lurker wrote: ↑28 Mar 2024 00:18
Nel Fie wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024 10:59
Clothes are much more "shareable" and more on the side of "leased" or "borrowed" items
Not owning the literal clothes on my back doesn't sound very fun, but maybe that was your point?
This isn't exactly what I meant. My apologies for not explaining it sufficiently.
In this conculture, if a person has a set of clothes that they like and intend to wear indefinitely, then they can keep them as long as they like, just like you or me. What I meant by the above is rather a combination of other things:
1) It is common practice that if a person has a piece of clothing that they do not intend to wear anymore for whatever reason, they return it to the shop where it was bought, who will take care of either repairing, maintaining and making it available to others; or disposing of it if it is unwearable. It that sense, there's a shared responsibility between the shop and the wearer, with the former retaining an active role as the "handler" of this particular piece of clothing - unlike in our world, where it becomes the sole property and thus full responsibility of the buyer.
In that sense, I would argue that it is "more fun", because wearers don't have to worry "how am I going to get rid of this?", and they have a more active, direct and personable relationship with whoever made said piece of clothing. For example, they might well go to the shop and say "I got this one from you but I can't wear anymore for reason so-and-so", and the keeper to answer "Oh, I just made a new piece that offsets that exact issue, do you want to trade it out?". To summarise, acquiring clothes comes with a stronger social component, which inherently can only be shared.
2) Part of is more a matter of perceptual nuance rather than fact. A lot of these clothes are handmade and crafted as unique pieces, more akin to artworks; and there is a greater consciousness on the part of wearers that this is indeed something made by a specific, known person, rather than just a mass product - especially since they will often be met in person at the shop. In that sense, these clothes retain a greater connection to their designers and seamsters, akin to how a painting by Van Gogh is still a painting by Van Gogh, no matter how many people bought and sold it, and the owner would assert as much, rather than say "Eh, it's just a nice painting. No clue who made it, but it's mine."
And in reverse, the wearer is essentially "hired" as a walking art gallery by the seamster, exhibiting their work to the world by wearing it. Hence a sort of mutually beneficial relationship where a piece of clothing is more viewed as "shared" rather than being the sole property of a buyer, even if the latter uses and rules over it largely at their own discretion.
As part of that - and this is more specifically what I meant - it's frequent for more extravagant pieces to be borrowed on appointment for special events, such
as a fancy dress for a wedding, which if bought would probably never be worn again, or only too rarely to justify the expense. But having this option at a rather cheap cost, people much more frequently "loan" really nice pieces of clothing even for smaller occasion, or just because they like to wear them. This also benefits people who enjoy constantly changing up their look.
Salmoneus wrote: ↑27 Mar 2024 14:08
I'm a bit confused by the economics/ideology here - is this a totalitarian state of some sort? [...]
I'm afraid my answer is unlikely to satisfy you, but I'll try to provide one anyhow.
Rather than anything you suspect, what I'm describing is technologically speaking a mish-mash of various 19th and 20th century tropes, though with most of the ugly bits excised. It could be described as post-scarcity in regard to a lot of the basics, like food, housing, clothes and medical care; but it's more accurate to say that this is a direct consequence of artificial scarcity being outlawed. I'm not specific on the particular mechanics of politics and economy because I'm more interested in the outcomes (and thus the mechanics are inferred as needed to produce them), withal said conculture is broadly more comparable to the ideal result of a planned economy in a welfare state. People earn little and with little inequality in that regard, but also care little, since all essentials are available for free, and whatever would count as luxury is so cheap that it is practically available to anyone anyhow.
I could go on, but as you yourself imply, the finer details come down to one's own prejudices regarding human nature. My contention is that the matter is largely a roll of the dice - and thus it follows that in my conworld, Lady Luck has been rolling sixes for a few centuries.