Luxuries

[Noah]

Hey guys,

Luxuries...diamond, caviar, gold...how will these be distributed in the communist society?

It is easy enough handing out food and drink because people know what and how much they need of this resource. However, luxuries are not essential for living and therefore they tend to be priced much higher so only the wealthy can afford them.

So who will the diamonds, gold and caviar go to? Or expensive wines and so on.

Will they go to people who work harder, for example do alot more work? If so won't this eventually create a hierarchy?

Gold and diamonds have always been commodities that people get hold of for investments (especially gold - my dad is a goldsmithy) so in post-revolutionary society where people may still have some grips with capitalism won't they hoarde 'free' luxuries?

It's just speculation really because I'm not particularly knowledgable! So I was wondering whether someone could help me out!

Yours,


Noah

[Ol' Dirty]

There might be a ration for precious metals or foods, but those who work harder wouldn't get more luxeries for that, I don't suppose. I haven't read on that. I'll get back to you.

[coda]

i would suspect that in a communist society, those things would have no value whatsoever, except for any possible use value they might have.

[dannthraxxx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:50 pm
i would suspect that in a communist society, those things would have no value whatsoever, except for any possible use value they might have.
i agree.


those things are only precious and pricey because of the current economic system that pushes them. honestly, caviar is nasty as fuck and tastes like shit, i wouldn't bother paying anything for it. diamonds and gold are basically rocks.

[Black Cross]

There is no need for such tripe. It would do much more good as an item of trade to another country in exchange for more useful effects. If you could trade it away for something that the country as a whole has need for, then that's what should be done with it; if not, just throw it out.

But you definitely can't start giving it out as a reward for hard workers. First off, we shouldn't need such rewards to do our jobs well. And second, if you did start giving it as an incentive, then everything starts to revert to greed and capitalism.

[which doctor]

I don't see a reason why there can't be diamonds for everyone. Diamonds can be produceed by humans in labs and they are structurally identical to those mined. Experts on identifying diamonds can't tell the difference between a mined stone and one made in a lab, so much so that many diamond mines are imprinting a microscopic logo onto their diamonds. So, that solves the diamond problem.

Caviar is something that can be farmed, using environmentally sustainable ways. Even then, I don't think there is a lot of demand for caviar (even if there is no price) as many people (at least in America) find eating fish eggs to be repulsive.

As for gold, I don't really see many uses for it. There are many things in our society that our used solely as status symbols and have no practical use, I believe gold is one of these. Though, it does have certain uses in electronics. Gold, like other luxuries is just one of those things that will have to go around. Perhaps a waiting list or some other sort of system will be devised to assure that these luxuries are spread around.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

People only think they need gold, silver, and diamonds because this society has pushed it on the gullible.

As far as more usable luxuries like elegant yachts, they would be probably considered common property and everyone would have the same chance to use it.

[SocialistMilitant]

Diamonds, gold, and the whole "bling bling" culture wouldn't even be valued in a communist society.

However, let's say during the dictatorship of the proletariat, I can see gold being used as a reserve currency for security purposes.

[Gold Against The Soul]

Didn't Lenin once say that once the revolution had triumphed worldwide, they might use gold to build public toilets? I like the idea of that! :-)

[The-Spark]

I dont see a great reason for keeping things, that are pretty much pointless. What would be the point of producing fake diamonds if theres no real point to having them in the first place? Not to mention that but all the wars that have been started over gold.

[Janus]

Diamonds and gold have industrial uses so I think the emphasis should be placed on these applications rather than on personal/aesthetic splendor. Of course, we can currently create synthetic diamonds at this point and now doubt will further refine this process in the future should the demand for diamonds continue. However, no matter how advanced our technology is, there will most likely always be items that are sought after/cutting edge yet are impractical to distribute en masse. In such cases, it would be best if they were shared or divvied up so everyone could make use of them.

[Noah]

Firstly, to suggest that people would not want gold isn't true in my opinion. People wear it as a fashion symbol, it doesn't have to be 'bling bling' and big but people still wear it.

More than anything really, I don't care what happens to the shit. But when someone asks (more importantly when I ask myself) how the 'economics' the distribution of this stuff would work I want a viable answer...Not..O most people wouldn't want gold/diamonds. People will always want gold and diamonds because they're beautiful.

If we take away things that are 'pretty much pointless'...Then we'd be also taking away things like Gamecube's, PS3s, Ipods, certain types of clothing? Because you can always do without that stuff but that would be wrong.

[The-Spark]

what pratical uses would diamonds and gold have? Diamonds are supposed to be the hardest jewel on planet earth, would they be able to make some sort of tool? And gold? Maybe Toilets is the best idea

[The-Spark]

good point Noah

[Janus]

what pratical uses would diamonds and gold have?
They have industrial uses due to their physical properties such as conductivity,etc. And as the hardest known naturally occuring substance, diamonds have additional purposes in drilling, engraving, and polishing. In fact, the majority of diamonds are used for industrial rather than cosmetic functions.

[The-Spark]

well then, i agree that yes it is a good idea for diamonds to be distributed to the people

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 08:42 pm
Firstly, to suggest that people would not want gold isn't true in my opinion. People wear it as a fashion symbol, it doesn't have to be 'bling bling' and big but people still wear it.
There's two hard-to-separate reasons why people wear jewelry. Because it's pretty, and as a status symbol. (I'm rich, therefore I'm better than you.)

The second would tend to die away. But certainly, people will decorate themselves, people always have, including in primitive communal tribes.

(And of course there are industrial uses for both.)

And I have really no patience for the whole no-luxuries-allowed attitude; dunno about you, but I'm fighting for a better world, not one where things are levelled down until everyone dresses in burlap.

Would people care if the diamonds were real, or the gold was solid? If not, then scarcity wouldn't be an issue.

Also, how scarce are diamonds really? The DeBeers cartel maintains a certain artificial shortage.

But OK, it's likely that something will be scarce but in demand.

How will people handle this? I don't know. You could have a sweepstakes in which the entire world's population is automatically entered. Maybe reward people who've done something exceptional. Have radio-station contests to see who wants it most - last one with a hand on it wins. OK, I'm getting silly now.

In any case, jewelry and caviar, or whatever, will be a sideline to the main functioning of the economy. Which can be scarcity-free.

I don't think there's any need to cross every t and dot every i, describe every detail of a future society. Tomorrow doesn't belong to us anyway, people in the future will decide this stuff without worrying about what we said.

If people want to speculate or suggest possible answers, why not, but I think it's best to remember it's just speculation.

[R_P_A_S]

more for you guys. cus i dont even like caviar , diamonds or gold.

[Noah]

A few observations:

1) Diamonds aren't really in short supply, companies keep them locked up in safes to shoot up the prices?
2) Most people can't afford diamonds - they go for 'cubic zargonia' so in communist society people would have access to that 'fake diamond' which looks almost the same.

Okay...so not many people need gold or diamonds.

What about cars and motorbikes? Would you get a car as soon as you get a license...Would you be put on a list?...I'm guessing choice would decrease in the long run because there'd be less private companies but quality would increase because there's no profits.

[Luís Henrique]

I don't really trust people like us, who have been raised and lived all of our lives under the hegemony of capital, to correctly guess what people in a communist society will do or not.

Which brings the first line to answer that: whatever it is, it will be decided democratically. If people democratically decide that diamonds will be placed in museums, so that everyone can have a look at them, so it will be. If they decide that diamonds shall not be produced - then diamonds won't be produced.

In any case, a conscious democratic decision - not something guided by the blind "forces" of the market.

Evidently, diamonds and gold have industrial and other uses - gold is useful in electronics and dentistry, for instance. So their "use" as a kind of revenge against the capitalist past, as in using gold for toilets, doesn't seem too much clever.

Another issue, possibly different, refers to luxuries such as special brands of common things, such as wine or cheese. Most of this are used purely as status symbols, like Severian says. Or does anyone really believe there is a significant difference between the 1965 harvest of Larochefoucauld and the 1966 one? I suspect people will find games about those things increasingly less interesting. But, again, I could be wrong. Perhaps people will, on the contrary, use most of their times trying to guess if a glass of wine is Veuve Cliquot 1973 or 1972, or the difference between two brands of cuban cigars. But, I think, most important is: if they decide to do so, it will be because they find it emotionally fulfilling, not because they have the need to show other people what their place within the "food chain" is.

Luís Henrique

[RGacky3]

I like Gold, it looks tight, I don't see why those items cannot market based, ie. those who would rather luxury items rather than other things (Computers or whatever) could save up and get them. As long as everyone gets what they need the extras should pretty much go to who wants them most, and a good guage of that is a market.

[Never Give In]

In Communist society, this items would have a very small value, besides looking pretty. All items that are not needed to survive, no matter their value during Capitalism, are put on the backburner when it comes to value.

[The-Spark]

no doubt they may have small value, but would not life be dull if we just lived on life neccesity?

[Never Give In]

I'd think you could still obtain these items, I'm not exactly sure how, but I know there is some theory on how to get and use non-neccessitive items in Communist society. I'll research and get back to you on that one. Unless anyone else knows?

[BobKKKindle$]

Many of the goods that are currently seen as 'necessary luxuries' are in fact 'false' wants that are created through the agressive marketing conducted by corporations that ties ordinary products to intangible emotional values in order to make the good more appealing. The absence of this marketing would mean that these luxuries would no longer have to be produced.

[The-Spark]

well i would think there be more pratical use to diamonds and gold then jewelery. Maybe something that will change its view as a "luxury"

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by The-[email protected] 14, 2007 12:03 am
well i would think there be more pratical use to diamonds and gold then jewelery. Maybe something that will change its view as a "luxury"
Thats true.

[JRR883]

Diamonds aren't actually in short supply. The companies stockpile them and release just enough to satisfy demand in order to make prices artificially high. That, and most of the diamonds that have been bought are of sentimental value, so they rarely go back on the market.

Historically, such wildly expensive jewelry has been a sign of social status for the upper classes. With class eliminated, only the people that like the aesthetic properties of precious gems and metals will wear them.

[The New Left]

As for the people saying there is no use for gold. Gold is an excellent conductor and is easily shaped. Once gold is worth as a piece of wood or a strip of tinfoil it could be used for every little thing.


Making a gold toilet seem to be like a small little snicker at the capitalist for sitting on a pedestal.