Gambling

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was just thinking about gambling the other day, and I cant see how it would be possible in a society without ownersip. Of course you could argue about personal ownership, but if an individual is left with a need, surely they should have the right to fill it?

Also, as well as someone not really being able to "lose" how can someone win? The idea I suppose is that the winner gains from the risk they undertook, however what if there was never a real risk of loss (as above), or any real gain to be made (what would they want taht would not be available?)

I am a bit of a gmabler, and whilst I wouldn't mind giving this up, it does seem that this currently massive concept would cease to make sense?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Hegemonicretribution
this currently massive concept would cease to make sense?
I think so. I mean, I sometimes just play poker with chips (no money), but that's just to play cards. If I gamble, I have a material incentive of making money. So, cards, poker, and the like will probably exist, but gambling, when its material cause (making easy money!) disappears will disappear as well.

[Delirium]

It's likley that some kinds of luxuries would be scarce still.

I'm sure people would find somthing.

[redstar2000]

The appeal of gambling in class society is to win substantial sums of money in ways far easier than wage-labor. So that would be gone.

On the other hand, many humans are strongly attracted to "games of skill" that frequently require a considerable amount of "skull-sweat"...and I can imagine that such games would still enjoy a lot of popularity.

Poker might "wither away" but bridge might make a big "come-back", for example.

New games created for multi-player environments on the internet are enormously popular now and might very well become much more so.

In what way or another, the games will go on. Homo ludens wouldn't have it any other way. :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[apathy maybe]

I don't know about a 'pure' communist society (though probably it would apply there also), but in 'my' anarchy, it would not disappear.

Take Blackjack for example, not the game found in casinos that is now so rigged that it is like roulette, but the original. It is fun, it takes skill, and it can involve winning. And children (and adults) often play it (or a simpler version) for matchsticks. No winner at the end of the day except who has the most matchsticks.

Games like roulette might die out. It is simply a game of chance, and if there is no possible reward, then addiction ceases (like the pokies).

I do know that in a true anarchist society no one would forbid you to play these games. It might even be that certain people would play to get out of working (betting their share of work against others share), but these people would be looked down upon by the majority, and such games would not be 'enforceable'. Just because you won a game, does not mean that the person who lost has to do your work.

[Black Dagger]

Is gambling defined by playing for money? Because it's possible to gamble for 'fun' and not money, playing for bottle caps, match sticks, m&m's etc. The 'goal' is to have fun, not accumulate wealth.

[Ian]

Blackjack is not overly rigged house edge is usually between 2-6% in Australia (best odds for a player is Crown Casino).
Although I wouldn't play video blackjack, the dealer got 5 blackjacks within 8 deals and I lost $40.

[Ol' Dirty]

Gambling for money (as it wouldn't exist) would not exist, but games of chance most certainly would. People would simply play for fun, without worrying about losing their house, clothes, or ass virginity ( :lol: ).

[drain.you]

Interesting thoughts. I guess it would cease to exist.
The lottery, casinos, betting on football and other games and such all gone.
Without the money, all that is left is competitiveness and....fun.
Playing cards for fun and stuff is all well and good but its not that fun, just passes the time.
Competitiveness has to be supressed under communism though which raises the question of whether sport will be played like it is today too. Guess theres the fun and health sides but there will no longer be proffessional sports because there is no money to gain from it.

[apathy maybe]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 09:15 PM
Blackjack is not overly rigged house edge is usually between 2-6% in Australia (best odds for a player is Crown Casino).
Although I wouldn't play video blackjack, the dealer got 5 blackjacks within 8 deals and I lost $40.
I did a study in grade 9 on Blackjack and other forms of Casino gambling. Blackjack was the game with the highest odds for the player. There was a better chance of winning if you were skilled then the casino winning.

However, in 2004 I was in Canberra and to kill sometime I went into the Casino. They had changed the rules. Cards are put straight back into the pack and reshuffled after each hand, and a few other changes. Basically making it impossible to count cards or other tricks that enabled a skilled player to win.

I hate casinos. I hate cops more though.

[Chrysalis]

Communist or not, I personally dislike gambling because it's one of those vices that can potentially destroy an individual. A family acquaintance had lost two houses, and of course his marriage, because of gambling.

Anyway, I've been thinking about a possible communist daily life. I'd say, I wish more emphasis on healthy diet, going to the beach, physical exertion, healthy lifestyle, and less sluggish population. I think this will lead to positive outlook, therefore stronger support for the system. Greed will gradually lessen or disappear completely. That is, selfish motives and wanting to be ahead because of sense of entitlement would be discouraged. What's fostered is motivation to show up for work everyday and productivity. And I don't even think we need five-day work-week either. And lots more.

[Floyce White]

Gambling is a form of property exchange. When property exchange is replaced with sharing, there is no longer any property to exchange in gambling.

Heg...BTW, who do you like in the Derby?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Originally posted by Floyce White+Apr 11 2006, 11:34 PM--> (Floyce White @ Apr 11 2006, 11:34 PM) Heg...BTW, who do you like in the Derby? [/b]
I am not a horses man... didn't even do the national.

I play slots (being a barman) but I like cards :) I also like betting on sport, or between friends for a bit of extra excitement. One of my friends just lost a bet with his brother about giving up gambling and has to run around a very public lake absolutely starkers :lol:

Anyway, I can see how the games can exist for fun, but that is not how gambling is often interpretated in a modern sense. I don't need material wealth on the line, but I still prefer playing with an element of risk, even if not material.


wonton soldier
People would simply play for fun, without worrying about losing their house, clothes, or ass virginity (:lol:).
What do you mean by this?

[piet11111]

Competitiveness has to be supressed under communism

nonsense competition is part of our instincts and should actually be encouraged.
the only difference with capitalism is that both poeple would not gain/lose anything.
for instance a mine could have a competition between shifts about what shift manages to produce the most coal.
the losers have to be the designated drivers for the winning shifts.

or scientists competing to create the most fuel effective car or something.