So, when discussing luxury, this term needs first of all to be defined. It's obvious that its meaning changed from one period of time to another. The biggest changes affected the stuff that was not critical for basic human being life support.

That gets obvious if we’d look back at a peasant of the 19th century (just 100 years ago!) and could compare him with a modern person.

For example the latter would not be able to wash him-self only once a month like a peasant would. When the Russian army came into Paris in the year of 1812, the Parisians got shocked by the Russian custom of taking a bath every week - it was too often for them. That was long ago, a lot of water has run away since that time. Currently the medical standards in Russian hospitals is still only taking bath once a week (if any at all). And now THIS would be completely unacceptable for any Western European.

Here is another example: in Moscow in summer-time there is one month when the municipally supplied hot water is turned off for system maintenance purpose. I wonder how all the rest of the world could do without hot water for a month?

But let’s come back to the luxury issue. Let’s discuss the cell phone, the recent sign of modern civilization. For a long time in Russia, the simplest model was still so expensive that anybody able to use it would have to be a rich man. And so it still is. Hence it became a status symbol - something not crucial for life, but a luxury object.

Currently psychologists are often speaking about such a problem: people willing to prove their status who are trying to use a cell phone as often and as obvious as they can. So sometimes while entering a bus you'd see it full of youths (who are the most status-depending people) busy speaking by various cell-phone types and discussing various nonsense. Like, for example - «The sun is shining now, do you see? I'm coming by the ... cross-road... I'll be there in five minutes, Do you see my bus?»

Little by little it has become more or less usual. Although older generation are still resisting that fashion a bit. However most of them do already appreciate it.

The food-supplying traditions has been changed in the modern world. Today, people are starving only in «Third-World» countries. Thus for a modern person of the «Euro-American society» such communication means are now as essential as food supply is. But here, in Russia it is still a luxury for some people. This transformation has happened in the last 5 years and it has not been finished yet.

So by now for anybody to be deprived of any communication means would mean a very hard punishment. But if being looked at from a traditional position: what's wrong with that? If at least food supply is adequate, then life could just go on, could not it?

You see, for many people in Russia just to get into a Swedish prison would be a dream. Actually it seems the same if speaking of any Western prison :-) - there are even some specially developed extreme tours to Russian prisons.

Now back to luxury. Luxury is anything that's extra for normal life. For sure that would still be a desirable thing. And then, later when people get used to this it could be refused.

But those who lack luxury, they would never reject it. Only those who have luxury and have gotten used to it, would actually reject it. Certainly only for those who already got tired of this ‘extra’ stuff, it would seem ridiculous and not important at all.

That poses the main question: it's obvious that even for now the distribution of goods in this world is unequal, and since no miracles can be expected, something has to be done with it. This can be called a status problem.

Well, it is obvious that the evolutionary achievement of the Homo Sapiens species was mind development, that is establishing mind control over the basic essential instincts. But the status problem is that basic instinct which is the most difficult to control. No other way except for better public education or thinking habit developing seems to exist.

Certainly that should go together with the development of social feedback – what is now called «democracy» -. But democracy itself may be dangerous. Churchill for example said: «Democracy is very dangerous thing...» but he continued that «it’s the best model we know for now. »

Here we should return to public education idea. It should not be forgotten that the more educated people are, the less they would be governed by its leaders – and that the more ‘active’ persons tend to see black and white colors only. Usually it is those who produce such attractive, but also unwise ideas, which may turn out very dangerous. The more unwise the idea is, the more attractive it is for less-educated people (who tend to believe in miracles) . Consequently the crowd of such people could be the most active moving power.

Human history proved many times that the most refined empires (the only state pattern , which had existed that time) were unavoidably conquered by savage but active barbarians.

Now more and more popular is getting the idea of liberal empire. First I could not get how people, rather smart in other senses of the word, could take part in the imperialist idea. Since school-time we were taught that empire would always be an evil. So how can it be liberal? It seemed to be a contradiction. But later I had learnt that the example of a liberal empire is the British Commonwealth. In that case I would be a liberal imperialist too.

Whatever we would think about the Roman Empire, it had powerful civilizing influence. The same was about British Empire.

However I still have no idea what could be done with luxury if regarded as a status object. If this is solved then everything would be «tip-top» :-) Do you have any idea?

(ed RG0602)