I think I AM trying to present a rationalization. Not in the sense that is is "ok",but in the sense of explaining irrational conduct. In a sense, they pay for having the thrill, which is based on an illusion. I am saying explicitly that the escape from the tyranny of money is an illusion, but so many things people pay for are based on illusions.
Suppose they didn't gamble, saved their money and buy... what ? Something "sensible". This is more rational or sensible, but for whatever reason, it is not as thrilling for them. People get tired of being "sensible".
I guess another way of saying it is that they don't really escape the slavery of money, but they get the illusion of doing so, and that is the thrill. And for them that is worth paying for.
By the way, I don't think most people suffer lasting consequences from taking the thrill. There are of course gambling addicts, but they are a small minority of the total population of people who go to casinos.
I guess a comparison with gambling would be the purchase of alcohol or drugs. The happy moments and relief are an illusion in a sense. But that doesn't make them not happy moments or a relief from day-to-day alienation and blues.
On another level, a huge percentage of more "sensible" money spending is for commodities , many of which are of questionable "use". How is the thrill of gambling that much different than the thrill of a diamond ring or a great painting ? Is the thrill of a trip to Europe really more rational than the thrill of the casino gambler ? I can think of a way of interpreting European history such that a trip there is more like a visit to the home of the Devil than some wonderful place. I could make an argument that most of the money people pay to go to the movies is just as wasted on fanciful thrills as money spent on the thrills of gambling.
As Marx said, the source of use values may be the stomach or FANCY. The use value of gambling is rooted in fancy, but different people fancy different things.
So, I would critique casino capitalists just as I critique all capitalists, say health care capitalists, no better , no worse.
Charles Brown
>>> Carl Remick <cremick at rlmnet.com> 07/29/99 11:14AM >>>
> I opposed casinos at first, but then I started to figure that
> it is an over moralizing position. ...
>
> I even developed an analysis ( big surprise, right ?) of what
> the mentality is. In a word, maybe the average person is able
> to treat money like it is unimportant when they gamble, LIKE
> RICH PEOPLE CAN ALL THE TIME. In other words, given that the
> vast majority of people must suffer a net loss in their total
> gambling for the casino business to profit, at some level
> most gamblers must realize that they are losing that money
> overall. So, the thrill of winning a lot of money cannot be
> what keeps people gambling. So, the real thrill is to act
> like money doesn't matter, to be able to basically throw it
> away, TO FREE ONESELF FROM THE OPPRESSION AND SLAVERY OF
> MONEY, just for that illusory moment.
Don't want to sound too moralistic myself here, Charles, but this seems like a rationalization. The key point is that rich people *can" afford to blow wads of cash and prove they're not slaves to money ... but most people *are* slaves to money and can indulge in that "illusory moment" of freedom only at great lasting cost. I'm not categorically opposed to gambling, but it really disturbs me how big the "gaming industry" has grown in this society.
Carl