Welcome again to everybody. Make yourselves at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our group, here is the weekly discussion thread.

Matrix homeserver and space
Theory discussion group on /c/theory@lemmygrad.ml
Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 2 days ago (9 children)

In the communist stage, how would inherently high demand but finite things be distributed? For instance, concert tickets for a popular music artist? Sure maybe fans arent so culty under communism than capitalism, but there will still probably be a higher demand for seats than there is supply. Would it just be first come first serve?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 1 day ago

    Imagine explaining the music situation of today to a Russian peasant in 1926. Telling them that 75% of the world can watch a performance as it happens on the other side of the world. Or that a small thing the size of their pinky finger nail could hold enough music to go for almost 2 years.

    Now think about how much of that change has happened in the last 30 years. What the music situation will be like in another 100 years is likely inconceivable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (4 children)

    Leisure activities should remain in a to each according their contributions basis. Imo high achievers should have a priority, tickets for the kid with better grades, for the volunteers at the local red cross, for the construction worker that had an extra shift or got injured, etc...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago (3 children)

    Is there anything further you could expand on or have some more get support on this poiny?

    This just sounds like 'money' with a different face, and those that can't contribute will be penalised. This is where I get stuck with any 'contribution' system, as it will involve an ever more complicated system of totalling and tallying and tokens and cheques and so on. If we still are left with a wage system, we've failed.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 days ago* (2 children)

    Money system is not inherently bad, the way i see it. It's only terrible as of now because it's not proportional to one contribution to society, if carefully revised it could turn into a very good tool for resource distribution.

    I am all for everyone getting their basic needs met without having to contribute anything, the collective work of all society should subsidize it, however we are talking about luxurious commodoties, like a concert, there i do not agree everyone should have access to it.

    On another point, some degree of extraction of surplus value has to remain in order for society to further progress forward. If everyone took exactly or more than what they contribute how is society going to grow?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 hours ago*

    Thats where I was hoping you can expand, comrade! If we still rely on the wage system, where others are paid more for their contribution beyond the common needs of others to pay for luxuries then I don't know how revolutionary the future's day to day will be. I struggle to see if the money-wage system is still in place how different it would be from today. The then joyful task of tallying and monitoring and weighing and counting and judging the individual contributions of all at scale with I expect the office to do all this work (and then enforcing and punishing and shaming?) then we are not really too far away from how the world works today. But the challenge of reward or punishment to work is a difficult one, so that's where I'd love if people can give some insights, as my view is very pessimistic in that form of labor relations.

    Today, festivals are luxurious, expensive, and artificially constrained to extract the most amount of capital for the least amount of effort. The idea then is to maintain a fine line from extractive food-drink prices, entry-stay fees, artist-lineup attractiveness, and to make as much profit and maintain as much of a reputation to do it all again. In a communist society, extracting money for profit is not the goal, and the luxurious nature of organising cultural events for society should be seen differently. We're quite biased to the monopolies of festivals today and need to lean much more towards something like Aste Nagusia in Euskal Herria (basque country), you'll love its revolutionary character.

    The "extraction of surplus-value" is a, if not the, defining characteristic of capitalism, and a eureka moment in Marxist theory. I am interested in then how this productive force use converted into surplus 'value' - meaning working beyond the needs of society and our collective plan for the betterment of society to grow. It feels distinctly 'line must go up' so any material you have to help me there would be helpful!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 1 day ago

    I think art, theatre, music are necessaries, once stability is assured. Maybe a percentage of tickets could be free and lotto, with winners being ineligible for a period of time. I guess it could be in blocks of pairs, for couples, fours, to allow for families?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 days ago

    Distribution by lottery or queue? Or maybe just focus on more pro-social events like more smaller or local bands and not just industry allstars. Or maybe something like holograms to have multiple venues? I know at really big events there might be several screens or speakers already now

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago

    Some artists actually respect their fans (I think Keith Urban is one, I'm not into country but I heard a thing) and add dates in cities where shows sell out until an added show doesn't sell out.

  • source
  • parent