Over here in the UK the National Lottery is state-franchised and was established in 1994. I actually remember it being a pretty big deal at the time when it was established, nothing like it really existed beforehand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Lottery_(United_Kingdom)
I'm quite interested in marxist analysis of the implementation of this kind of thing by a state, and the effect it has on the population. Does that kind of thing exist? What are the thoughts here?
As always, :citations-needed: has a relevant episode.
It's been a while since I listened to the ep and it isn't explicitly a marxist analysis. The net effect is, as expected, bad. Casinos are always advertised as bringing in jobs while lotteries are 'for the kids', but always end up benefitting the wealthy more than anyone. You also touched on it in one of your responses, but marketing around gambling is mostly targeted towards the poor and lower class and in effect makes gambling a regressive tax.
"For the kids" is an interesting point. The National Lottery here aims to be a family event of sorts, which inherently aims to provide an interesting spectacle that makes viewing it with children enjoyable and exciting. Something that's fine when it's your nan taking the grandkids to the bingo hall but definitely sinister at a national level through television sets.
What happens to this as television continues its decline?
Will give the ep a listen.
I should've clarified knowing that you're in the UK, but almost all states in the USA use lottery funds to supplement their education budgets. It's discussed in the episode in more detail, but it ends up being quite insidious. It encourages the thinking that buying a lotto ticket is like making a donation to public schools while also making it difficult to have a meaningful discussion about the net negatives of a lottery system because 'it raises money for the children'.
Hmm that's interesting. I don't see that argument ever made and don't think the "good deeds" that the lottery money funds here have that kind of penetration into people's minds, but I do think the existence of those "good deeds" functions to remove buyer-anxiety about the fact it is gambling and all the associated negative social outcomes of gambling. The function here is much the same as coffee being marketed alongside many "fair trade" and "good" things to remove buyer anxiety.
Maybe that would come up more if anyone ever attacked or criticised it here though, nobody tries to so I don't know.
Marx called gamblers lumpenproletariat
So a basic analysis of the state running lotteries would probably be that it's a tactic to dissuade people from organizing around class interests as they have a chance to become rich
Yeah this is why I was interested in whether there was anything that goes into it deeper than surface level. In every single small store, every single petrol station, outside every corner shop, you have these advertisements for the lottery literally everywhere. From a young age this normalises the pursuit of being filthy rich, and it functions as propaganda that reinforces it to the population literally everywhere they go .
With the number of games that are occurring too it reinforces the idea that people have more social mobility than they do, because " all our games change lives ", don't get me started on how predatory that sales line is.
I do think there's a difference between a "gambler" that Marx called lumpen vs the average working class person who does the lottery once or twice a week though.
Honestly this is probably the biggest point. The only people I see play the lottery are those who have been convinced that the current state of economy is 'necessary', and thus it comforts them to think they might one day get to be rich.
