other as possible. I also enjoy going to a local range and shooting about once per week. Since these are clearly not survival needs would recreational equipment and supplies even be available for purchase in a communist society?

Well, one thing here: communism isn't about restricting people's leisure options. Quite the opposite. It's largely about freeing people from toiling labor to do labor that they enjoy; that is, to quote Marx, "labor [would] become life's prime want."

In addition to that, production would be geared toward need and not profit. Priorities, of course, would shift. I can't imagine us pumping out millions of iPhones if people didn't want them, as we do now. (To be clear: people want the product, but capitalism is infamous for overproduction.) If you want a gun, you'd put a request in. If you need flies for your pole, you'd put a request in. You obviously wouldn't be the only one requesting this as I enjoy going to the range, as well, and I'm sure there is a sizable amount of folks who like fly fishing.


Also what happens to the Ultra Rich like the Koch Brothers who have likely never done an honest days work in their lives. Whose only income has always been made by exploiting the working class?

One thing here: Marx divvied up communism in two phases: the lower and upper phase. The lower phase is characterized by scarcity of some or many consumables. This means that there needs to be some rationing system in order to deal with this issue of scarcity, as well as the fact that most industry has not yet been automated to the point where toiling labor is merely an artifact. In this scenario, people work for an hour, social deductions are made for social projects, and the rest of the value is given to the worker as remuneration. You'd use these labor chits to put in requests for so-called luxury items, or consumables that are scarce and governed by rationing.

This comes after the revolution. It's generally assumed that there will be a kind of civil war within the revolution, that appears as a clash between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. A completed revolution, though, assumed that there is no longer "ultra-rich" people. Those in that class who survived and acquiesced to the revolution would be governed the same as all others. In this scenario, these formerly ultra-rich folks would be given the same minimum standard of living, drawing from non-scarce resources, and would have to work in order to accrue scarce resources, until we are able to enter into an era of superabundance.


Also what about the those with debilitating physical and mental disabilities? I spent 5 years leading a program that provided food to the homeless and extremely poor and providing empowerment services to help them help themselves. From experience and according to statistics I can tell you that here in the U.S. nearly 100% of the chronically homeless severely debilitating mental and developmental disabilities. Would something be done to provide for them?

Absolutely. You can't hold people responsible for issues they had no hand in creating. I imagine some sort of social fund would be created for them. And, of course, they'd have the same rights to housing, food, transportation and what not, as anyone else, as well as the option to work if they can handle it, plus some measure of caretaking if necessary.

Ethics Gradient referred to this as a drain on society's resources, and I suppose it technically is, and I also agree that many developmentally disabled folks aren't given much of a chance, but this would just call for society to take the roll of, in the classic Christian precept, being your brother's (or sister's) keeper.


What about luxuries - I mean items, trinkets, fine close, dining out, attending theater, movies, etc. if in communism there is no physical currency would these things disappear?

See above about rationing, etc.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

No no, people with disabilities are a waste in the sense of potential, not in terms of their consumption. I've had some interaction with a non-profit here that trains people to live independently, and most of their clients are so desperate for that kind of opportunity, it's disappointing that it comes along so infrequently for the majority. We act as if locking folks away is a normal thing to do for their own benefit, but is very rarely is.

[Creative Destruction]

No no, people with disabilities are a waste in the sense of potential, not in terms of their consumption. I've had some interaction with a non-profit here that trains people to live independently, and most of their clients are so desperate for that kind of opportunity, it's disappointing that it comes along so infrequently for the majority. We act as if locking folks away is a normal thing to do for their own benefit, but is very rarely is.

Got it.

[Subversive]

Since these are clearly not survival needs would recreational equipment and supplies even be available for purchase in a communist society?
Yes, of course. How could you possibly think otherwise?

Communism doesn't just focus on "survival needs". It focuses on 'real needs'. Entertainment is still a real need, it is something that people need to actually 'be alive' as opposed to just 'surviving'.

The confusion here probably comes from the fact Capitalism twists entertainment into something unproductive. Makes it seem as though entertaining yourself is just a 'waste of time'. And when hobbies become jobs they quickly lose sight of the 'fun' element, because people get preoccupied with turning it into a job, and the barriers to this that Capitalism creates, that they no longer see it as entertaining. It simply just becomes labor.

Communism would restore the balance to both things.
It would turn jobs into hobbies, and hobbies into jobs. You would essentially do whatever you were happy doing - not forced to work jobs you don't like so you can feed your family. There wouldn't be economic repercussions to choosing a job you like over a job you hate, as there almost always is in Capitalism. No, choosing jobs others don't want to do would in fact likely just give you bonuses, as an incentive for people to fulfill those necessary jobs.

With happier workplaces comes less need for mindless entertainment. People who aren't stressed out by work every day don't need ridiculous forms of entertainment that cause them to shut off their brain, to escape the real world. They will, instead, more often choose to explore forms of mental or physical entertainment, productive entertainment, like fishing for example. Or sports, or maybe more educational TV shows.
That doesn't mean mindless TV shows or video games and such would be completely eliminated, but that these things might be eventually replaced by society's needs for things which are more intellectually stimulating. For example, rather than video games like "Call Of Duty" games enforcing a nationalistic and imperialistic ideology they might have a story which focuses on the problems of nationalism and imperialism, or perhaps the soldiers will fight against warring Capitalists who blind and exploit all their peoples.
And rather than brainless game-shows where people are tested with trivia or horribly grotesque things, or etc, all just to win some money - things they might never do otherwise - they are instead game-shows where real people, volunteers, are truly tested for their knowledge and abilities.

The concept of Communism is certainly not to abolish people's fun. Instead it's to create a society where people are truly, finally, free to explore their own personal interests. People whom aren't bound by economic, political, or social concerns which, in our current societies, limit everyone.

So all forms of entertainment will all still exist in Communism - though it is likely that many of them will change a little. Change in the interests of the people, not change because it is forced to change to feed some State-agenda or whatever propaganda you might have otherwise believed.



Also what happens to the Ultra Rich like the Koch Brothers who have likely never done an honest days work in their lives. Whose only income has always been made by exploiting the working class?
They no longer exist. It is that simple.

First off, their means of exploitation is cut off from them, so that also means their means of wealth disappears. Without a means for developing wealth, other than real labor, they will disappear in the context that they are exploiters of labor.

Second, due to certain circumstances, like the people you refer to, they might have had their previous wealth removed from them, since it was unfairly gained and not deserved, and so they will disappear as wealthy people, because their wealth will likely be removed.

Third, the people who are that far up in the Capitalist chain-of-command will likely try to fight back a revolution with violence - inevitably this will probably mean they will be executed sometime during the revolution or immediately afterward. They will be tried and sentenced for their numerous crimes against humanity.
Depending on how violent the revolution becomes other wealth-owners may be executed, as well, even if they did not actively participate in the wars.
This part cannot be said for sure, since that would really be up to those revolutionaries to decide, and dependent on circumstances of how violent the revolution becomes.



Also what about the those with debilitating physical and mental disabilities? [...] Would something be done to provide for them?
Of course. It is a society after all. People don't just simply abandon others, especially people in need, just because of changes in society.
Communism cannot exist unless these people are free like everyone else, they are people, they cannot be made into a separate class and divided from the rest of society - doing so will automatically mean Communism cannot exist. Communism must be classless, so this would be a fundamental prerequisite to developing Communism.

So, as Ethics Gradient pointed out, the vast majority of these people actually are capable of productive labor, but in a Capitalist society they are prevented from doing so for many, many reasons. If anything, the disabled are the most oppressed people in Capitalist society, and people whom are often unable to speak for themselves on this issue - so freeing them from this travesty would be a necessity to create a true Communist society.

In fact, if we want to get theoretical about this, with them being the most oppressed class throughout all history - their freedom and their equality would therefore signify the very essence of society's transition into Communism.

[Subversive]

Since these are clearly not survival needs would recreational equipment and supplies even be available for purchase in a communist society?
Yes, of course. How could you possibly think otherwise?

Communism doesn't just focus on "survival needs". It focuses on 'real needs'. Entertainment is still a real need, it is something that people need to actually 'be alive' as opposed to just 'surviving'.

The confusion here probably comes from the fact Capitalism twists entertainment into something unproductive. Makes it seem as though entertaining yourself is just a 'waste of time'. And when hobbies become jobs they quickly lose sight of the 'fun' element, because people get preoccupied with turning it into a job, and the barriers to this that Capitalism creates, that they no longer see it as entertaining. It simply just becomes labor.

Communism would restore the balance to both things.
It would turn jobs into hobbies, and hobbies into jobs. You would essentially do whatever you were happy doing - not forced to work jobs you don't like so you can feed your family. There wouldn't be economic repercussions to choosing a job you like over a job you hate, as there almost always is in Capitalism. No, choosing jobs others don't want to do would in fact likely just give you bonuses, as an incentive for people to fulfill those necessary jobs.

With happier workplaces comes less need for mindless entertainment. People who aren't stressed out by work every day don't need ridiculous forms of entertainment that cause them to shut off their brain, to escape the real world. They will, instead, more often choose to explore forms of mental or physical entertainment, productive entertainment, like fishing for example. Or sports, or maybe more educational TV shows.
That doesn't mean mindless TV shows or video games and such would be completely eliminated, but that these things might be eventually replaced by society's needs for things which are more intellectually stimulating. For example, rather than video games like "Call Of Duty" games enforcing a nationalistic and imperialistic ideology they might have a story which focuses on the problems of nationalism and imperialism, or perhaps the soldiers will fight against warring Capitalists who blind and exploit all their peoples.
And rather than brainless game-shows where people are tested with trivia or horribly grotesque things, or etc, all just to win some money - things they might never do otherwise - they are instead game-shows where real people, volunteers, are truly tested for their knowledge and abilities.

The concept of Communism is certainly not to abolish people's fun. Instead it's to create a society where people are truly, finally, free to explore their own personal interests. People whom aren't bound by economic, political, or social concerns which, in our current societies, limit everyone.

So all forms of entertainment will all still exist in Communism - though it is likely that many of them will change a little. Change in the interests of the people, not change because it is forced to change to feed some State-agenda or whatever propaganda you might have otherwise believed.



Also what happens to the Ultra Rich like the Koch Brothers who have likely never done an honest days work in their lives. Whose only income has always been made by exploiting the working class?
They no longer exist. It is that simple.

First off, their means of exploitation is cut off from them, so that also means their means of wealth disappears. Without a means for developing wealth, other than real labor, they will disappear in the context that they are exploiters of labor necessarily becoming laborers themselves.

Second, due to certain circumstances, like the people you refer to, they might have had their previous wealth removed from them, since it was unfairly gained and not deserved, and so they will disappear as wealthy people, because their wealth will likely be removed. Some might keep some of their wealth, but it will depend on the revolution's concerns and where their priorities will be. It will all depend on the circumstances. But as for the highest percent of society, their wealth will undoubtedly be stripped away, along with all wealth (and debts) stockpiled in banks.

Third, the people who are that far up in the Capitalist chain-of-command will likely try to fight back a revolution with violence - inevitably this will probably mean they will be executed sometime during the revolution or immediately afterward. They will be tried and sentenced for their numerous crimes against humanity.
Depending on how violent the revolution becomes other wealth-owners may be executed, as well, even if they did not actively participate in the wars.
This part cannot be said for sure, since that would really be up to those revolutionaries to decide, and dependent on circumstances of how violent the revolution becomes.



Also what about the those with debilitating physical and mental disabilities? [...] Would something be done to provide for them?
Of course. It is a society after all. People don't just simply abandon others, especially people in need, just because of changes in society.
Communism cannot exist unless these people are free like everyone else, they are people, they cannot be made into a separate class and divided from the rest of society - doing so will automatically mean Communism cannot exist. Communism must be classless, so this would be a fundamental prerequisite to developing Communism.

So, as Ethics Gradient pointed out, the vast majority of these people actually are capable of productive labor, but in a Capitalist society they are prevented from doing so for many, many reasons. If anything, the disabled are the most oppressed people in Capitalist society, and people whom are often unable to speak for themselves on this issue - so freeing them from this travesty would be a necessity to create a true Communist society.

In fact, if we want to get theoretical about this, with them being the most oppressed class throughout all history - their freedom and their equality would therefore signify the very essence of society's transition into Communism.

[T.A.Frawley]

This may sound extremely silly, but your replies actually brought tears of joy to my eyes. I'm not myself a disabled person, but as I mentioned I spent 5 years loving, getting to know, and helping empower many disabled and other marginalized and disenfranchised people. I've been reading so much lately about how the settlers and U.S. Government from the beginning to this day has victimized so many peoples and my heart has become broken and ashamed of what my fellow white people have done and is doing to Blacks and others of color here and globally. As I see it though this disillusionment a positive, because it means I had illusions that I'm being freed from. Matter of fact I'm beginning to be believe that what I was taught in school about American History was exactly the American Illusion. I truly wish more people of my an earlier generations could see U.S. History and Current Events objectively.

[Tim Redd]

People with disabilities are a source of incredible waste within our society, and not due to any of their own actions. The vast majority of people with disabilities are still able to perform useful tasks but are prevented from doing so for a lot of reasons that are not necessarily directly related to the economy.

It's a wasteful act to characterize someone as generally wasteful based upon the criterion of economics.

[Creative Destruction]

It's a wasteful act to characterize someone as generally wasteful based upon the criterion of economics.

EG clarified this. He was saying that people with disabilities aren't often given the chance to work, for various reasons. The "waste" is the artificial barrier that keeps them from work.

[Tim Redd]

EG clarified this. He was saying that people with disabilities aren't often given the chance to work, for various reasons. The "waste" is the artificial barrier that keeps them from work.

Correct, missed that point.