Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.
Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.
Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.
Vodka had been linked to the Russian economy under multiple Czars. I'm not sure that Stalin could have separated the two even if he had wanted to. Admittedly it doesn't appear that he wanted to.
I'm pretty sure that the USSR was screwed the moment that Lenin returned from exile in Germany, or when Wilson was elected. Take your pick.
The Menchaviks would have been a better government.
The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?
Well, I'm from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can't have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).
Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party's message got locked up.
Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.
I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that's been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.
At least they tried. Our homelessness is an intentional feature of our capitalist system. A constant threat and extant punishment for those among us who aren't fortunate enough to be born with a silver stick up our ass.
Soviet Union? It was uncommon for a family of 6 to live in a small apartment. You can even see it in old soviet movies where apartments would be separated by curtains (common comedy trope).
In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries.
Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.
Notice how the folks arguing in favor of Communism have sources and receipts, while the folks arguing against it have done nothing but regurgitated Capitalist propaganda. Also note folks who are opposed to Communism and Marx's philosophy are always forced to admit that it only works on paper, because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty...
I have a whole fucking family, who lived through the USSR. Not a single one of them misses it. Being spied on every step you take, my grandma has the "you never know who's watching" mentality to this day.
That's not to say they don't hate the current regime, but it's nothing compared to the absolute atrocities of the USSR's secret police.
The holodomor narrative surrounding the ussr wide famine of 32-33 was literal nazi propaganda from open nazi collaborators and was used as a justification for the mass murder of jews in Eastern Europe during the holocaust.
It was debunked in the literal 1930s in the US and now it re-emerges like a zombie during an era where fascism is on the rise. Even anticommunist academics like Applebaum, Davies, and Conquest say it wasn't a genocide.
The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx's philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.
No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn't work in practice.
Btw your argument only applies to "pure" capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.
Yeah that's called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.
There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn't really that.. great... I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it's good they were built, they weren't very well built.
The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn't truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.
Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like.. the opposite of communism to me.
I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.
As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.
Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we've only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit
Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don't really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don't be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.
And no, I don't want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.
I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.
So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.
Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR's Marxism-Leninism or China's Dengism and Maoism.
Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn't change.
Holy shit. That makes so much sense as to why I hated those books as a kid. Thanks for that insight. I knew something wasn't working properly in Earthsea.
Nationalise essential needs and create State corporations, let capitalism have fun with non essentials. If don't care if private producers make wine or funky clothing or big houses, the government should make sure everyone has food to eat, basic clothes to wear and a place to live.
On that last part, buildings with 8 living units or more should be ran by a non profit State corporation, charge people based on the cost of maintenance and the salaries required, send a check if people were charged too much at the end of the year.
You left out, healthcare, education, higher education, and Internet access. While we are covering basic human rights, let's make sure we cover all the basic human rights.
Outside of internet access these things are already nationalised in first world countries (I know exactly what's implied by what I'm saying). I didn't feel the need to enumerate every single thing.
State corporations are private companies whose profit go to the government instead of an owner or investors. The place in North America that has the cheapest electricity is Quebec and that's because it's a State corporation producing it, it still makes billions in profit that is then reinvested by the government.
So no, free markets isn't necessary. Heck, the free market is what makes it so the US government is the one that spends the most per capita for healthcare even if it only covers part of the population.
The problem is that a leader who wants the best for their people isn’t sufficient to actually achieve that. What you need is for everyone to be making decisions about what’s best.
You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.
Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.
Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens?
Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole 'citizens killed by their own country' topic.
How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can't afford to live in this fucked up system?
Lmfao not at all, the dude literally said whataboutisms are the only arguments for Communism, so i linked him a copy of Das Kapital. Unfortunately you clearly lack the reading comprehension to consume it.
None? People don't starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn't conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
None? People don’t starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure.
"This thing doesn't happen, and when it does, it's not the fault of capitalism itself" is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.
A communist government couldn’t conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn't profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.
Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it's not there. It doesn't exist and it never will.
Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!
Bullshit it doesn't happen in the west. 12.8% of US households were considered food insecure in 2022, with 5.1% of that being considered to have VERY low food security(Source). Over 20,000 Americans died of malnutrition in 2022, more than double the number in 2018(Source).
There's also nearly 30 vacant homes for every 1 homeless person in the US, so there's plenty of room, too. Nobody needs a 2nd home when over half a million people don't even have one.
In the west, the main cause of malnutrition isn't a lack of calories, but a difficulty in access (from availability or price or other factors) to healthy foods with the required nutrition for a healthy life or from an excess of certain nutrients. This is often manifested as conditions such a obesity and type II diabetes. So malnutrition does impact people in the west.
Maybe you should have actually read that article before linking it. It discusses in detail the reasons for malnutrition being an issue, and none of those reasons is being unable to afford food. The problems are typically due to age and diseases.
It's simple... If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We're fighting culture wars so we won't fight class wars, my friend.
The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There's also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
The nations you think of as "Communist" are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
Exactly! This is exactly what I'm saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots... No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
Yes, so you're proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
Oh! I see. No...I'm only saying the minute you start talking any "-isms", you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the "good team". No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the "-isms" is the problem. Let's figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite
What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.
If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.
Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That's communism.
It's bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?
What's even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won't shut up about!
What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back?
That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because "ain't no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!"
When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.
When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market
No, it's called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.
The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
And look where it's gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.
The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.
Look... It's all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it's exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there's some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.
Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx's writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!
Bruh if I HAD to be right I would still be a devoted Libertarian simping for the free market. I love being proven wrong, its how people and ergo society are supposed to evolve and grow.
It's even worse than that. Most Lemmy commies are aggressive sectarians who cling to a very particular form of the ideology, while rejecting all forms of moderate leftism and Marxist revisionism. It's extremely obnoxious, and their bizarre, outdated philosophy is a primary reason why people are skeptical of leftist politics.
Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.
That is the death of capitalism. That’s capitalism (based on free markets) devolving into oligopoly (based on regulatory capture and tightly-restricted markets).
Capitalism doesn’t last any better than any other institution. It degrades into something else. The thing it degrades into is a centrally-controlled market, similar to what you find in socialism.
Agreed. Whether it is Capatalism, Communism, Socialism, democracy, dictatorship they all have centralizion in them even if their intent is otherwise. We need to support more decentralized services and governance as it balance the poor and returns it to the people. We just need more people to get on board, it it seems like we prefer to give our power to power hungry companies and regimes instead. Not saying we need to have zero centralization as it has its place, but it needs to be kept in check and the only to force to do so is decentralization. But it is all so much more complicated and above the human condition to manage. Hopefully AI will be able to help for better or for worse.
You're so dense. I'm not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That's what I'm trying to communicate, but you're too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.
Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn't mean I'm arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read
You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone's intelligence into question, they'll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That's what's in short supply. It's why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don't have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we're arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.
fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens
Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.
Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.
Except there isn't. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.
We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government
Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
Have you read about the Battle of Stalingrad? Do you seriously not know the stories
of how life expectancy and political rights were totally and utterly squashed many times by communist governments?
Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
Are you aware the gulags never reached the same scale as the current US prison system? Are you aware that under the Soviets and under the CPC previously periodic famines under the previous governments stopped after initial industrialization?
I will leave you with this quote, ironically about a liberal revolution against monarchists
THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.
These discussions on communism vs capitalism that devolve into comparing the US with the USSR are like discussing feudalism vs liberalism in 1825, when the only perceptible legacies of the French Revolution were the Reign of Terror and Napoleon's degeneration into monarchy.
If you're sensibly anticapitalist, for the love of Marx do not argue in favor of states that rejected all pretension of wanting to let the economy be democratically managed, ultimately turning into party-controlled hierarchies rather than socialism. If you're a liberal in 1825 and rather than arguing in favor of ending serfdom and enfranchising everyone you keep going on about how Robespierre wasn't really that bad, you're politically useless.
Why a lot of people on Lemmy like communist so much? As a person who grow up in a country which is almost destroyed by the communist party in the past I don't know what to say just why?, capitalist or not it's depends on your own country's government, at least you still can talking shit about them without getting arrested and torture to death, have we not learn from the past or other communist country, why don't you live in North Korea or China and see how've you like it
I'm going to take your question as genuine and answer in equal.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.
The leftists who still prop those countries up on their shoulders are what many call tankies. Today they sing praise about Russia, China, and North Korea, but your observation is correct, they won't ever move there. These are individuals who repeat propaganda and are, ultimately, just red fascists. When you actually dig into their ideals they parallel and sometimes mirror Nazis.
I believe leftism cannot have an authoritarian element to it. I think most social hierarchies need to be destroyed. I think the only way to have a socialist society is through democratic means. Democracy in the workplace and national level. I think most of us can agree workers need higher wages and there is a wealth gap that needs to be dismantled. I think most of us believe healthcare needs to be universal, food and shelter and water, education, information (internet), speech, and much more should be free and readily available. There is this element of freedom that needs to be achieved that isn't found the countries that are "communist".
I don't want to explicitly say those communist countries wasn't "real communism", but fascists, authoritarianism, always appropriate from progressive movement. There is no freedom, especially of workers, under a dictatorship. If workers are starving, dying, being outright black bagged and killed, i don't think that can be considered communist.
It's an unfortunately nuanced subject, where people don't agree on the underlying definitions of words.
For instance, I think you're confusing "capitalism" with "democracy". You can have authoritarian undemocratic capitalist countries, where you can't talk shit about your government.
For me personally, I think communism has too many issues to actually try, but I like some of its theoretical tennants when compared to that of capitalism. Those goals are something to strive for. The spirit of communism is helping eachother and rewarding work, and the spirit of capitalism is sacrificing others for personal gain
Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.
So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.
Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you're a good little capitalist.
A number of reasons. Just like you claim a Communist party almost destroyed your country, Capitalist parties destroy and are destroying many countries as well. The existence of bad Communist parties does not itself mean Communism is structurally a bad thing, as pursuit of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society is a noble goal for humanity.
I think it's fair to say that decentralization is a good check against Authoritarianism, and as such, this should be extended to the workplace, not just government.
As far as why Lemmy leans left, the founder is a Communist, and principles of decentralization and federation tend to appeal far more to leftists, while Capitalist-inclined individuals have Reddit.
Saying that any existing communist party looks like what we, or theory, want(s), is like saying that North Korea is a Democratic Republic because it's part of the name. Authoritarians love corrupting the meaning of words so they can keep people ignorant.
Though to be fair, DPRK is the way it is at least in part thanks to the Americans obliterating their cities and farm land. But we can ignore history to make a "I used to be in a communist country and it's bad, trust me bro" statement.
And I agree, I prefer to live in a system where prisoners aren't primarily minorities or political prisoners. And where the prison system isn't the most populated in the world, and rife with for-profit forced labour.
I would also be curious to hear which definition of "capitalism" and "Communism" you are using. That is, if you are open to dialogue.
What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn't which "-ism" is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It's a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an "-ism" and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.
The important part is it's not an authoritarian running the show and calling it "communism" or " democracy" when the reality is it's just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses
But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP's point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn't matter what the "point" of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses
By installing a dictator...every time it's attempted...
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It's much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let's try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it's still a boot on my neck.
I'm certainly not advocating for toppling other countries' governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Well, that's the problem with bottom-up government, isn't it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.
If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It's a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.
This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone's equal.
Just look at "balance power away from 1%" in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?
The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).
Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.
People tend to argue that commie blocks look depressing and dystopian but you can actually make very pretty neighborhoods with them.
This is where I live. It's called Oyak Sitesi in Turkey/Antalya and it's a beautiful place with an actual community. Very affordable too. We just did a stability test and they were also very durable to earthquakes.
Just because you're making blocks doesnt also mean that they have to be 20 stories tall either. Here is my old house.
Give a commie block a fresh coat of paint every decade or so and they can look good (though I just don't like flat roofs. But that's personal taste.)
But while a somewhat run down european style house can still have some charme for longer (guess I'm biased here) a run down commie block in gray and with cracks in the facade will quickly start to look depressing.
And as they are often chosen for cost reasons inside capitalistic environments, they are often neglected.
So, the problem is not commie blocks, but how they are maintained. And as often we tend to search for the extreme examples if we (dis)like something.
I happen to live in a city that's primarily blocks (or as we call them: Plattenbauten) and honestly, they're pretty good houses. The structure is sound, after some renovations in the 90s and 00s, insulation and comfort are perfectly fine, and the surroundings are usually very green and pleasant.
The only real problem is, that these buildings are somewhat away from the city center due to superior socialist planning, so they are not super attractive for younger people.
It wasn't communists who came up with the idea of that type of building and it's a common sight in many European countries, for example, which are not communist.
Please, not this again.... Personally, I am a lot in favour of communism. But some people, especially US Americans, have a fundamentally wrong idea about the housing shown in the upper picture.
This is often neither cheap, nor does it reduce homelessness. And it's also not the goal of that kind of rental homes to reduce homelessness.
That is just normal homes of average people in many places.
I live in north-east Germany in one of these Blocks (it was firmly renovated tho). It's actually not bad. Most of them are build in Horseshoe shape so you have small parks inside. But it's nearly impossible to hang anything to the wall without proper power tools. EDIT: typos
So if one person picks 1000 apples per day and the second picks 2 apples, then they split apples 501 to each. Good luck convincing the first person that this is good for them
Except we aren't talking about two people, are we? We're talking about entire populations of people.
And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.
Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.
Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don't work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we're paranoid that they might just be lazy.
We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others' throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they "don't deserve".
You still have the problem of misaligned incentives together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion. This is why all communism inevitably leads to authoritarianism. The strength of capitalism is that it can absorb and indeed is designed to allow for the fact that humanity's cooperative impulse --due to the fact that we evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to live in small bands of about 30 to 150 people-- cannot work at the level of the modern nation state.
You still have the problem of misaligned incentives
Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.
That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.
together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion
So Instead, one person picks 1000 apples, gives them all to the property owner, and then receives enough money to buy 50 apples, yet you'd prefer that over having to split the 1000 apples evenly.
And for both situations I would need ask at least one of them "Why do you need so many apples? Why not give some of them to those who need them instead of accumulating them?"
Think about it, you're already living the situation you presented but the person picking two apples is in a managerial position and gets to keep the thousand apples you picked in exchange for the two apples they picked.
This is under the assumption that there is a surplus in society that can satisfy the needs of everyone. Marx’s point is that technological development and industrialization could make this possible. As such, the need to motivate people to work harder is not necessary.
Prior to such a surplus existing, the distribution of goods would be more akin to “From each according to their ability, to each according their contribution”. That ensures people are motivated to maximize their productivity as long as that’s still necessary.
This is disingenuous: the fundamental principle of socialism and Communism is democracy. And, credit where credit is due, capitalism forced us to socialize the production of goods and services (it now takes many people to "produce" anything). Currently, there is no discussion about who gets the profit of socialized labour, it goes to the people who own the workplace, which are rarely the workers.
So, to make your example realistic, you and this other person are part of a community that grows apples (pick any rural community). Together, you all own the fields.
How do you decide what each person gets? You come to a consensus. There are so many variables; is the other person injured?young?sick?old? Or really bad at picking apples? Maybe you are on some apple picking super serum. How do you decide who gets what? The same way people usually do; you decide together.
In your example, having a blanket rule as you suggest would never work, and would be unfair, but it is what happens now in our advanced capitalistic economies. If you pick 1000 apples for a company, how many do you keep? Or more realistically; once the apples are sold, how much of the.profits go to you? You have no choice. You work, get paid, and go home. You work harder and you end up with just about the same amount at the end. The only saving grace is if you work hard enough, one day you might be promoted by the generous owner to a position where you are no longer the poor schmuck who does all the work. But that poor schmuck will always still exist, it's just no longer you.
But that's not the point, the point of this approach is that like in cooperatives, there are minimum productivity goals and many roles to play, and so on. Obviously like you point out, no one is that stupid.
Now, consider the needs of people who are old or need help.
Like helping your old man, I'm sure you don't mind getting more apples. I wouldn't.
Like you, I would get angry if I'm the only useful one hahaha, but that what productivity and organization is for.
No one lives in a bubble.
Now... What you said, I've seen it happen in capitalism.
Not in small businesses, normally the owner is in the store too.
I mean when we talk about the big bucks like a better example. They expect you to handle of those apples, and ain't offering you a comfy home neither.
Capitalism has a solution to the tent problem though
UK - The home secretary is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, arguing that many of them see it as a "lifestyle choice".
San Diego already banned camping in the city. The county board of supervisors either has proposed that they do the same or already has.
San Diego county is bigger than two states. They are trying to outlaw homelessness in an area about 65 miles north to south, and roughly the 86 miles east of The Pacific Ocean.
These are almost all Democrats, btw. We didn't vote for Republicans.
Finland is capitalist and kind of solved homelessness, with there being around only 1.3k homeless people in the entire country (population: 5.6m, which means the rate of homelessness is around 0.02%).
I don't think that communism or any ideology is an answer to homelessness, it's pretty much the job for the government and what kind of systems/reforms they implement.
You should instead read "Riding the wave" which is a serious book that explains why social democracies rely on imperialism using one case study (Denmark I believe but I haven't read it in forever)
Thanks, i pride myself on making innovative memes that point out the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism in new and inventive meme formats. Thankfully the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism have been around for decades giving me plenty of material for OC. /s
Lmao what is fictional about this?! Are you saying the homeless camps are fictional? Or are you saying the soviet priotitizing prefabricated apartments to increase housing supply is fictional?
Then how do you explain the fact that when you count up the single family, and multi family homes that have sat empty for at least 12 months, you end up with a number that is 72:1 times higher than the homeless population of the US?
We only build luxury housing, and that gets snapped up by investors, and left to sit empty and rot. Meanwhile we have about 1.5 million people that sleep outside, and get harassed by practically everyone.
How much supply is needed to bring the price down then?
While I agree that in general there is a problem with zoning laws making it all but illegal to build anything other than single family homes, markets work in such a way that the price is based on what people are "willing" to pay. Where a home is a fundamental necessity, this is already problematic. Nevermind the huge increase in access to money (the advent of mortgages and all of the policy surrounding them) driving up the demand side of the equation.
So when the options are:
Homelessness (kind of illegal)
Renting (very expensive)
Buying (even more expensive)
Foregoing any participation in the housing market isn't really an option.
As a side note: the simple supply/demand model is from econ 101, and I really think it's unwise to make decisions based on first year university textbooks.
Of course, the supply of housing is not the only factor. Another is the investors buying up property which you mentioned, and the fact that people selling houses just know that they can get away with high pricing. Both of these need to be fixed, in addition to the low supply of housing.
I am genuinely curious, I couldn't find what Communism did to Finland. There was the civil war between socialist and non- socialists, but this can't be blamed on one ideology over the other, the Soviets invaded southern Finland to "liberate" the "reds" in the south, but this also isn't able to be blamed on Communism, as it was the Soviets. And then Finland sided with the axis powers and attacked the Soviets, including the siege of Leningrad leading to mass suffering and starvation of "communists".
I do not come from Finland so it's hard for me to know much about the history outside of what I can read. I just pulled most of these facts from Wikipedia (a liberal western source), so if you are willing I would appreciate some insight.
Nothing, that's why the country works and it's the sole reason why Finland is the economical and progressive exception to rest of eastern europe. Had Finland been subjected to forms of fascism, such as communism, we too would have to battle for basic human rights (eg. trans rights are non-existant under communist regimes, and unfortunately that sentiment is still rooted in ex-block values) and economical and institutional downturns rest of the old communist block countries are now hard at work at dismantling. It's crazy how destructive one sick ideology can be to a region and it's people.
But yeah, we did - under capitalism - fix homelessness by literally giving housing to everyone who wanted housing.
Forms of Fascism such as Communism. Lmao. Also what Finland has done to eradicate homelessness would be decried as Socialism and Communism in the United States. I love that your Municipalities own housing and views it as a human right and not as a commodity. The free market didn't fix the housing crisis the government did.
would be decried as Socialism and Communism in the United States
Ok? If the definition of communism is whatever Americans decry as socialist/communist, then a whole lotta things are communist.
The free market didn’t fix the housing crisis the government did.
Your point being? That Finland isn't a capitalist country? That wide social safety nets can't exist within a capitalist society? Real Communism™ are the things capitalist countries do that end up being good, while somehow actual communist countries aren't real communist countries since they ended up shafted? Any other borderline psychotic conclusion you want me to jump to or is this all?
ok, so why are there so many people trying to escape these communist paradises you people praise so much?
and why so many people want to live in the capitalist hell holes you complain about?
I have no problem with communism(i think socdem is a better system but thats a discussion for another day) but the moment a tankie here mentions anything about the soviet union being better than capitalism just look up holodomor.
This has to be one of the most horrible tower I have ever seen. Well, every big tower like those are horrible. What, you want big towers like that ? You think that's how we fix the housing crisis ? Not really..
What is good ubanism then ? 4 to 5 story building max, mixed use, no cars, 5minutes walk to everything you need, great architecture so it's nice to walk in the neighborhood. That's what we need. We want human scale, not some horrible bullshit like this. That's not a city, it's a nightmare. That's not beautiful, that's depressing. That's not great architecture, that's just some concrete box stacked on top of each other.
If this is what you want, read about ubanism. If you think this is beautiful, you probably have horrible taste. And if you think that's needed, well, that would be like applying a bandaid on someone that lost his legs. We need a fucking surgery to fix our cities, not that bullshit "let's build horrible concrete tower that will ruin the land for decades.l, because housing crisis".
Way more shit is done with prison labor in the US. I guarantee. We have 25% of the prison population of the world, and the USSR had a tendency to send a massive amount of their prisoners to Siberia, which would make it difficult to help build apartment blocks several thousand miles away.
What's with that whataboutism? I don't care about the US. Why do your type brings it up every time, like it makes USSR's wrongdoings more acceptable. It doesn't. It's rather a lesson to learn and not repeat in your country.
and the USSR had a tendency to send a massive amount of their prisoners to Siberia, which would make it difficult to help build apartment blocks several thousand miles away.
So? They built infrastructure there, yes, so it's enormous territory can be somehow crossable. And they also built infrastructure, housing and plants\factories all over it's territory. Gulag wasn't just a one small camp, it's the Main Office of Camp (Managenent), it had a lot of people to send elsewhere, based on what Kremlin wants.
Hey OP, comunistm is great on paper because it doesn't take into consideration the human nature. Humans are corruptible, no matter who, and even the best of us would be corrupted when it comes to someone they love. This alone breaks the comunist stance because you can't have fairness when one human is responsable for managing/governing. Comunism would work if there was no hierarchy between humans, no one more powerful. Maybe if some aliens come or if some AI evolve enough to govern, but that's is not today's world
Edit: I do think the US level of captalism is horrible. Maybe begin with just SOME socialist policies, like free healthcare and univesities, that would already improve so much the lifes of americans
Hey Commenter, it sounds like you only have a surface level understanding of Communism, i suggest you read some theory. Communism very much takes human greed into account, its kind of its whole point.
You are right I really don't, but not all theory translates well into reality. How would a country of milions manage all that without hierarchy? I'm not going against you I'm just trying to understand how would this work without a dictatorship and considering that humans are not trustworthy
you can't have fairness when one human is responsable for managing/governing.
I would say that you have left your society and government open to the inevitably of corruption when you place the power in one person's hands. I've been advocating for elected councils to run the system. It's not impossible to corrupt an elected council, one needs look no further than the US Congress, or whatever they call the CCP massive room of people. I would propose that just having a council is not enough, one also needs to have a more robust voting system such as Ranked Choice Voting, or another runoff system so that you don't end up with a choice between two shit sandwiches. We also need to abolish policing, as it is currently done, as a career. I'm not certain how to fix this one, and perhaps we can't without actual incorruptible androids and AI.
The real issue is that we the people have tried to implement these changes only for the rich old fossils to refuse the will of the people. Just look at what is happening with Measure 1&2 in Ohio.
I don't think there is an imediate solution. Humams can not be trusted with power, it's human nature. I see only 2 ways, either someone/thing else does it or, a more realistic one, technology becomes so powerful that we can manage the managers, monitoring their actions/choices (and voting?! maybe?!) Idk, but remember that tech is a sword and not a knife, if it monitors them.they would also monitor us.
Anyway there is no simple solution. Captalism as is today and comunism as is today are both bad options.
Yes in Communism you would have to live in a building instead of being a bumbling idiot looking for your bootstraps to pull up in a tent underneath an overpass, while Capitalism builds luxury high rises your dumbass will never set foot in. People arent homeless because they are unskilled or lazy, they are homeless due to Material Conditions outside of their control.
"A 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed." Most homeless folks have jobs and lose them due to worsening Material Conditions. Facts dont care about yohr feelings. source
Why do you think people go to drugs, most of the time it's because their life was already bad and the drugs just made it worse. Yes, there is a percentage of people that are lazy but it is only a small margin of homeless people. There is enough well researched material on youtube about these topics on youtube. If the system doesn't help homeless people at all it will not get better even for the people that aren't lazy and their life just didn't go the right way or they were exploited at their workplace to a point that they couldn't afford living anymore.
Just because the concept of capitalism says it is possible to "work" your way to the top doesnt mean it is happening, almost every single rich person got their wealth by some means of exploitation of other people
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders"
You provided a source that says most of the homeless people are unemployed (53% of sheltered and 40% of sheltered have jobs). I provided a source that says 2/3 of homeless people have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you not know what the words "most" and "majority" mean?
YOUR source said only 1/3 have a current substance abuse issue. And my source said that 53% of homeless folks in shelters have jobs while 40% of unsheltered folks have jobs. Most homeless folks start out using shelters and then transition to living on the street as they loss hope and ergo lose employment as their Material Conditions worsen. I am done arguing with your surface level understanding of a complex crisis. I pray you and yours never experience the crushing hopelessness that is living on the street and not knowing where you will rest your head.
Your task is not to prove that drugs exist in the homeless community. For your point of them "fucking their lives up with drugs" to be true, you have to prove that their personal drug use was the catalyst for their living conditions. Do that or take the L.
And to check yourself, you might want to look up the prevalence of drug use in more affluent communities. Hint: it's a lot.
So even if you're right, you'd condemn the other 1/3rd to homelessness to spite the others? People that made bad decisions are still people. I hope you've never made any bad decisions...
Also, you're condemning entire communities. People in desperate situations often have to turn to crime. Paying for their incarceration (or healthcare for that matter) COSTS MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
A third of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. On average people spend a third of their paycheck on housing. That's not a lot of room for any kind of bad situations before they become homeless. It can be something completely out of their control like a car running a light and killing their mother which sends then into depression.
Listen, I'm no tankie by any means (in the libsoc camp) but that representation on who calls themselves a communist is so bias and obviously full of venom and spite.
Are there some lazy people who like communism? Yea. There are also some lazy people that heavily push capitalism. Being lazy doesn't predispose you to a certain economic belief structure.
Not a tankie, but the USSR had mostly solved this problem, despite all its other issues. There did exist some homelessness, but nowhere near the extent of current USA.
Sure, you could get a piece of land in Siberian tundra at any time, I would not call that housing.
Moving to a city was way more complicated than in capitalist US. You could not simply buy an apartment. You had to be allocated an apartment by the government. And you needed connections for that. Or bribes. Ideally both. If you think your local rabid Republicans do not care for little wage slave men, you never experienced USSR, it was like that but 100x worse.
Yup. And networking would inevitably involve vodka. All major decisions would eventually involve vodka in USSR.
One of Stalin's failures almost any tankie won't deny.
Vodka had been linked to the Russian economy under multiple Czars. I'm not sure that Stalin could have separated the two even if he had wanted to. Admittedly it doesn't appear that he wanted to.
I'm pretty sure that the USSR was screwed the moment that Lenin returned from exile in Germany, or when Wilson was elected. Take your pick.
The Menchaviks would have been a better government.
I just find it ironic that Stalin was everything that the party worried about Trotsky becoming.
The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?
Well, I'm from a post-USSR country and a substantial part of this was the criminalization of homelessness. Can't have homeless people, if you lock them up (be it in a prison or asylum).
Then again, just about anyone, who did not conform to the party's message got locked up. Getting your place bugged at the slightest hint you might be up to something disagreeable and all that good stuff. The secret police could disappear and or beat you up without any real justification.
I hate late-stage capitalism as much as you, but coming from a country that's been through this, I am extremely reluctant to give the rotten and frankly repugnant USSR regime any credit.
Your grandma that "fled communism" lied to you. Eventually you'll understand that and stop repeating their nonsense.
At least they tried. Our homelessness is an intentional feature of our capitalist system. A constant threat and extant punishment for those among us who aren't fortunate enough to be born with a silver stick up our ass.
In what communist country was housing a problem?
This is a trick question, the real answer is that there weren’t real communist countries
That's true.
No true communists
It's the final refuge for tankies. That and the old "social democracy only works by exploiting the global south" canard.
Yeah, I could see finding this unconvincing if you haven't read theory, history, or were just cool with benefiting from imperialism
Soviet Union? It was uncommon for a family of 6 to live in a small apartment. You can even see it in old soviet movies where apartments would be separated by curtains (common comedy trope).
I'm sure there were extra houses after all those people that starved to death.
In Communist countries people starve to death because of famine, in Capitalist countries people also strave to death because of famine while still starving to death after famines are over because they cant afford groceries.
The real communist solution to homelessness was to put them in jails. True story.
From a Legislative Perspective, it is Illegal to be Homeless in Virtually Every State in the USA, Except for Two – Oregon and Wyoming I think you are confusing Communist countries with Capitalist ones. Lol, lmao even.
As someone who has been homeless before, I've never been arrested for it.
Woohoo both systems suck. You can actually believe that just because one system is bad, what is considered the opposite is also bad. Marx was not some omniscient doctor manhattan. He had some ideas. Some were good critiques on capitalist culture. Others were fantasy that do not function in the real world.
Notice how the folks arguing in favor of Communism have sources and receipts, while the folks arguing against it have done nothing but regurgitated Capitalist propaganda. Also note folks who are opposed to Communism and Marx's philosophy are always forced to admit that it only works on paper, because his logic is irrefutable if you address it with a modicum of intellectual honesty...
You link stuff, but ignore the actual accounts of human beings who fucking lived it.
Bruh, almost every old person I've heard talk about Communism that lived under it talks about it fondly. Lmao
I have a whole fucking family, who lived through the USSR. Not a single one of them misses it. Being spied on every step you take, my grandma has the "you never know who's watching" mentality to this day.
That's not to say they don't hate the current regime, but it's nothing compared to the absolute atrocities of the USSR's secret police.
Doubt that very much, liar
Ok let's do some links
Holodomor
Chinese famine
Gulag
Homelessness in Russia
Continued
Aight bet
Trail of Tears
How British colonialism killed 100 million Indians in 40 years
United States represents about 4.2 percent of the world's population, it houses around 20 percent of the world's prisoners
1 in 5 children in America worry about their next meal.
2,000,000 to 60,000,000 Africans died in the Transatlantic Slave Trade
Yeah but some guy I once met had a grandpa who lived in Europe for a year, he said Russia was great
The holodomor narrative surrounding the ussr wide famine of 32-33 was literal nazi propaganda from open nazi collaborators and was used as a justification for the mass murder of jews in Eastern Europe during the holocaust.
It was debunked in the literal 1930s in the US and now it re-emerges like a zombie during an era where fascism is on the rise. Even anticommunist academics like Applebaum, Davies, and Conquest say it wasn't a genocide.
The joke is that Capitalism DOES NOT have a solution to homelessness because there is zero profit motive to solve it. And facts dont care about your feelngs, you cant refute Marx's philosophy while being intellectual honest. Capitalist Economists study Das Kapital because Marx was so fucking spot on.
No need to refute Marx, reality has already proven time and time again that communism doesn't work in practice.
Btw your argument only applies to "pure" capitalism, without any government interference. Homelessness is not really an issue in many European countries.
So what? America is a shithole, that's nothing new.
That's what a lot of red states are doing now. Make homelessness illegal. Arrest the homeless. Make them do slave labor in jail. Profit.
Yeah that's called late stage Communism, which we have never achieved as humanity. Late stage Capitalism is currently pushing more and more folks into dangerous housing situations like the bottom right quadrant of this meme. Capitalism and Utopia are oxymorons while Communism and Utopia are synonymous.
Call me old fashion but no one living on the streets and having their basic needs met sounds pretty utopian to me.
Ah yes because there was no one living on the streets, yes because a propaganda told me that it must be true.
I guess killing literal millions of your own citizens is better than being homeless, huh?
There were still people that lived in the streets in the USSR. Also, the housing the USSR provided wasn't really that.. great... I watch a Russian YouTuber (NFKRZ) who has talked about Soviet architecture in not just Russia, but other former USSR countries and shows that yes it's good they were built, they weren't very well built.
The USSR had many problems, and bureaucracy was a big problem. I never understood why tankies love the USSR so much when the USSR didn't truly get rid of class. Those in the government lived like kings compared to the common man, who yes lived better than they had before but still not that well due to the bloated and mismanagement of the government.
Idk, the fact that they even had a centralized government like that seems like.. the opposite of communism to me.
I think what people don’t fully understand is that Marxism is meant to be scientific. That means that there will likely be many imperfect and failed attempts at building a socialist society before one comes along that is stable enough to outlast outside interference from capitalist states.
As such, most people I know who like the USSR are also it’s biggest critiques. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation about the USSR that most discussions about it online are just about delineating truth from propaganda.
Yeah those soviets sure got rid of the homeless problem. Can't be homeless when you were intentionally starved to death.
The USSR and communism are separate things
Slaps Table Thank You!!
Why is this shit always communist vs capitalist, like we've only got 2 answers avaliable. You fuckers never set foot in a communist country and worship this shit
Fucking communist countries have killed how many millions of their own citizens? Don't really think showing a picture of some buildings is enough to prove that they actually solved any issues. They may have solved those issues for some who were lucky enough to get an apartment, but don't be a hexbear and pretend they housed everyone.
And no, I don't want a response with a link about hurr duer capitalism bad, yeah I know, but I live in capitalism so I already know that.
I’m still confused and alarmed that the only alternative brought up is communism, not socialism. So far as I know, the core difference is transfer of power - one is peaceful, one is violent.
So in communism, your home might be six feet underground because “It is necessary to achieve the revolution, comrade.” Absolutely zero chance of a leader that wants the best for their people, apparently.
That's incorrect.
Socialism is Worker Ownership of the Means of Production. There sre many, many forms, such as Anarcho-Syndicalism, Marxism-Leninism, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Anarcho-Communism, Council Communism, Left Communism, and more.
Communism is a more specific form of Socialism, by which you have achieved a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society. Many Communist ideologies are transitional towards Communism, such as the USSR's Marxism-Leninism or China's Dengism and Maoism.
Whether by reform or Revolution, the form doesn't change.
Personally Star Trek is my favorite form of Communism.
Pretty sure that's everyone's ideal, across all forms of leftism, except perhaps Le Guin's Anarchist societies she writes about.
Holy shit. That makes so much sense as to why I hated those books as a kid. Thanks for that insight. I knew something wasn't working properly in Earthsea.
Wrong series though.
Not to shit on child you, but that kid has terrible taste
Which political ideology is Responsible for capitalizing random Words?
German
My phone's autocorrect, apparently.
Nationalise essential needs and create State corporations, let capitalism have fun with non essentials. If don't care if private producers make wine or funky clothing or big houses, the government should make sure everyone has food to eat, basic clothes to wear and a place to live.
On that last part, buildings with 8 living units or more should be ran by a non profit State corporation, charge people based on the cost of maintenance and the salaries required, send a check if people were charged too much at the end of the year.
You left out, healthcare, education, higher education, and Internet access. While we are covering basic human rights, let's make sure we cover all the basic human rights.
Outside of internet access these things are already nationalised in first world countries (I know exactly what's implied by what I'm saying). I didn't feel the need to enumerate every single thing.
But we need free markets to handle the essentials because free markets consistently provide while governments consistently fail.
We need the systems that work connected to the most critical needs.
State corporations are private companies whose profit go to the government instead of an owner or investors. The place in North America that has the cheapest electricity is Quebec and that's because it's a State corporation producing it, it still makes billions in profit that is then reinvested by the government.
So no, free markets isn't necessary. Heck, the free market is what makes it so the US government is the one that spends the most per capita for healthcare even if it only covers part of the population.
The problem is that a leader who wants the best for their people isn’t sufficient to actually achieve that. What you need is for everyone to be making decisions about what’s best.
You’re also taking a snapshot of the most regulated industry in the US. Building high rises is illegal in huge swaths of urban areas. Before we say the free market isn’t providing an answer cab we actually try it? I’m talking removing exclusionary zoning, speeding up the permit process and reducing the power of local action committees, and reforming the broken heritage process that’s used by rich people to keep their areas from densifying.
Real socialism leads to communism. I want to call what I am advocating for as cultural marxism, but unfortunately that term has antisemitic connotations, while also perfectly encapsulating the gradual shift in the publics perception of Marxist ideology I am advocating for with memes such as this. I am not advocating for a violent revolution, but I wont deny the fact that when the powers that be make a peaceful revolution impossible, a violent revolution is inevitable.
Bruh, centuries of capitalist exploitation of its citizens and treating them like a disposable commodity would like to have a word on the whole 'citizens killed by their own country' topic.
How many thousands or millions of citizens die yearly because they can't afford to live in this fucked up system?
So whataboutism really is the only argument for communism lmao
"I'm presented with a single argument that refutes this claim, better setup a strawman that this is the only argument available"
Lmao, at least try to sound intelligent
Lmfao nope. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/
Asks for link that doesn’t say “hurr durr capitalism bad
Gets a link from Marxists.org
I made this comment without looking at the website but WHAT THE HELL IS THIS WEBSITE
It's communist innovation (not innovative)(no incentive to update that UI from the 90s)(communists find lack of progress calming)
A phenomenal resource.
It actually is a decent resource as long as it is not your only context for history and political science.
The state of commies, laughable
Lmfao not at all, the dude literally said whataboutisms are the only arguments for Communism, so i linked him a copy of Das Kapital. Unfortunately you clearly lack the reading comprehension to consume it.
None? People don't starve to death in western countries. And where they do the issue is lack of infrastructure. A communist government couldn't conjure the resources needed to build that out of thin air either.
"This thing doesn't happen, and when it does, it's not the fault of capitalism itself" is a monumentally stupid argument. Especially when talking about the homeless population, which absolutely does have people that starve.
And the capitalist economy chose not to build it because it wasn't profitable, or after it was built, it was too expensive to be used.
Where is your great communist country ?? Oh wait, it's not there. It doesn't exist and it never will. Capitalism works. Not perfect but it works. Your idealized version of communism is great but so is my idealized version of capitalism where everyone has a shot at the American dream!
I said it doesn't happen in the west, not that it doesn't happen anywhere. Please learn to read.
Bullshit it doesn't happen in the west. 12.8% of US households were considered food insecure in 2022, with 5.1% of that being considered to have VERY low food security(Source). Over 20,000 Americans died of malnutrition in 2022, more than double the number in 2018(Source).
There's also nearly 30 vacant homes for every 1 homeless person in the US, so there's plenty of room, too. Nobody needs a 2nd home when over half a million people don't even have one.
Show me one photograph of a person starving in the west.
In the west, the main cause of malnutrition isn't a lack of calories, but a difficulty in access (from availability or price or other factors) to healthy foods with the required nutrition for a healthy life or from an excess of certain nutrients. This is often manifested as conditions such a obesity and type II diabetes. So malnutrition does impact people in the west.
Maybe you should have actually read that article before linking it. It discusses in detail the reasons for malnutrition being an issue, and none of those reasons is being unable to afford food. The problems are typically due to age and diseases.
I’ve been unable to afford food before, and I didn’t go hungry. People just gave me tons of free food.
It's simple... If you convince the communists that the capitalists are trying to destroy them, (and vice versa), they fight each other, distracting them from the real enemy: the 1% with enough money to directly influence the folk that make the rules that keep them in the 1% club. We're fighting culture wars so we won't fight class wars, my friend.
... capitalism is the ideology that lets the 1% be the 1%.
This is like the one fight that isn't part of the culture war.
No the 1% definitely exists in communism.
How can a stateless, classless, moneyless society have a 1%?
The 1% exist in every form of government, my friend. Billionaire capitalists == Russian Oligarchs. The name changes based on the audience, but the idea is money influences politics. The folk with the most money to do so are the 1% who actually rule, not the interchangeable talking heads who take their money to live a comfortable life acting as the mouthpiece (or scapegoat) for that group.
...do you think Russia is still Socialist? The Russian oligarchs are Billionaire Capitalists.
The USSR collapsed in the 90s, buddy.
Is there even a non-capitalist government in existence? Even the communist nations generally have a currency and tiered income based on position.
Couple things: tiered income would likely exist in early stages of Communism, and certainly in almost all forms of Socialism. Marx makes it exceptionally clear that both intense and skilled labor are represented as condensed unskilled labor.
Either way, there are examples of anti-capitalism. Chiapas and Rojava are more Libertarian Socialist. There's also countries like Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos, who appear to be attempting to reject Capitalism still and still operating on some basis of Marxism-Leninism Socialism. China relies on Capitalism as their dominant mode of production, but claims to be Socialist by 2050, though that remains to be seen.
The nations you think of as "Communist" are typically Communist in ideology, but are building towards it through Socialism. Just as Feudalism gave way to Capitalism, so to do Marxists believe Capitalism is a necessary stage before Socialism, which is a necessary stage before Communism.
Tiered income does not mean capitalism. Capitalism is not at all defined by inequality. It is defined by free market activity.
Exactly! This is exactly what I'm saying. The 1% is still the 1% calling the shots... No matter where they are or what you want to call the type of government they influence.
The Russian Oligarchs you speak of are a result of the fall of Communism in Russia.
Yes, so you're proving the Communists and Socialists in this thread correct. Across all Capitalist systems, the bourgeoisie are still the ones calling the shots. Therefore, a better system would be a more decentralized, worker owned system, perhaps along the lines of Socialism or Anarchism, to reach an eventual state of Communism in the far future.
What exactly do you take issue with Socialism, Communism, and Anarchism here? You appear to be advocating for a more top-down system like Capitalism, than a bottom-up system. Your argument appears to uphold your criticism.
Oh! I see. No...I'm only saying the minute you start talking any "-isms", you trigger feelings of tribalism that exist in all of humanity. We want to be on the "good team". No one wants to be on the bad team, and that feeling is what the Uber wealthy uses to keep us busy. Debating all of the "-isms" is the problem. Let's figure out how to take care of the masses so basic human needs are met, allowing humanity to prosper, and figure out what the hell to call it later. Otherwise, we just quibble over semantics and nothing gets done.
Do you think the Russian oligarchs, who by the way pen a FAR larger portion of the Russian economy than their American counterparts, appeared from nowhere after the collapse of the Soviet Union? The Soviets had an extremely wealthy and influential elite
If you want to fight a class war, you're a communist
Not even slightly
What ideology is it, again, that champions working class people to take their power back? It's certainly not right wing.
If you think the world is fucked because of the greed of the 1%, and you want those people to pay for their crimes through class war, you're communist.
Take their power back and give it to the ruling class government you say?
Lol no, I do not say. No ruling class. No government. That's communism.
It's bonkers to me that you talk a big talk about class and class conflict, yet are opposed to left wing politics. Where do you think those terms come from?
What's even more bonkers is that you seem to think communism has never said anything about the 1%, when that is the biggest problem communists won't shut up about!
Now you're literally saying that I'm saying or thinking something
Huge issues with that kind of projection
That sounds like a free market to me. When people have the power to determine their own fate, and how they engage with others for economic coordination.
When everyone has the ability to choose how they engage, that’s called a free market. The economic system based on free markets is called capitalism.
A free market means zero regulation, so I hope you like drinking poison because "ain't no gubmint telling me how to bottle my soda!"
This requires kicking capital out of the economy. That would be defeating capitalism.
No, it's called voluntary participation. Free markets inevitably trend toward monopolies and concentrations of power, because the supply side is not held to any standard.
And look where it's gotten us - with a 1% bleeding the rest dry.
The 1% are the Capitalist and they are trying to defeat the Communists and surpress/continue to exploit the Prolitariat with every tool at their vast disposal. The folks in the comments defending Capitalism are all members of the Prolitariat brainwashed into thinking they are down on their luck Millionaires.
Look... It's all tribalism, in the end. We can argue semantics, but doing so it's exactly their point. It keeps us busy with pedantry, while they continue to enjoy their wealth from on high. I am not educated enough to debate the pros and cons of each group, but I am intelligent enough to smell an attempt to distract me from the point. To know there's some sleight of hand fuckery happening right in front of my face.
Yes you are intelligent, and so close to getting it, the cultural warfare bullshit is all a distraction to keep you from noticing the class warfare being waged against the working class by the 1% who continues to rob value from us to horde weath far beyond our comprehension. I cant recommend Marx's writings enough, there is so much slight of hand fuxkery going on and it SHOULD rightfully piss you off!
Help me understand how I'm close in what I'm saying, my friend. It feels like we're saying exactly the same thing.
But he has to be right, it's not about agreeing he has to be RIGHT and you have to be WRONG
Bruh if I HAD to be right I would still be a devoted Libertarian simping for the free market. I love being proven wrong, its how people and ergo society are supposed to evolve and grow.
EXACTLY!!!
It's even worse than that. Most Lemmy commies are aggressive sectarians who cling to a very particular form of the ideology, while rejecting all forms of moderate leftism and Marxist revisionism. It's extremely obnoxious, and their bizarre, outdated philosophy is a primary reason why people are skeptical of leftist politics.
Right. Communism vs capitalism is just more centralization. There are plenty of decentralized options to balance things as too much centralization, no matter the political system leads to corruption.
What do you figure is centralized about capitalism?
All the increasingly large corporations that are constantly buying their competition and making it hard for anyone else to compete.
That is the death of capitalism. That’s capitalism (based on free markets) devolving into oligopoly (based on regulatory capture and tightly-restricted markets).
Capitalism doesn’t last any better than any other institution. It degrades into something else. The thing it degrades into is a centrally-controlled market, similar to what you find in socialism.
Agreed. Whether it is Capatalism, Communism, Socialism, democracy, dictatorship they all have centralizion in them even if their intent is otherwise. We need to support more decentralized services and governance as it balance the poor and returns it to the people. We just need more people to get on board, it it seems like we prefer to give our power to power hungry companies and regimes instead. Not saying we need to have zero centralization as it has its place, but it needs to be kept in check and the only to force to do so is decentralization. But it is all so much more complicated and above the human condition to manage. Hopefully AI will be able to help for better or for worse.
Remind me, how many capitalist countries have killed millions of their own citizens?
Germany, pre-communist China, Japan, Armenia, pre-USSR Russia, Pakistan...
Edit: if apparently this isn't the point, why so passionately call out the communist killcount?
See, this is what the fuck I'm talking about.
You're so dense. I'm not advocating or simping got capitalism here. That's what I'm trying to communicate, but you're too fucking dense to even see that when I lay it out.
Both are bad. Just because I say these turds who worship an imaginary and propagandized version of communism are dorks doesn't mean I'm arguing in favor of capitalism. For fucks sake learn to read
You are 100% correct in your assertion, my anti Mario sex toy friend, and I love your passion. I worry that the minute you call someone's intelligence into question, they'll take a defensive posture and stop thinking critically. Critical thinking is what we need more than anything else in this world right now. That's what's in short supply. It's why the news is constantly being flooded with new things, and why there are so few media outlets that don't have a slant. If I can get you outraged at team blue, or team red, or team US, or team THEM, your anger overrides your reason and you stop thinking about who benefits from the distraction provided by us arguing over whatever this new bullshit thing is we're arguing over. Hopefully that last statement makes sense.
Most of these articles cite the Black Book of Communism, which goes to absurd lengths to inflate the death toll of Communism, for example counting all the millions of nazi and soviet soldiers killed on the eastern front as victims of communism, counting the entire death toll of the Vietnam war, and even counting declining birth rates as deaths due to communism.
Noam Chomsky used the same methodology to argue that, according to Black Book logic, capitalism in India alone, from 1947–1979, could be blamed for more deaths than communism worldwide from 1917–1979.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160921084037/http://www.spectrezine.org/global/chomsky.htm
It's almost like there's a middle ground that's the best of both worlds.
Except there isn't. we tried that then the capitalists bought the weaker willed politicians and used them to undermine any regulation. Capitalism is a cancer and must be excised as such.
I don't disagree that Capitalism doesn't work in its purest form, but we've hardly had a success with communism in its purest form either.
We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
Are you not aware of the massive incarceration, labor camps, starvation, conscription, etc?
Have you read about the Battle of Stalingrad? Do you seriously not know the stories of how life expectancy and political rights were totally and utterly squashed many times by communist governments?
Are you aware the gulags never reached the same scale as the current US prison system? Are you aware that under the Soviets and under the CPC previously periodic famines under the previous governments stopped after initial industrialization?
I will leave you with this quote, ironically about a liberal revolution against monarchists
These discussions on communism vs capitalism that devolve into comparing the US with the USSR are like discussing feudalism vs liberalism in 1825, when the only perceptible legacies of the French Revolution were the Reign of Terror and Napoleon's degeneration into monarchy.
If you're sensibly anticapitalist, for the love of Marx do not argue in favor of states that rejected all pretension of wanting to let the economy be democratically managed, ultimately turning into party-controlled hierarchies rather than socialism. If you're a liberal in 1825 and rather than arguing in favor of ending serfdom and enfranchising everyone you keep going on about how Robespierre wasn't really that bad, you're politically useless.
This is capitalist solution to homelessness
Why a lot of people on Lemmy like communist so much? As a person who grow up in a country which is almost destroyed by the communist party in the past I don't know what to say just why?, capitalist or not it's depends on your own country's government, at least you still can talking shit about them without getting arrested and torture to death, have we not learn from the past or other communist country, why don't you live in North Korea or China and see how've you like it
I'm going to take your question as genuine and answer in equal.
It's a bit more complicated than that. Most leftists will agree with you, the USSR and other Eastern Europe countries that were communist did a lot of damage and most likely more harm. They committed atrocities. They were authoritarian. It was disgusting.
The leftists who still prop those countries up on their shoulders are what many call tankies. Today they sing praise about Russia, China, and North Korea, but your observation is correct, they won't ever move there. These are individuals who repeat propaganda and are, ultimately, just red fascists. When you actually dig into their ideals they parallel and sometimes mirror Nazis.
I believe leftism cannot have an authoritarian element to it. I think most social hierarchies need to be destroyed. I think the only way to have a socialist society is through democratic means. Democracy in the workplace and national level. I think most of us can agree workers need higher wages and there is a wealth gap that needs to be dismantled. I think most of us believe healthcare needs to be universal, food and shelter and water, education, information (internet), speech, and much more should be free and readily available. There is this element of freedom that needs to be achieved that isn't found the countries that are "communist".
I don't want to explicitly say those communist countries wasn't "real communism", but fascists, authoritarianism, always appropriate from progressive movement. There is no freedom, especially of workers, under a dictatorship. If workers are starving, dying, being outright black bagged and killed, i don't think that can be considered communist.
It's an unfortunately nuanced subject, where people don't agree on the underlying definitions of words. For instance, I think you're confusing "capitalism" with "democracy". You can have authoritarian undemocratic capitalist countries, where you can't talk shit about your government.
For me personally, I think communism has too many issues to actually try, but I like some of its theoretical tennants when compared to that of capitalism. Those goals are something to strive for. The spirit of communism is helping eachother and rewarding work, and the spirit of capitalism is sacrificing others for personal gain
Because they are reacting to living under the oppressive structures of late capitalism. Having been raised in a capitalist world, they naturally overemphasize economic systems and their alternatives and make assumptions about government.
So when they communism theyusually mean communism + some equitable government or just they mean socialist democracy.
Funnily enough, you live pretty well in China these days if you're a good little capitalist.
This community is on lemmy.ml, which explicitly leans hard left. Maybe a memes community on another instance would be less like this
A number of reasons. Just like you claim a Communist party almost destroyed your country, Capitalist parties destroy and are destroying many countries as well. The existence of bad Communist parties does not itself mean Communism is structurally a bad thing, as pursuit of a Stateless, Classless, Moneyless society is a noble goal for humanity.
I think it's fair to say that decentralization is a good check against Authoritarianism, and as such, this should be extended to the workplace, not just government.
As far as why Lemmy leans left, the founder is a Communist, and principles of decentralization and federation tend to appeal far more to leftists, while Capitalist-inclined individuals have Reddit.
Saying that any existing communist party looks like what we, or theory, want(s), is like saying that North Korea is a Democratic Republic because it's part of the name. Authoritarians love corrupting the meaning of words so they can keep people ignorant.
Though to be fair, DPRK is the way it is at least in part thanks to the Americans obliterating their cities and farm land. But we can ignore history to make a "I used to be in a communist country and it's bad, trust me bro" statement.
And I agree, I prefer to live in a system where prisoners aren't primarily minorities or political prisoners. And where the prison system isn't the most populated in the world, and rife with for-profit forced labour.
I would also be curious to hear which definition of "capitalism" and "Communism" you are using. That is, if you are open to dialogue.
Because they hate the system they live in and communism is the only modern alternative that has ever existed.
When someone comes up with an alternative to both, humanity will move forward.
Grass is greener on the other side
What Country?
'in the past'
How old are you? If your claim to authority here is that you grew up being told history by the winners, what should that mean to us?
What was done in South America for a century was done in a decade in Eastern Europe when the west finally won the cold war. Read Shock Doctrine.
What if, and hear me out on this one, the problem isn't which "-ism" is prevalent. The real problem is that ANY form of power or society needs checks and balances. If those are missing or not enforced, then everything goes to shit. It's a balancing act, not just a matter of black or white.
But I want to defend my -ism
Sir please put your -ism away, you're scaring the children.
Name checks out lol
The whole point of Communism is to balance power away from the 1% and back to the masses. The fact that it is an "-ism" and has decades of propaganda demonozing it, doesnt make that any less true.
The important part is it's not an authoritarian running the show and calling it "communism" or " democracy" when the reality is it's just a plain old oligarchy with a new title applied.
100% couldn't agree more.
But there needs to be some governing body that is responsible for determining how the power and wealth is distributed. Per the OP's point: if the proper guardrails are not in place, control of that governing body will eventually shift towards a person or party who corrupts it for their own purposes. It doesn't matter what the "point" of a system is, corrupt people will always attempt to take the wheel.
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
By installing a dictator...every time it's attempted...
Maybe not do that next time and try doing it from the bottom up instead of top-down🏴. It's much more work to convince people that this is a solution and have them help willingly instead of forcing them to go along with it. We tried the Marxist-Leninist way dozens of times, let's try the anarchist way. A capitalist boot or a communist boot on my neck makes no difference to me, it's still a boot on my neck.
Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn't have dictators every time a revolution occurs?
Because short man special!
/s (do I even need this? This one HAS to be so absurd as to make the "/s" superfluous)
HE WAS AVERAGE HEIGHT FOR THE TIME PERIOD!!! (I miss overlysimplified so much)
Those have been tried, but they often tend to get liberated by the CIA. Or in some cases, the KGB / Red Army.
I'm certainly not advocating for toppling other countries' governments, but honestly the fact that so many countries end up not being able to withstand the attacks from outside is kind of a mark against them.
Well, that's the problem with bottom-up government, isn't it? It is better in most ways, but the local empire will invade you at the first chance they get.
If I remember correctly, the fall of the Paris commune to a Franco-German alliance was what led the early Marxists to embrace a centralised system. Of course, that brings its own problems, as power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Rojava wants a few words.
Rojava is doing exactly as I suggested. Spreading the power out. It's a rare bird among the many communist attempts. I was actually going to offer it up as an example.
This is why Xi Jinping lives in a giant gilded castle and any negative thing said anywhere about him is censored, just like every other citizen. Everyone's equal.
Citation fucking needed, do you even know anyone from China?
Just look at "balance power away from 1%" in China, Ruzzia or North Corea. Do you really like it? Or you just read books and not looking at real life examples?
Why is there so much communist propaganda on Lemmy? Could it be that reddit is actually good at filtering out state-sponsored content farms?
Decentralization appeals to leftists, as that's the principle of the ideology, away from bourgeois interests.
I haven't seen evidence of state-sponsored propaganda, though there are people that simp far too hard for China and the CPC on Lemmy though.
You should read capital volume one, it will explain how the problem actually is capitalism
Actually, the problem is homelessness.
The solution is either housing (ethical) or genocide (unethical).
Provision of housing for the poor can be achieved by means of social housing programs. These can exist in both communist and capitalist societies. E.g. the Netherlands is capitalist, but there is almost no homelessness thanks to its social housing program. The few homeless that are present are choosing this way of life and are therefore not part of problem.
People tend to argue that commie blocks look depressing and dystopian but you can actually make very pretty neighborhoods with them.
This is where I live. It's called Oyak Sitesi in Turkey/Antalya and it's a beautiful place with an actual community. Very affordable too. We just did a stability test and they were also very durable to earthquakes.
Just because you're making blocks doesnt also mean that they have to be 20 stories tall either. Here is my old house.
The important parts are paint and maintenance.
Give a commie block a fresh coat of paint every decade or so and they can look good (though I just don't like flat roofs. But that's personal taste.)
But while a somewhat run down european style house can still have some charme for longer (guess I'm biased here) a run down commie block in gray and with cracks in the facade will quickly start to look depressing.
And as they are often chosen for cost reasons inside capitalistic environments, they are often neglected.
So, the problem is not commie blocks, but how they are maintained. And as often we tend to search for the extreme examples if we (dis)like something.
I happen to live in a city that's primarily blocks (or as we call them: Plattenbauten) and honestly, they're pretty good houses. The structure is sound, after some renovations in the 90s and 00s, insulation and comfort are perfectly fine, and the surroundings are usually very green and pleasant.
The only real problem is, that these buildings are somewhat away from the city center due to superior socialist planning, so they are not super attractive for younger people.
I should probably take pictures of freshly-paited commie blocks in my district and post them on lemmyy.
Why do you call them "commie blocks"??
It wasn't communists who came up with the idea of that type of building and it's a common sight in many European countries, for example, which are not communist.
Please, not this again.... Personally, I am a lot in favour of communism. But some people, especially US Americans, have a fundamentally wrong idea about the housing shown in the upper picture.
This is often neither cheap, nor does it reduce homelessness. And it's also not the goal of that kind of rental homes to reduce homelessness.
That is just normal homes of average people in many places.
It's not "cheap housing for everyone".
This is not communist solution, this is half-socialism humant colony solution.
Real communist solutions look like this:
I live in north-east Germany in one of these Blocks (it was firmly renovated tho). It's actually not bad. Most of them are build in Horseshoe shape so you have small parks inside. But it's nearly impossible to hang anything to the wall without proper power tools. EDIT: typos
Those were not built for homeless people.
And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.
So they affect shit volume produced on a toilet.
They were built for the Prolitariat, which homeless folks are quite literally a part of.
That is some good mental gymnastics there…
So if one person picks 1000 apples per day and the second picks 2 apples, then they split apples 501 to each. Good luck convincing the first person that this is good for them
Except we aren't talking about two people, are we? We're talking about entire populations of people.
And when people have their needs met, they are more able to be productive. And they are more likely to believe in the good of the system that supports them, as they can see the tangible results of that system in their daily life. They can see how their contribution to the system benefits them. Making them more likely to be happy to contribute.
Will some percentage of people under-contribute because of laziness? Sure. But who cares? That percentage is small. And we have the technology to compensate many times over now.
Why the hell do we make society more miserable for everyone, forcing everyone to live under the threat of poverty if they don't work, just to force this small percentage to work against their will? Not to mention completely screw over anyone who cannot work for reasons beyond their control, because we subject them to this insane level of scrutiny because we're paranoid that they might just be lazy.
We can choose a cooperative system, or the antagonistic one we currently have, where we are all at each others' throats because of suspicion that someone might be getting something that they "don't deserve".
You still have the problem of misaligned incentives together with the fact that the only way to mitigate it is through coercion. This is why all communism inevitably leads to authoritarianism. The strength of capitalism is that it can absorb and indeed is designed to allow for the fact that humanity's cooperative impulse --due to the fact that we evolved over hundreds of thousands of years to live in small bands of about 30 to 150 people-- cannot work at the level of the modern nation state.
Not really sure what you mean by that. Socialism leads to better alignment of incentives. If everyone is benefitting from the system, contributions to the system are incentivised.
That is the opposite of capitalism, where the individual tries to gain any advantage they can, even at the expense of everyone else. And broad advances and contributions of work benefit very few people, by design. That leads to lower trust, which further entrenches the idea that the individual has to look out for themselves, and is thus incentivised to game to system.
I reject that premise.
So Instead, one person picks 1000 apples, gives them all to the property owner, and then receives enough money to buy 50 apples, yet you'd prefer that over having to split the 1000 apples evenly.
In your example, I'm assuming the first person is a worker and the second person is the boss. That's usually how it goes
And for both situations I would need ask at least one of them "Why do you need so many apples? Why not give some of them to those who need them instead of accumulating them?"
Think about it, you're already living the situation you presented but the person picking two apples is in a managerial position and gets to keep the thousand apples you picked in exchange for the two apples they picked.
This is under the assumption that there is a surplus in society that can satisfy the needs of everyone. Marx’s point is that technological development and industrialization could make this possible. As such, the need to motivate people to work harder is not necessary.
Prior to such a surplus existing, the distribution of goods would be more akin to “From each according to their ability, to each according their contribution”. That ensures people are motivated to maximize their productivity as long as that’s still necessary.
This is disingenuous: the fundamental principle of socialism and Communism is democracy. And, credit where credit is due, capitalism forced us to socialize the production of goods and services (it now takes many people to "produce" anything). Currently, there is no discussion about who gets the profit of socialized labour, it goes to the people who own the workplace, which are rarely the workers.
So, to make your example realistic, you and this other person are part of a community that grows apples (pick any rural community). Together, you all own the fields.
How do you decide what each person gets? You come to a consensus. There are so many variables; is the other person injured?young?sick?old? Or really bad at picking apples? Maybe you are on some apple picking super serum. How do you decide who gets what? The same way people usually do; you decide together.
In your example, having a blanket rule as you suggest would never work, and would be unfair, but it is what happens now in our advanced capitalistic economies. If you pick 1000 apples for a company, how many do you keep? Or more realistically; once the apples are sold, how much of the.profits go to you? You have no choice. You work, get paid, and go home. You work harder and you end up with just about the same amount at the end. The only saving grace is if you work hard enough, one day you might be promoted by the generous owner to a position where you are no longer the poor schmuck who does all the work. But that poor schmuck will always still exist, it's just no longer you.
........I need to write less lol
The fuck you on about?
Yeah, is a bad deal.
But that's not the point, the point of this approach is that like in cooperatives, there are minimum productivity goals and many roles to play, and so on. Obviously like you point out, no one is that stupid.
Now, consider the needs of people who are old or need help. Like helping your old man, I'm sure you don't mind getting more apples. I wouldn't. Like you, I would get angry if I'm the only useful one hahaha, but that what productivity and organization is for. No one lives in a bubble.
Now... What you said, I've seen it happen in capitalism. Not in small businesses, normally the owner is in the store too. I mean when we talk about the big bucks like a better example. They expect you to handle of those apples, and ain't offering you a comfy home neither.
Capitalism has a solution to the tent problem though
UK - The home secretary is proposing new laws to restrict the use of tents by homeless people, arguing that many of them see it as a "lifestyle choice".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67321319
It sure is a lifestyle choice. The choice is the tent or a cardboard box, fucking insensitive assholes.
San Diego already banned camping in the city. The county board of supervisors either has proposed that they do the same or already has.
San Diego county is bigger than two states. They are trying to outlaw homelessness in an area about 65 miles north to south, and roughly the 86 miles east of The Pacific Ocean.
These are almost all Democrats, btw. We didn't vote for Republicans.
Communism's solution to homelessness is mass starvation.
Finland is capitalist and kind of solved homelessness, with there being around only 1.3k homeless people in the entire country (population: 5.6m, which means the rate of homelessness is around 0.02%).
I don't think that communism or any ideology is an answer to homelessness, it's pretty much the job for the government and what kind of systems/reforms they implement.
Finland hasn't really solved anything, as social democracies just push the problems elsewhere
For example?
i reccomend watching this video from 5:53 to 8:31 to see the problems with social democracy https://youtu.be/TRq3pl17C8M?si=Cml7fql--qiRgFT_
Wow, three minutes with that vlogger changed my entire worldview! Thanks, grandpa! /s
You should instead read "Riding the wave" which is a serious book that explains why social democracies rely on imperialism using one case study (Denmark I believe but I haven't read it in forever)
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/TRq3pl17C8M?si=Cml7fql--qiRgFT
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
What a fun imagination you have here!
Thanks, i pride myself on making innovative memes that point out the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism in new and inventive meme formats. Thankfully the glaring hypocrisies of Capitalism have been around for decades giving me plenty of material for OC. /s
Have you tried non fiction?
Lmao what is fictional about this?! Are you saying the homeless camps are fictional? Or are you saying the soviet priotitizing prefabricated apartments to increase housing supply is fictional?
NK making fake buildings like the top image for the illusion of a wealthy nation when the 99% of their nation live in the below image.
Apartment buildings like this aren't that expensive to build, and the concentration of services you can build around them saves a lot of money.
There may have been a time where buildings of this caliber were faked, but I doubt that's the case now
Meme would be more accurate to say European social democratic. .
I live in a capitalist country and we fixed homelessness by building more houses
Building more housing makes the price go down
It should.
It doesn't in the U.S. At least, for the past decade or so
That’s because zoning laws are keeping new houses from being built and causing there to be not enough supply of housing.
Then how do you explain the fact that when you count up the single family, and multi family homes that have sat empty for at least 12 months, you end up with a number that is 72:1 times higher than the homeless population of the US?
We only build luxury housing, and that gets snapped up by investors, and left to sit empty and rot. Meanwhile we have about 1.5 million people that sleep outside, and get harassed by practically everyone.
Yes, this is another issue, with corporations and investors buying up properties as an incestmen. It needs to be stopped as well
How much supply is needed to bring the price down then?
While I agree that in general there is a problem with zoning laws making it all but illegal to build anything other than single family homes, markets work in such a way that the price is based on what people are "willing" to pay. Where a home is a fundamental necessity, this is already problematic. Nevermind the huge increase in access to money (the advent of mortgages and all of the policy surrounding them) driving up the demand side of the equation.
So when the options are: Homelessness (kind of illegal) Renting (very expensive) Buying (even more expensive)
Foregoing any participation in the housing market isn't really an option.
As a side note: the simple supply/demand model is from econ 101, and I really think it's unwise to make decisions based on first year university textbooks.
Of course, the supply of housing is not the only factor. Another is the investors buying up property which you mentioned, and the fact that people selling houses just know that they can get away with high pricing. Both of these need to be fixed, in addition to the low supply of housing.
There is a thing called real state bubble.
Great for the rich and investment firms, not so great for almost everyone else.
Really? It sounds like a bad thing then.
Nice comment, just wish it'd have something to do with my comment
What country?
Finland, it actually was mentioned earlier in the thread.
I am genuinely curious, I couldn't find what Communism did to Finland. There was the civil war between socialist and non- socialists, but this can't be blamed on one ideology over the other, the Soviets invaded southern Finland to "liberate" the "reds" in the south, but this also isn't able to be blamed on Communism, as it was the Soviets. And then Finland sided with the axis powers and attacked the Soviets, including the siege of Leningrad leading to mass suffering and starvation of "communists".
I do not come from Finland so it's hard for me to know much about the history outside of what I can read. I just pulled most of these facts from Wikipedia (a liberal western source), so if you are willing I would appreciate some insight.
Nothing, that's why the country works and it's the sole reason why Finland is the economical and progressive exception to rest of eastern europe. Had Finland been subjected to forms of fascism, such as communism, we too would have to battle for basic human rights (eg. trans rights are non-existant under communist regimes, and unfortunately that sentiment is still rooted in ex-block values) and economical and institutional downturns rest of the old communist block countries are now hard at work at dismantling. It's crazy how destructive one sick ideology can be to a region and it's people.
But yeah, we did - under capitalism - fix homelessness by literally giving housing to everyone who wanted housing.
Forms of Fascism such as Communism. Lmao. Also what Finland has done to eradicate homelessness would be decried as Socialism and Communism in the United States. I love that your Municipalities own housing and views it as a human right and not as a commodity. The free market didn't fix the housing crisis the government did.
Ok? If the definition of communism is whatever Americans decry as socialist/communist, then a whole lotta things are communist.
Your point being? That Finland isn't a capitalist country? That wide social safety nets can't exist within a capitalist society? Real Communism™ are the things capitalist countries do that end up being good, while somehow actual communist countries aren't real communist countries since they ended up shafted? Any other borderline psychotic conclusion you want me to jump to or is this all?
who is upvoting this?
Pls keep your talkie bulshit out of the meme subs. You may be right with this one, but this still isn't a political sub, so just don't.
Don't forget removing benches so that the homeless can't sleep on them (capitalist solution, of course).
Capitalist inovation:
Atleast the building shouldn't be of low quality but most of them are due to corruption and most of the funds are waisted as a result
We haven’t seen a communist solution; they’ve all had governments
ok, so why are there so many people trying to escape these communist paradises you people praise so much? and why so many people want to live in the capitalist hell holes you complain about?
hate both of them
Build more spikes
TBF the communist solution is for homes in general, not just homelessness.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2019/jul/03/great-eastern-bloc-towers-postwar-estates-david-navarro-martyna-sobecka-eastern-europe-concrete
Ah, but one contains millions and the other only hundreds of thousands.
Pull the lever?
Governance has deeper roblems that trace to the top. We are at the bottom.. hell.
Detroit tried this. It didn’t work.
🤔
I have no problem with communism(i think socdem is a better system but thats a discussion for another day) but the moment a tankie here mentions anything about the soviet union being better than capitalism just look up holodomor.
This has to be one of the most horrible tower I have ever seen. Well, every big tower like those are horrible. What, you want big towers like that ? You think that's how we fix the housing crisis ? Not really..
What is good ubanism then ? 4 to 5 story building max, mixed use, no cars, 5minutes walk to everything you need, great architecture so it's nice to walk in the neighborhood. That's what we need. We want human scale, not some horrible bullshit like this. That's not a city, it's a nightmare. That's not beautiful, that's depressing. That's not great architecture, that's just some concrete box stacked on top of each other. If this is what you want, read about ubanism. If you think this is beautiful, you probably have horrible taste. And if you think that's needed, well, that would be like applying a bandaid on someone that lost his legs. We need a fucking surgery to fix our cities, not that bullshit "let's build horrible concrete tower that will ruin the land for decades.l, because housing crisis".
Well, I hate mmunism as much as the next Eastern European but this is absolutely true. Commie blocks rule.
You know a lot of soviet buildings was built by prison labor? Let's make a next meme about egyptian pyramids. They look great too.
Way more shit is done with prison labor in the US. I guarantee. We have 25% of the prison population of the world, and the USSR had a tendency to send a massive amount of their prisoners to Siberia, which would make it difficult to help build apartment blocks several thousand miles away.
What's with that whataboutism? I don't care about the US. Why do your type brings it up every time, like it makes USSR's wrongdoings more acceptable. It doesn't. It's rather a lesson to learn and not repeat in your country.
So? They built infrastructure there, yes, so it's enormous territory can be somehow crossable. And they also built infrastructure, housing and plants\factories all over it's territory. Gulag wasn't just a one small camp, it's the Main Office of Camp (Managenent), it had a lot of people to send elsewhere, based on what Kremlin wants.
Now that is what I call a truely amazing meme for showing the amazing capitalism abilities!
This is indeed correct but it had dark side, like taking away people's business or limited freedom of speech.
Hey OP, comunistm is great on paper because it doesn't take into consideration the human nature. Humans are corruptible, no matter who, and even the best of us would be corrupted when it comes to someone they love. This alone breaks the comunist stance because you can't have fairness when one human is responsable for managing/governing. Comunism would work if there was no hierarchy between humans, no one more powerful. Maybe if some aliens come or if some AI evolve enough to govern, but that's is not today's world
Edit: I do think the US level of captalism is horrible. Maybe begin with just SOME socialist policies, like free healthcare and univesities, that would already improve so much the lifes of americans
This is the definition of a dictatorship, not communism
True, also the only exemple of comunism ever
I don't think that adding capitalism to dictatorships improves anything though.
Communism/Capitalism/Socialism = Economic Ideas
Dictatorship/Monarchy/Democracy = Political Systems
Hey Commenter, it sounds like you only have a surface level understanding of Communism, i suggest you read some theory. Communism very much takes human greed into account, its kind of its whole point.
You are right I really don't, but not all theory translates well into reality. How would a country of milions manage all that without hierarchy? I'm not going against you I'm just trying to understand how would this work without a dictatorship and considering that humans are not trustworthy
Agreed! That's why I think it would be better if the workers ran things, instead of a few corrupt CEOs.
I would say that you have left your society and government open to the inevitably of corruption when you place the power in one person's hands. I've been advocating for elected councils to run the system. It's not impossible to corrupt an elected council, one needs look no further than the US Congress, or whatever they call the CCP massive room of people. I would propose that just having a council is not enough, one also needs to have a more robust voting system such as Ranked Choice Voting, or another runoff system so that you don't end up with a choice between two shit sandwiches. We also need to abolish policing, as it is currently done, as a career. I'm not certain how to fix this one, and perhaps we can't without actual incorruptible androids and AI.
The real issue is that we the people have tried to implement these changes only for the rich old fossils to refuse the will of the people. Just look at what is happening with Measure 1&2 in Ohio.
I don't think there is an imediate solution. Humams can not be trusted with power, it's human nature. I see only 2 ways, either someone/thing else does it or, a more realistic one, technology becomes so powerful that we can manage the managers, monitoring their actions/choices (and voting?! maybe?!) Idk, but remember that tech is a sword and not a knife, if it monitors them.they would also monitor us.
Anyway there is no simple solution. Captalism as is today and comunism as is today are both bad options.
Too bad that to have homelessness in the first place you usually require communists doing their communist shit.
Yes, because the mentally ill and the old and the unlucky deserve the tents.
Yes in Communism you would have to live in a building instead of being a bumbling idiot looking for your bootstraps to pull up in a tent underneath an overpass, while Capitalism builds luxury high rises your dumbass will never set foot in. People arent homeless because they are unskilled or lazy, they are homeless due to Material Conditions outside of their control.
Nice try, but that's a material condition resulting from living under late stage capitalism.
Surface level understanding of theory is surface level.
i hit you with real world examples and you give me buzzwords
"A 2021 study from the University of Chicago estimates that 53% of people living in homeless shelters and 40% of unsheltered people were employed." Most homeless folks have jobs and lose them due to worsening Material Conditions. Facts dont care about yohr feelings. source
Why do you think people go to drugs, most of the time it's because their life was already bad and the drugs just made it worse. Yes, there is a percentage of people that are lazy but it is only a small margin of homeless people. There is enough well researched material on youtube about these topics on youtube. If the system doesn't help homeless people at all it will not get better even for the people that aren't lazy and their life just didn't go the right way or they were exploited at their workplace to a point that they couldn't afford living anymore.
Just because the concept of capitalism says it is possible to "work" your way to the top doesnt mean it is happening, almost every single rich person got their wealth by some means of exploitation of other people
Citation needed
"Most research shows that around 1/3 of people who are homeless have problems with alcohol and/or drugs, and around 2/3 of these people have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders"
https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/homeless
So most homeless habe jobs and most homeless dont have substance abuse issues. Lmao you must be a few crayons short of a full box.
You provided a source that says most of the homeless people are unemployed (53% of sheltered and 40% of sheltered have jobs). I provided a source that says 2/3 of homeless people have a history of drug and alcohol abuse. Do you not know what the words "most" and "majority" mean?
As someone who just read over these comments: Your reading comprehension sucks.
Your own source says 1/3 of homeless have problems with alcohol/drugs. So 2/3 don't.
Of those 1/3 with problems 2/3 have lifetime histories of drug or alcohol use disorders.
YOUR source said only 1/3 have a current substance abuse issue. And my source said that 53% of homeless folks in shelters have jobs while 40% of unsheltered folks have jobs. Most homeless folks start out using shelters and then transition to living on the street as they loss hope and ergo lose employment as their Material Conditions worsen. I am done arguing with your surface level understanding of a complex crisis. I pray you and yours never experience the crushing hopelessness that is living on the street and not knowing where you will rest your head.
No one chooses to be a drug addict or an alcoholic, you cretin.
So you proved yourself wrong. Congrats.
how? 2/3 of people fucking up their life with drugs is a majority
The statistic says 1/3 of homeless population has issues with drugs/alcohol, and 2/3 of that 1/3 (or 2/9) have lifetime histories of abuse...
Your task is not to prove that drugs exist in the homeless community. For your point of them "fucking their lives up with drugs" to be true, you have to prove that their personal drug use was the catalyst for their living conditions. Do that or take the L.
And to check yourself, you might want to look up the prevalence of drug use in more affluent communities. Hint: it's a lot.
So even if you're right, you'd condemn the other 1/3rd to homelessness to spite the others? People that made bad decisions are still people. I hope you've never made any bad decisions...
Also, you're condemning entire communities. People in desperate situations often have to turn to crime. Paying for their incarceration (or healthcare for that matter) COSTS MORE THAN JUST PROVIDING FOR THEIR BASIC NEEDS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Your stance is stupid, cruel, and shortsighted.
A third of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. On average people spend a third of their paycheck on housing. That's not a lot of room for any kind of bad situations before they become homeless. It can be something completely out of their control like a car running a light and killing their mother which sends then into depression.
Listen, I'm no tankie by any means (in the libsoc camp) but that representation on who calls themselves a communist is so bias and obviously full of venom and spite.
Are there some lazy people who like communism? Yea. There are also some lazy people that heavily push capitalism. Being lazy doesn't predispose you to a certain economic belief structure.
That's reductive.