I’m enough of a socdem that the hexbear types ban me at first sight when I comment in their communities, but I’m still of the opinion that everyone is entitled to have A home. Something that is reasonably sized given the location, and there may be compromises in location itself (not everyone is going to fit in Manhattan after all). So an apartment in NYC or a single family home in flyover states somewhere. This is just using the US as an example because it’s so culturally dominant, I think everyone knows what NYC is like. Everyone should be able to live in a home that affords them basic human dignity.
Now rich people can still have their mansions or whatever, but they’ll have to pay for the privilege. The rest of us, if content with the aforementioned social housing, wouldn’t have to pay. There would still be premium developments. Premium apartments or houses to rent or buy. But there would be no more profiting off the working class’s basic need for shelter.
I’m a hexbear type and your take is quite reasonable, but I’d just say you’re very, very far to the left compared to a socdem. If you think universal housing is an imperative, you probably already share more with the hexbear types than with the .world types, just my two cents.
I do still support some aspects of capitalism and the free market. I’m of the opinion that society should guarantee everyone the basics and then those who want can build extra wealth for all I care. Just not through outright exploitation.
I don’t know if there’s a specific label for my beliefs, as I’m not too into political theory.
I’m not gonna go all Marxist on you regarding the exploitation of the workers by capitalists in the Marxist sense, but I’ll ask you this: what about the people in the global south? Do you believe that countries in South America, Africa, Middle East or South-East Asia are being exploited by the western world?
Well, obviously. But then we run into the whole issue of trade. If there’s no free trade, the people in those areas would have nobody to sell goods to, which is developing their economies. But under free trade, foreign capital exploits them.
In a way, it’s up to their own governments to protect their people from foreign capitalists. We here in the west/north/whatever can’t force that. But that’s easier said than done in a lot of places. They need to have their own money to build their own nations, but where do you get said money into your country unless you have oil, diamonds or other expensive resources that also attract bloodsuckers?
I suspect that the only workable solution is some sort of international fund that provides resources to poor nations and everyone pays into it. Kind of like here in the EU - richer countries pay more than they receive in benefits, but since it builds up the strength of the EU, they still end up benefiting. Thing is, acceptance into EU requires meeting some standards. Said global fund would also need to have standards for the nations they help - to make sure it’s not all wasted on corrupt warlords in the government. But then who helps the people in those countries?
It’s honestly an issue nobody wants to think about, myself included. How do you help people in those places? How do you force education and wealth on a backwards ass country?
If there’s no free trade, the people in those areas would have nobody to sell goods to, which is developing their economies
The main argument against this is that these areas are not developing. Take the famous Steven Pinker graphs of poverty reduction worldwide, and extract China from them: look at poverty numbers in the world without including China. You’ll see that poverty isn’t being relieved outside China, I.e. these countries aren’t really developing. They’re selling their resources for cheap and obtaining essentially nothing in return. This is known in Marxist economics as “unequal exchange” and I highly encourage you to read on it if you’re interested on the reasons for the underdevelopment of the global south. The wikipedia article itself is a good starting point.
The rest of your comment hinges on this crucial point of assuming theyre actually developing, that’s why I’m only answering to this point.
If you read the rest of my comment, I acknowledged that foreign capitalists are taking all the profit. The question is, what’s the solution? Because any local leadership in such a country, whether left or right wing, is likely to be corrupt and serving their own interests over that of the people.
any local leadership in such a country, whether left or right wing, is likely to be corrupt and serving their own interests over that of the people.
Well, my position as a communist is that the local leadership should be supported on popular grassroots movements, which will no doubt spawn in these countries eventually as they did naturally in Iran with Mosaddeq, in Cuba with Fidel, or in China with Mao. Of course, only socialist leaders fight to improve the actual living conditions of the people, which is why all poverty alleviation in the past half a century comes from China, which took 800 million people out of poverty and extreme poverty.
But there must be ads on every inch of the house until you purchase premium. Cmon, you can’t just exist without suffering. What would be the point of life, if not torture?
I’m enough of a socdem that the hexbear types ban me at first sight when I comment in their communities, but I’m still of the opinion that everyone is entitled to have A home. Something that is reasonably sized given the location, and there may be compromises in location itself (not everyone is going to fit in Manhattan after all). So an apartment in NYC or a single family home in flyover states somewhere. This is just using the US as an example because it’s so culturally dominant, I think everyone knows what NYC is like. Everyone should be able to live in a home that affords them basic human dignity.
Now rich people can still have their mansions or whatever, but they’ll have to pay for the privilege. The rest of us, if content with the aforementioned social housing, wouldn’t have to pay. There would still be premium developments. Premium apartments or houses to rent or buy. But there would be no more profiting off the working class’s basic need for shelter.
I’m a hexbear type and your take is quite reasonable, but I’d just say you’re very, very far to the left compared to a socdem. If you think universal housing is an imperative, you probably already share more with the hexbear types than with the .world types, just my two cents.
I do still support some aspects of capitalism and the free market. I’m of the opinion that society should guarantee everyone the basics and then those who want can build extra wealth for all I care. Just not through outright exploitation.
I don’t know if there’s a specific label for my beliefs, as I’m not too into political theory.
I’m not gonna go all Marxist on you regarding the exploitation of the workers by capitalists in the Marxist sense, but I’ll ask you this: what about the people in the global south? Do you believe that countries in South America, Africa, Middle East or South-East Asia are being exploited by the western world?
Well, obviously. But then we run into the whole issue of trade. If there’s no free trade, the people in those areas would have nobody to sell goods to, which is developing their economies. But under free trade, foreign capital exploits them.
In a way, it’s up to their own governments to protect their people from foreign capitalists. We here in the west/north/whatever can’t force that. But that’s easier said than done in a lot of places. They need to have their own money to build their own nations, but where do you get said money into your country unless you have oil, diamonds or other expensive resources that also attract bloodsuckers?
I suspect that the only workable solution is some sort of international fund that provides resources to poor nations and everyone pays into it. Kind of like here in the EU - richer countries pay more than they receive in benefits, but since it builds up the strength of the EU, they still end up benefiting. Thing is, acceptance into EU requires meeting some standards. Said global fund would also need to have standards for the nations they help - to make sure it’s not all wasted on corrupt warlords in the government. But then who helps the people in those countries?
It’s honestly an issue nobody wants to think about, myself included. How do you help people in those places? How do you force education and wealth on a backwards ass country?
The main argument against this is that these areas are not developing. Take the famous Steven Pinker graphs of poverty reduction worldwide, and extract China from them: look at poverty numbers in the world without including China. You’ll see that poverty isn’t being relieved outside China, I.e. these countries aren’t really developing. They’re selling their resources for cheap and obtaining essentially nothing in return. This is known in Marxist economics as “unequal exchange” and I highly encourage you to read on it if you’re interested on the reasons for the underdevelopment of the global south. The wikipedia article itself is a good starting point.
The rest of your comment hinges on this crucial point of assuming theyre actually developing, that’s why I’m only answering to this point.
If you read the rest of my comment, I acknowledged that foreign capitalists are taking all the profit. The question is, what’s the solution? Because any local leadership in such a country, whether left or right wing, is likely to be corrupt and serving their own interests over that of the people.
Well, my position as a communist is that the local leadership should be supported on popular grassroots movements, which will no doubt spawn in these countries eventually as they did naturally in Iran with Mosaddeq, in Cuba with Fidel, or in China with Mao. Of course, only socialist leaders fight to improve the actual living conditions of the people, which is why all poverty alleviation in the past half a century comes from China, which took 800 million people out of poverty and extreme poverty.
But there must be ads on every inch of the house until you purchase premium. Cmon, you can’t just exist without suffering. What would be the point of life, if not torture?
To maximise shareholder value of course!
That sounds great, devil’s advocate want to know how we do get projects.