Luxury In Socialism

[Journeyman]

I know that one of the main objectives in Socialism are to reduce poverty and guarantee abundance for all. But what exactly happens to Luxury? By Luxury I mean services and everything material whose production and maintenance costs exceed what is accesible by common folk.

Who would have access to the Ferraris and the Lamborghinis? Who would get to enjoy gourmet foods and fine wines? Who would have access to five star hotels? Who would be able to live in a house that enjoys all the benefits that the most cutting edge technology has to offer? I'd like to know what will happen to these things if they are in such short supply. Will they fade away and become forbidden, or will there be a place for them?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:42 am
I know that one of the main objectives in Socialism are to reduce poverty and guarantee abundance for all. But what exactly happens to Luxury? By Luxury I mean services and everything material whose production and maintenance costs exceed what is accesible by common folk.

Who would have access to the Ferraris and the Lamborghinis? Who would get to enjoy gourmet foods and fine wines? Who would have access to five star hotels? Who would be able to live in a house that enjoys all the benefits that the most cutting edge technology has to offer? I'd like to know what will happen to these things if they are in such short supply. Will they fade away and become forbidden, or will there be a place for them?
I don't see much room for luxury in radical socialist dogma. In some ways, I think that luxury and the consumer culture that accompanies it are directly opposed to Marx's ideas. I mean, according to the "labor theory of value", an uncut diamond is worth the same as a regular rock lying on the ground beside it; however, we know this is not true, judging from the value that humans place on diamonds, gold, there are countless examples. Wasn't Marx opposed to "commodity fetishism", after all?

But don't take it from me. Marx and his ideas are anathema to me, so who am I to talk.

[Module]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:42 pm
I know that one of the main objectives in Socialism are to reduce poverty and guarantee abundance for all. But what exactly happens to Luxury? By Luxury I mean services and everything material whose production and maintenance costs exceed what is accesible by common folk.

Who would have access to the Ferraris and the Lamborghinis? Who would get to enjoy gourmet foods and fine wines? Who would have access to five star hotels? Who would be able to live in a house that enjoys all the benefits that the most cutting edge technology has to offer? I'd like to know what will happen to these things if they are in such short supply. Will they fade away and become forbidden, or will there be a place for them?
The only reason most of these things are in such 'short supply' is because they are considered just that - luxury items, and it is in the interest of those that sell luxury items that they remain as such.
The production and maintenance costs most of the time are not so disproportionately high compared to other less expensive commodities.
Ferraris and other expensive cars cost so much primarily because of their name. Of course you might argue if you're a car expert or something (as I am far from it) they are of much better quality than your average car, the extra cost of the car itself is not proportionately related to the extra cost of it's production.
There seems no reason that such quality cannot be extended to all cars.
We know that normal cars have a planned life to them. The production of cars, and other things are modified for cost of making them, and to a lesser extent to the cost of selling them.
One would hope that without that reason to dupe people into paying more for less, the general quality of production would increase.
I suppose the same would go for 'fine wines'.
Although I'm sure that somebody is able to answer the question better than I. :unsure:

[Journeyman]

I don't see much room for luxury in radical socialist dogma. In some ways, I think that luxury and the consumer culture that accompanies it are directly opposed to Marx's ideas. I mean, according to the "labor theory of value", an uncut diamond is worth the same as a regular rock lying on the ground beside it; however, we know this is not true, judging from the value that humans place on diamonds, gold, there are countless examples. Wasn't Marx opposed to "commodity fetishism", after all?

But don't take it from me. Marx and his ideas are anathema to me, so who am I to talk


Taking the example of diamonds. It's just like any kind of decoration. It's beautiful to behold to many, and many will want it. One will make it. But will he give it away for free? why?.




The only reason most of these things are in such 'short supply' is because they are considered just that - luxury items, and it is in the interest of those that sell luxury items that they remain as such.
The production and maintenance costs most of the time are not so disproportionately high compared to other less expensive commodities.
Ferraris and other expensive cars cost so much primarily because of their name. Of course you might argue if you're a car expert or something (as I am far from it) they are of much better quality than your average car, the extra cost of the car itself is not proportionately related to the extra cost of it's production.
There seems no reason that such quality cannot be extended to all cars.
We know that normal cars have a planned life to them. The production of cars, and other things are modified for cost of making them, and to a lesser extent to the cost of selling them.
One would hope that without that reason to dupe people into paying more for less, the general quality of production would increase.
I suppose the same would go for 'fine wines'.
Although I'm sure that somebody is able to answer the question better than I.


I'm just not convinced by the idea that luxury products are manufactured as such because the "burgoisie" has decided so, some products are neglected by the big mass producers because they don't have as much market reach, so you have smaller companies often catering to these small niches of wealthy customers, often doing personalized, custom made products for their rich clients.

The cost of manufacturing a car like an Aston Martin is incredibly high, it's mostly hand made. If it were possible to produce the same car at a lower cost, someone else would already be doing it, and taking it's share of the market, it's a direct byproduct of competition. It is true however that companies employ strategies to withhold certain technologies from entering the market until they can squeeze the greatest profit from the lower quality product (Apple for instance), but that's why (again) competition keeps them in line by driving costs down on better products.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The concept of luxury would erode with the dismantling of the government-enforced price system. Most of the high-dollar products can be mass produced on a larger scale than currently true. There are entire assembly lines devoted to the production of cheap goods simply because of the wealth difference in any market: toys, clothing, computers. Not everyone can afford a Viper so Dodge creates Charger and Avenger. Not everyone can afford the big train set so let's create a smaller one. Certainly not everyone may want a large set but it certainly stands to reason that if the two were priced the same more people would grab for the big box rather than the small one.

Products that can't be mass-produced would be distributed according to how the workers and/or community saw fit. It's likely a reward system may still exist going into communism for community labor that nobody else wants to do, such as cleaning the gutters. Although the goal should be automating all labor people do not want to perform, rewarding people who perform these tasks is a much better alternative to present conditions. That way people know said person actually did work for the reward.


Who would get to enjoy gourmet foods

Unless automation is achieved by the time the state and money are eliminated, the restaurant market will likely collapse. Natural-born cooks are aplenty but they don't enjoy the assembly-line work that is asked of them and few people like waitressing. Gourmet food will be for special occasions like weddings and birthdays. Maybe you'll call up a list of cooks and book a time with them.

Of course this should be embraced as a sign that people are finally doing the labor they enjoy. The chefs not interested in working gigs can partake in the production of quality ingredients and frozen meals. Families could, and I know this sounds insane -- eat together. :lol: Or they could pick up fast food, I guess. The level of automation required for that would be minimum.



Who would have access to five star hotels?

The point is, every hotel is to become five star. Everything that we deem "crap," "okay," or "mediocre" would be taken down to make good and great products. If there's two hotels near each other and the one you like is booked, of course that is an issue of scarcity only the laws of science can resolve. But the difference between the two won't be as staggering as staying in a 5 star hotel and one that looks like it served as a crack house three months earlier to your arrival. Let's also remember communities would stagger the work days. The concept of a weekend and a weekday is such a strain on society.


Taking the example of diamonds. It's just like any kind of decoration. It's beautiful to behold to many, and many will want it. One will make it. But will he give it away for free? why?.


The example of diamonds is an interesting one for a few reasons:

1.) The diamond trade is controlled essentially be only a few people who want to keep up their revenue
2.) If there continues to be demands for diamonds, which in all probability there will be [though "size" will be substituted by "look"], artificial diamonds are a realistic possibility
3.) For what purpose would someone hoard diamonds if the best they could do is barter. You can't barter your house. Probably not your car. Airplanes would not be privately owned.
4.) If you're using the community's tools to get these diamonds, those diamonds aren't entirely your property.

[Journeyman]

I'm sorry if I'm causing any confusion, I'd like to move the discussion to the "Motivation In Socialism" thread. I think all your arguments about diamonds, wines, restaurants and hotels eventually boil down to motivation, because luxury is a result of someone's motivation to produce it and sell it. I saw this beforehand, I just wasn't entirely sure this topic would end up being merged with the other one.

[Robert]

Products that can't be mass-produced would be distributed according to how the workers and/or community saw fit.

Like, according to supply and demand? What if that's how "they see fit"?

Explain how socialism works in the following context: I love guitars. Many guitars are mass produced, but the most beautiful and richest sounding tend to be handmade. This is your quintessential luxury good. A machine cannot decide which piece of rosewood is likely to sound best on the back of a guitar. Some are handmade because the buyer wants a really unique rosette (the colored circles around the soundhole) or to have his name tackily spelled out on the fretboard with mother-of-pearl. Even if a machine could do it, most builders love building them by hand because they're very, very good at it. But they know the difference between their product and that of the guy down the street who builds them twice as fast, with inferior materials, and with less attention to detail.

A related issue is that brazilian rosewood doesn't grow on trees ... wait, that didn't come out right ... actually, it does grow on trees, but there isn't enough to satisfy world demand. The Brazilian "people" presumably become the owners of the rain forest, and so they distribute the limited supplies of rosewood as they see fit. Now, there are 100 guitar players who want, say, a Japanese Kohno guitar with Brazilian rosewood. Mr. Kohno can only supply, say, 40 per year.

The question becomes: Who gets the 40 guitars? Are Mr. Kohno and I free under socialism to decide whether I am one of the lucky few? Am I free to offer him more than you offer? why not? He works for himself and exploits no one, though he does have apprentices who would cheerfully work for zero + meals (I assume this is allowed?) and a cot just to be in the same room with him.

The thesis is that "the workers (there aren't any except the artisan) and the community may distribute the guitars as they see fit." Are they free to find it most "fitting" that their guitars go to those players who do the most for them, i.e., pay them the most money? How else do we decide this without curtailing my and Mr. Kohno's liberties?

Someone suggested that restaurants will just have to close under socialism. Does Mr. Kohno have to close his shop too?

[Marsella]

Explain how socialism works in the following context: I love guitars. Many guitars are mass produced, but the most beautiful and richest sounding tend to be handmade. This is your quintessential luxury good. A machine cannot decide which piece of rosewood is likely to sound best on the back of a guitar. Some are handmade because the buyer wants a really unique rosette (the colored circles around the soundhole) or to have his name tackily spelled out on the fretboard with mother-of-pearl. Even if a machine could do it, most builders love building them by hand because they're very, very good at it. But they know the difference between their product and that of the guy down the street who builds them twice as fast, with inferior materials, and with less attention to detail.

A related issue is that brazilian rosewood doesn't grow on trees ... wait, that didn't come out right ... actually, it does grow on trees, but there isn't enough to satisfy world demand. The Brazilian "people" presumably become the owners of the rain forest, and so they distribute the limited supplies of rosewood as they see fit. Now, there are 100 guitar players who want, say, a Japanese Kohno guitar with Brazilian rosewood. Mr. Kohno can only supply, say, 40 per year.

The question becomes: Who gets the 40 guitars? Are Mr. Kohno and I free under socialism to decide whether I am one of the lucky few? Am I free to offer him more than you offer? why not? He works for himself and exploits no one, though he does have apprentices who would cheerfully work for zero + meals (I assume this is allowed?) and a cot just to be in the same room with him.

In the case that you gave, I would assume that limited luxury goods would go to whomever came first, or whomever had the greatest need for that '59 Les Paul! :lol:

Oh, and there is quite a small difference between a Les Paul and an Epiphone Les Paul, apart from humbuckers, wood and finer details. Oh, and about $5,000! :P

I actually listened to a clip comparing the sound of a Les Paul and and Epiphone Les Paul and there was no conceivable difference.

[R_P_A_S]

i like how Journeyman is not a troll and has genuine questions. keep em coming.

[Robert]

Oh, and there is quite a small difference between a Les Paul and an Epiphone Les Paul, apart from humbuckers, wood and finer details. Oh, and about $5,000!

You'll get no argument from me there. But those are both mass produced and play through capitalist amplifiers that affect the sound. But some would disagree. Worse still, there are some tin ears (cappie and commie, monarchist and anarachist) who can't tell the difference between a $7,000 Kohno classical and a $100 P.O.S. Walmart Special. I won't hear any argument that there's no difference between those two, and I know you don't claim otherwise.

Now, as to the "whoever comes first" issue, the first 40 may not be able to pay what Kohno wants. And since he uses finer materials and invests more labor, surely we agree that he should be compensated more for his guitars than what Walmart (or its successor under socialism) gets for their crappy guitars. And so he holds out for a better offer than the first 40 can afford to make. Up goes the price or he shuts down.

[Dr Mindbender]

wtf is a 'capitalist amplifier?' :blink:

[Robert]

One that works.

Just a little joke, Ulster. Take a chill pill and answer my question on the merits please.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by Robert the [email protected] 21, 2007 09:21 pm
Just a little joke, Ulster. Take a chill pill.
yep, like my joke about 'spelling fascism' that went over your head like a jet plane. :rolleyes:

[Robert]

Fine, Ulster. We're both comedians. I salute you.

Now what about my guitars? Are you going to leave me and the luthier and my jeweler and the makers of all other luxury goods alone to make a deal that we mutually agree on or not? If not, it's tyranny IMO.

[Dr Mindbender]

the only goods that will become redundant under technocratic socialism will be poor quality ones.

[Journeyman]

I recommend we move this discussion to the "Motivation In Socialism" thread. After all, no matter how long you dwell on the subject here it allways will boil down to motivation for producing luxury goods.

[Green Dragon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:07 am

If there's two hotels near each other and the one you like is booked, of course that is an issue of scarcity only the laws of science can resolve.

4.) If you're using the community's tools to get these diamonds, those diamonds aren't entirely your property.
Okay, time out here:

1. If the issue of "scarcity" is of concern in the socialist community (which of course, it should be) you have effectively destroyed much of your previous arguments in this and the few other threads I have seen your notes in OI over the past month or so.

2. If obtaining diamonds via the use of "community tools" means one's possession of those diamonds cannot be considered "entirely your property" then:

a. To what extent and under what circumstances, ARE the diamonds your private property?
b. Is this rule limited merely to the "getting" of diamonds, or is applied to "getting" any and all objects?
c. If the use of "community property" implies that the product of that labor is not "entirely your property" how does the socialist distinction between "personal" and "public" properrty manifest itself? One would think that in a socialist commmunity, ALL tools which would get diamonds out of the ground, or any other product produced, would be property of the people and thus "public."

[mikelepore]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 am
I mean, according to the "labor theory of value", an uncut diamond is worth the same as a regular rock lying on the ground beside it
You know of a way to hire labor such that you can extract from the earth the same number of kilograms of uncut diamonds per hour or kilograms of granite per hour? I'd love to hear how this can be done.

[mikelepore]

duplicate post deleted

[Schrödinger's Cat]

1. If the issue of "scarcity" is of concern in the socialist community (which of course, it should be) you have effectively destroyed much of your previous arguments in this and the few other threads I have seen your notes in OI over the past month or so.

Scarcity exists. No one person can own the same original painting of the Mona Lisa. This creates no problem for socialism. We're not in the business of giving everyone what they want from toothpicks to space ships.


2. If obtaining diamonds via the use of "community tools" means one's possession of those diamonds cannot be considered "entirely your property" then:

That's not what I said at all. To reiterate, if a worker is using the means of production just to hoard his house with goods, the community and workers have the right to stop him. There's certainly nothing wrong with workers taking part of the goods they produced.