Luxury

Under automated luxury post-scarcity communism everyone will live like porky

have you ever worn a potato sack? that shit is comfy af and potatoes are delicious and nutritious

I don't argue against comfort.
I just critize the following specific items

Besides, what about blood diamonds and stop? Should the left kind of boycott such companies?

I AM planning to live on potatoes and rice.

Hey, me too actually.

Well, yeah, they should, but diamond mining will be a lot more humane under communism, and it'll only be done by those who like pretty things because the rock will be absolutely worthless post-market.

But no, if a commune builds sports cars or yachts for themselves and their comrades it's fine by me.

The idea is to let everyone live the rich life, not just the bourgeious.

We don't want to end up with an irish famine ,do we?
store all the potatoes!!

Potatos are love, potatos are life

A poor life is 100% better if you want to be saner, happier, have less complications, etc. I was never interested in having a luxurious life. A vast majority of humans throughout history have lived in poverty. Poverty is the default stage of human existence, there is nothing wrong with it. As long as you have shelter, clothing, food, and water then you're all set. I prefer a simple life. If I drive an expensive sports car or something then I would always worry about getting in an accident with it.

One thing I've noticed is people in poverty usually seem happier as a result.

You should note that luxury items will not be desired for status under communism, as status means nothing. This means that they will be desired because of interest. I assume that total interest in luxury items in the world would plummet. There should be no need to ban things. The idea is that people are allowed to live as they wish.

Poverty correlates positively with almost every negative thing you can imagine.

Sorry for replying to bait, everyone, couldn't resist this.

poverty=/= misery

You are quite ignorant. Do Buddhist monks seem miserable to you? They have almost nothing to their name, but yet they are content with life.

Opium of the people etc

Yes it does.

Buddhism is barely a religion in the conventional sense.

Opium just keeps you sleep and makes you happy.

Luxury made for all is no longer luxury.

Religious conviction. Material conditions mostly taken care of by the monks and their sometimes vast orders. Being revered by large parts of society. These traits seem to make them in large part unconcerned with the worries and burdens of capitalism that most poor people experience.

Read a fucking book: Poverty correlates positively with almost every negative thing you can imagine.

so luxury is intrinsically oligarchical?

Luxury items are considered "luxury" because they're rare. Obviously not everyone is going to be able to attain them. The people most deserving of such items would be the most dedicated senior party members and high ranking syndical/guild members who have reached their positions through hard work and dedication to the socialist cause.

What I'm saying is something being a luxury means that not all can have or afford it.

Also to answer the OP, everyone should have whatever they want, so I guess my answer is "made available to all."

Kek

kinda is more like

Hey! I like that.

:') I guess he doesn't still have it!
What a pity, instead of a jet he could of bought Stocks which let him actually affect the world and many humans trough decisions.

but sports cars are such great things OP

everyone should own one

...

Miatas and RXs are the pleb tier of sports cars. I do quite like them though.

I'm actually a capitalist, but I take glee when I see such people thinking they're gangsta while true gangsta are old quit guys with bonds.

...

Please, do not romanticize poverty.

It is sloppy to compare the life of monkhood with the life of the proletarian.

Dharmic religions are unlike Abrahamic religions.
Anyway, it only takes one phrase to show you: The Prophesy of Maitreya

Monks "suffer "rain, hunger, no technology, so on.
NO proletarian would bath in cold water if he can use hot water.
monks always, use the coldest water.

Can I live in a house with an indoor-pool and gold-plated replicas of Michael-angelo's statues if I want??

I have already decided that if I ever come into money I am going to help people through funding SAR groups and emergency services. I want to do SAR myself, and without worrying about money or equipment or having to work or something like that I'd be able to devote as much time to it as I wanted. I'd also be able to start the dog rescue (and the definitely not murder of animal abusers) I want to. I'd also be able to start a food bank for whoever needs it without relying on donations.

I legitimately want to help people and try when I can, but without money I can't do much but devote my time, and that comes with the higher ups being in control and either wasting funding or even simply lining their own pockets.

Publicly owned race tracks and sports cars for the peoples!

If there is a need for them then workers will decide to produce them, if not then they won't be produced and no one will care.

You have to remember why these things are produced in the first place: for exchange. To soak up some of that sweet surplus value through luxury consumption. It's egregious precisely because the bourgeoisie's level of subsistence is inflated far beyond what's actually necessary for the average prole.

Will nice things still be produced under communism? Yes, but not for the same reasons. Conspicuous consumption would have no meaning. If you have something nice it's because someone thought it would be nice to produce and yourself thought it would be nice to own. In that sense, "luxury" will lose its class inflection and become more mundane.

There won't be any more commodity fetishes so people will simply like what they like; competition will be in other areas, so someone who goes around flashing their relationships to things rather than people will appear warped and rather sad.

The problem is not luxury items. The problem is gregarious consumption by people that do not pull their weight.
If a member of a worker cooperative wants to spends its income on luxury watches or sports cars, what is the problem with that?

Leave out the party members and we're good.

Luxury - in the sense of the niceties of life - is a human right. Conspicuous status-signaling and commodity fetishism are a separate matter entirely.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veblen_good

I have a "replica" Omega watch that cost $200. You can't tell it from the real thing unless a professional takes it apart and studies it. You're not paying for quality or utility or aesthetics.

youtube.com/watch?v=1v3CzvQ9e_w

In defining "luxury items" as "scarce items" you sidestep the question of what scarcity is artificial in our current mode of production
This is certainly subject to further analysis

The trick is not to outlaw them, but to tax them.

I doubt anyone can buy a sports car within a reasonable amount of years.

FULLY

AUTOMATED

LUXURY

COMMUNISM

If they can buy the item they can pay the tax.

That sort of answers the question. In a socialist economy based on worker co-ops the market for extreme luxury goods will be much smaller.
Depending on how far it goes you'll still have high-merit individuals enjoying prosperous lifestyles (Inventors, entertainers, small traders, etc.), but you won't have finance executives buying dozens of cars.

They buy less, and the tax revenue can be used to better further the socialist cause

I remembered this episode where they sell Pumbaa's scent as perfume, it was horrible but people just bought it because it was very expensive.

Nice meme, Senator S.