Maybe this is a good place to ask this, as I always think about it. I am all in favor of abolishing this nightmare of late stage capitalism and coporate ownership of government. However, how do you explain that any other form wont take away from those of us who are (admittedly lucky) home/land owners, that actually are sitting fine ? Those people don’t want to give up what they have so someone in an apartment can have more. Think of it this way: you have an acre of land you worked for, it wasn’t given. Someone else has a 2 bedroom apartment they also worked for. For reason (either laziness, or unfortunately events) the apartment owner can’t save enough for a house/land. Maybe their mental capability is maxed out (be honest, we know people like this) and they can’t get more schooling etc. Under a socialist system, it seems like anyone with their house/land would be forced to give it up and live in blocs of apartments, which no one I know actually wants. This is just one example. But it’s something that I feel like will always hold the US back from socialism, because those that currently have “the dream” don’t want it to be taken. Now, people living in shacks that vote for Musk because the immigrants will take their jerbs, those people are idiots. But I’m talking about people who work full time and are decently well off, probably have a decent amount in stocks etc. Those people don’t want corporations destroying us, but they also don’t want full socialism.
Socialism is not about equal wealth, or punishing labor. People have different needs and thus equal wealth is in fact unequal.
The Soviet bloc-style apartments were largely a response to the utter devastation of World War II, and a need to address vast demand for homes. Socialism does not need to burn down existing housing in order to make new ones (unless particularly necessary).
Even though the US working class is privledged and bribed by the ruling class with the spoils from Imperialism, the vast oceans of wealth are in the hands of the big bourgeoisie. Rather than forcibly redistributing the property of the small owners, the large ones would be the focus, and gradually building up the working class is the method.
No problem! And for what it’s worth, Marxism is demonized everywhere outside of AES countries, like Cuba and the PRC. We can’t really vote Marxism in in the US, either, even without the 2 party system. Marxists have spend centuries testing what works and what doesn’t, and ultimately revolution has proven to be the most proven method. More on that in the reading list!
This is part of the myth of scarcity. There is currently already enough housing for everyone. It’s capitalism that’s keeping people out of it.
Many of these places have been left to rot by landlords that would rather let them sit empty than charge an affordable rent, or perform necessary maintenance. A big part of housing everyone would be using reallocated resources to refurbish dilapidated properties. That’s why we want to tax the rich
I agree. I still think regular peiple would view that as “the government stealing their property” though. For example i know a few people who buy places and fix them up to rent out. Are you saying they should get their properties taken away?
If you’re only referring to billionaires and corporations buying housing, i agree. But if any laws were put into place, we know how it always goes, it would only affect those regular Joe’s renting properties, and theyd further hate the government for too much regulation. I see no way to possibly stop the rich from buying all housing.
For example i know a few people who buy places and fix them up to rent out. Are you saying they should get their properties taken away?
Treating housing as a commodity is part of the problem for sure. I believe all humans have a right to safe shelter. No one’s income should come before another person’s life.
That said,
If you’re only referring to billionaires and corporations buying housing, i agree.
This would be the practical way to do it anyway. Some guy that rents out a ski chalet isn’t commiting some terrible crime. It’s charging people to live in their own homes that’s wrong.
Maybe this is a good place to ask this, as I always think about it. I am all in favor of abolishing this nightmare of late stage capitalism and coporate ownership of government. However, how do you explain that any other form wont take away from those of us who are (admittedly lucky) home/land owners, that actually are sitting fine ? Those people don’t want to give up what they have so someone in an apartment can have more. Think of it this way: you have an acre of land you worked for, it wasn’t given. Someone else has a 2 bedroom apartment they also worked for. For reason (either laziness, or unfortunately events) the apartment owner can’t save enough for a house/land. Maybe their mental capability is maxed out (be honest, we know people like this) and they can’t get more schooling etc. Under a socialist system, it seems like anyone with their house/land would be forced to give it up and live in blocs of apartments, which no one I know actually wants. This is just one example. But it’s something that I feel like will always hold the US back from socialism, because those that currently have “the dream” don’t want it to be taken. Now, people living in shacks that vote for Musk because the immigrants will take their jerbs, those people are idiots. But I’m talking about people who work full time and are decently well off, probably have a decent amount in stocks etc. Those people don’t want corporations destroying us, but they also don’t want full socialism.
There are a few important things, here.
Socialism is not about equal wealth, or punishing labor. People have different needs and thus equal wealth is in fact unequal.
The Soviet bloc-style apartments were largely a response to the utter devastation of World War II, and a need to address vast demand for homes. Socialism does not need to burn down existing housing in order to make new ones (unless particularly necessary).
Even though the US working class is privledged and bribed by the ruling class with the spoils from Imperialism, the vast oceans of wealth are in the hands of the big bourgeoisie. Rather than forcibly redistributing the property of the small owners, the large ones would be the focus, and gradually building up the working class is the method.
If you want an intro Marxist-Leninist reading list, I have one here.
Nice, thanks for that.
It’s amazing how this is demonized in American culture. Really makes one think.
Now, to get rid of the 2 party system…
No problem! And for what it’s worth, Marxism is demonized everywhere outside of AES countries, like Cuba and the PRC. We can’t really vote Marxism in in the US, either, even without the 2 party system. Marxists have spend centuries testing what works and what doesn’t, and ultimately revolution has proven to be the most proven method. More on that in the reading list!
This is part of the myth of scarcity. There is currently already enough housing for everyone. It’s capitalism that’s keeping people out of it.
Many of these places have been left to rot by landlords that would rather let them sit empty than charge an affordable rent, or perform necessary maintenance. A big part of housing everyone would be using reallocated resources to refurbish dilapidated properties. That’s why we want to tax the rich
I agree. I still think regular peiple would view that as “the government stealing their property” though. For example i know a few people who buy places and fix them up to rent out. Are you saying they should get their properties taken away?
If you’re only referring to billionaires and corporations buying housing, i agree. But if any laws were put into place, we know how it always goes, it would only affect those regular Joe’s renting properties, and theyd further hate the government for too much regulation. I see no way to possibly stop the rich from buying all housing.
Treating housing as a commodity is part of the problem for sure. I believe all humans have a right to safe shelter. No one’s income should come before another person’s life.
That said,
This would be the practical way to do it anyway. Some guy that rents out a ski chalet isn’t commiting some terrible crime. It’s charging people to live in their own homes that’s wrong.