All of them by my decree
The monkey paw curls
All businesses open to the public are now free. The economy collapses into anarchy overnight.
Generally the monkeys paw is supposed to have a negative outcome.
To each his own I guess.
I guess people who need medication, running water, electricity, hospitals, nuclear power plants operating safely, and the internet are just screwed then.
Yea those are all possible under anarchy you’re describing capitalism.
I’m not talking about a utopian communist anarchy, as in absence of a state. I mean anarchy in the sense of societal collapse and devolution.
You do not get sunshine and rainbow anarchy from a state violently and suddenly collapsing. You get massive amounts of death and suffering.
Also you do not get those things under an anarchy. I have yet to hear a sane person explain how communes are going to operate nuclear power plants and massive laboratories to create extremely precise medicine.
The same way they operate now except the goal will be to help people instead of turning a profit.
I’m literally an anarchist engineer who could be making twice as much money as I currently am if I worked for a weapons corp but instead I’m designing public water systems for rural communities because I’d rather help people have clean safe tap water than turn human remains into profits.
This is an awful lot of defending the current capitalist system for a supposedly communist instance.
These things may be possible in anarchy but they’d still suffer (probably irreparably) if the economy collapses overnight.
Again people are suffering due to a lack of those things every day because “the economy” is set up to ensure that.
Too abstract question. We can’t say what socialism [in your country] will be, this is pure idealism.
They’ve got public parks under capitalism don’t they? Socialism will certainly improve this if people want it.
State parks are basically what made me a socialist.
Live in the adirondacks, a massive state managed park. It’s awesome.
Like half of it is totally open to the public. Love bringing this up to real freedom fuckers
Something like 98% of land in Texas is privately owned so you’re free to use the couple acres you own and hope your neighbor agrees on where your property line is so they don’t shoot you. And if you rent your allowed to do whatever your landlord says you are until he changes his mind and arbitrarily charges you for it.
Or you could be any random person in New York state and have access to millions of acres hundreds of lakes and thousands of campsites, all for free except for a few larger state campsites where you have to make a reservation and pay a small fee.
Who’s really more free?
Always makes me laugh when I see the Texas gun channels screaming about freedom while they have a shitty dustbowl of a field littered with garbage from their exploding targets.
Truly the king of their domain of ash.
Despite the transition to socialism freeing up lots of spaces for public use, I imagine that there will still remain some small areas which cannot be opened to general access due to the sheer overcrowding that would happen, like popular museums, certain vessels of public transportation, or observation decks on telecommunication towers. You would be able to access them without charge, but you would need to make an appointment
You could just do an occupancy count and then do first come first served. Kind of like a nightclub.
I like the idea, but then you get professional queue placeholders, or ticket dealers, or something.
I think there’s something about offer and demand that would still apply in that case. But specific solutions need to be discussed. :D
My house, come over il cook you dinner.
Some facilities should be free because they’re intended to be fully accessible by everyone in a community, which means if the demand outstrips the capacity, the capacity should be raised. If the library or gym or cafeteria is too full, there needs to be a new one built. The exceptions would be unique or high-demand spaces that couldn’t feasibly be accessible by everyone all the time, in which case you would have to ration them in some manner or another. But even then they wouldn’t necessarily need to have a cost, per se. Provincial parks in Canada, as an example, offer very cheap camping, but you have to book in advance during times of high demand. They are essentially free, something like $6/night per campsite, with the fee mostly being a good faith payment to ensure that you’re not just squatting on the reservations. Other than the very modest fee, the rationing is done via people making plans ahead of time for use of the parks, which is a reasonable enough way to handle it.
One thing about communal spaces under socialism is that there should be way more spaces available to everyone. Without the incentive to make places exclusive for profit, there should be a lot more capacity overall to accommodate communal areas. The question is more about what kinds of services are required for communal spaces, because that’s where the real cost comes in. Buildings require maintenance, swimming pools require lifeguards, bars require bartenders, etc. and that’s where there might be fees required or useful to ensure that it’s worthwhile to maintain the programming within those spaces.
Mini golf and bowling alleys. Regular golf should be abolished but we should keep driving ranges.
My hottest take is that I think those “zero maintenance” links golf courses that use no pesticides, no additional water but what comes from rainfall, and require only minimal and occasional groundskeeping can stay.
I read about a golf course in Scotland that is just the untouched natural environment, but they took a postholer and put some holes in the ground, and stuck some flags in those holes. That’s it, that and a map is the whole course. No carts, no bullshit. Walk along some dunes and hit a ball with a stick.
That sounds cool. I wonder how the average golfer would view this in practice. Where I live (third world), all golfers I know are pieces for shit who see their golf course as an island of ““civilization”” away from the poors.
While golf in its original form was a largely solitary outdoor activity trudging around coastal sand dunes which required little maintenance, it has become a sport of pure reaction under capitalism. It’s largely designed around being an activity to do something while networking with other wealthy white men, in which everyone who is not a wealthy white man is actively excluded and denied access. I’ve had some trouble finding global numbers so will use example figures from the US, but I imagine these divisions vary quite significantly from country to country but likely skew especially hard towards the more exclusionary models in global south. In the US, there are roughly 16,100 golf courses. About 2,500 are municipal, about 7,900 are daily-fee, and about 4000 are fully private.
Private courses may or may not be tied to a country club, but always require both annual or monthly dues, and often require a substantial up-front cash initiation fee. These annual fees are generally tens of thousands and initiation fees can reach into the hundreds of thousands. Particularly exclusive clubs will regularly turn down governors, senators, major celebrities. While they don’t want to tell you this, even those that are less exclusive are all segregated with only few exceptions generally admitted under cynical pretenses rather than any genuine lack of bigotry. High likelihood of having caddies, snack carts that bring you food while you’re playing, and other bullshit amenities that rich assholes love. Plenty of opportunities to harass working-class people and be showered in luxury.
Daily-fee courses are less expensive and exclusive, likely $50 to hundreds per person for a round. Also likely to have amenities, but these are more likely to be restricted to certain days, more limited, available at extra cost, etc. Only economically segregated, but the structure of golf parties is likely to insulate wealthy golfers from having to interact with working class people for more than a few moments. Daily-fee courses are generally situationally regarded as either public or private depending on convenience. When they’re seeking government subsidies or trying to justify their existence against criticism, they’re a public course that should be regarded as a public good like a public park that’s funded by generous charitable contributions rather than taxpayers. When it comes time to get golfers on the course or justify police action against poor people or protestors, suddenly it becomes an exclusive private business which can exercise its right to decline service.
Municipal courses are fully open to the public and generally have “reasonable” fees, roughly $20-40 per person for a round, depending on the course. May or may not come with a cart. These are the least meticulously groomed, won’t have premium bullshit, and are also the most likely to pursue less environmentally harmful practices like reducing pesticide or water usage. Of course, these are the least popular with wealthy golfers and are often most used by “temporarily embarrassed millionaires” who can’t afford a private membership to practice for when they go to daily-fee courses. These courses are the least common, and are (as far as I can discern) vanishingly rare to nonexistent in most countries.
Basically this entire system is set up to create a tiered system based around exclusivity, where “middle class” golfers strive to play on daily-fee courses but play most of their games on municipal courses which deliberately creates an unconscious system of bias against public parks by contrasting them with the middle tier of semi-private courses. This is designed to create a constant source of strife and put the higher tier of the working class in conflict with the lower tier, creating a distraction from actual class conflict.
Sounds a lot like a disc golf course.
Disc golf courses have a lot in common with both municipal courses and old school Links courses, which makes sense given that they’re most commonly in public parks, and are best laid out in more natural environments rather than the highly constructed “green concrete” environment of a modern golf course.
Always thought the idea of more multi use g9lf courses was interesting too.
Around here the couple golf courses are just as busy in the winter when they convert to cross country ski areas.
Have them be golf courses most days but also a couple days a week they’re just public green spaces. Or a little extra design and the cart paths could be like the main artery of some bike paths or something.
This goes against the core design principle of golf as a form of a segregated “third place” for wealthy white men, so would only be possible in municipal courses. The Country Club and Course model is crafted by design to be a self-reinforcing aspect of highly stratified and bigoted capitalist society.
It’s a good idea that should be pursued in municipal parks, in conjunction with the complete elimination of semi-private daily-fee courses.
Yea guess that’s what I was getting at in the context of the original question kinda assumed we’d burned down all the private country clubs after locking the doors from the outside already.
Honestly it’s something we can and should be pursuing now. We have the opportunity and the social and political will of the people to largely destroy golf. People hate golf courses and golfers rn.
How did they handle greens? I feel like a course not having greens would change the game significantly, if not make it unplayable.
Are you meant to play in the sand? Sank bunkers in golf are traps and miserable to get out of for obvious reasons. I’m not sure playing in sandy terrain would be very fun.
Seems like a lot of hassle for a single activity.
Pretty sure they have courses with sand greens that are more compacted then the sand in bunkers you just have to re rake it when you’re done.
That makes sense! Sounds like an interesting idea! Still golf takes up a lot of pointless space, so I don’t know.
This is for sure some utopian thinking and not a realistic or pragmatic policy proposal, 99% of golf courses should be turned into affordable housing neighborhoods.
All of them.
Children’s play centres. They would probably look different under socialism, like being connected to a larger communal space like a food hall.
And they’ll be open later too
Top golf.
