This is fundamentally false.
While it is true that there was inexpensive housing available in the USSR, and that rents were quite reasonable compared to anything that currently exists in the US, and people couldn’t readily be evicted if they lacked the ability to pay, it’s a flat-out lie to say that that was the “solution” to homelessness, or that it eliminated the problem. Rather, the USSR criminalized being homeless and not being engaged in socially-productive labor; people that were homeless ended up in prisons and were labelled as parasites. The problem that we have now is that the official records simply didn’t record the problem, in much the same way that Stalin had histories and photos revised to eliminate people that had become enemies of the state.
Rather, the USSR criminalized being homeless and not being engaged in socially-productive labor; people that were homeless ended up in prisons and were labelled as parasites.
Swap USSR with USA and the statement remains true. Though Im sure the degree of severity was much greater in the USSR.
That’s kind of true in some parts of the US, indirectly. Some places criminalize not being homeless but all the things that are the result of being homeless like sleeping outside or in public places. But there are a lot of places in the US that do provide for the homeless. New York City has a right to housing provision, for example.
If homeless people go to prison in this country, why have I never seen one arrested? Why are they … not in prison but rather sleeping on the street?
I’m not sure what you’re trying to claim here, as what you’re claiming is obviously false based on my day to day experience in the US
You have a very simplistic view of what it means for something to be criminalized.
deleted by creator
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
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
I’m a big fan of capitalism, but I appreciate your comment nonetheless. To me there’s nothing anti capitalist about sharing or wanting to take care of the people around you.
Capitalism is about taking everything you can, to act as a balance against everyone else doing the same, because the fundamental assumption is that greed is the natural state for people and we shouldn’t try to fight it. Under capitalism, competition doesn’t just apply to businesses in markets, it extends to everything: people must compete with those around them for resources (be it jobs, or food, or retirement investments), making human connection a primarily adversarial relationship.
Now nothing says that you must apply capitalist principals to every aspect of your life if you live in a capitalist society, but it slowly becomes the norm. Eventually, the reason people take care of eachother because is indirectly benefits themselves, rather than because its a good thing to do… And when that’s your justification, it’s easy to stop doing it.
It’s all about establishing norms about how people should treat eachother. Under capitalism the norm is adviseraial by design, but under communist it was supposed to be cooperative. It didn’t even up working that way, but that is the ideal we should strive towards.
Edit: fix typos
I think a lot of people don’t want to admit that most political ideas ranging from communism to capitalism are half baked labels we stick onto a collection of beliefs about what works best to solve certain problems. If you got rid of the labels you might just ask the question of what works and where the money will come from
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.
deleted
I’m just laughing to myself about the thought of Reddit being primarily capitalist. Lol
It’s a for-profit, Capitalist business that runs it, ergo its Capitalist. The user base is largely liberal, which is still pro-Capitalism. You tend to see more Anarchists and Communists on Lemmy by proportion.
Heads up, this guy is a troll. His sole, self declared purpose is to be an asshole and pick fights. Not worth engaging
I don’t believe you. This sounds like the sort of thing a person could say to poison the well against someone else, unless someone demands proof.
So where is this statement of purpose?
Also, some of his other greatest hits include denying that the holocaust was so bad because “not all the jews died”, outright claiming that “Fossil fuels are recyclable” in a single sentence comment in a debate about why he thinks evs are bullshit, and laying out an explicit violent fantasy about magdumping into a theoretical person who might strike him for any reason.
One of his most recent comments just says, “violence has never not worked”
Do go read some of his exchanges for yourself and determine if I’m just poisoning the well.
I was born into this world for no other reason than to be intolerant towards self righteous idiots like yourself who do more harm than good with their naive infantile worldview.
Also if you pulled your head out of your ass, you’d notice I’ve been pretty tolerant of your stupidity, but it can only go so far. I’m not trying to sound less shitty either, I simply added more to my reply, the reasons as to why that you made up in your head aren’t my problem to deal with.
In the end, people like you end up full fascist psychopaths who kill people they don’t like because that’s better than allowing people to say things you don’t like.
The self righteous part in question that he’s born to be against, is literally just claiming to be tolerant. Not bludgeoning people with tolerance, not using tolerance as a weapon to silence people as he claims. Just labeling oneself “tolerant”, and the general idea of tolerance. He also spent several comments doubling down. Maybe go read the exchange and see for yourself?
Noted!
It’s not so much the existence of bad communism that indicates communism is a structurally bad thing, quite so much as the utter lack of good communism that indicates communism is a structurally bad thing.
That’s certainly enough to form a hypothesis, but far, far from proof against it. There aren’t any “good” developing countries either.
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.
We have never seen an actual communist country. USSR for example was a fascist dictatorship which runs directly counter to the first property of communism, it must be stateless.
Facists like the Nazis like to claim they are for the people and sadly the only “communism” we’ve seen so far has been carried out by their hands. This is similar to how Nazis were supposedly progressive… Hopefully we can agree that is obviously not the case.
https://jewishcurrents.org/the-double-genocide-theory
Don’t call communists fascists please. This is an article from a mainstream holocaust historian that explains why a related equation between the two is harmful.
I would also recommend reading “economy and class structure of german fascism” so you have a better idea of what fascism actually means.
I’d say the fact that leftist socialist or communist movements keep decaying into authoritarian dictatorships is a pretty big weakness of communism, actually. I think Western capitalist countries are not perfect by any means, but they’re winning the quality of life game, even of poor people.
Not decaying. The Nazis were always fascist they put on a front of being progressive to ganrner support which worked quite well as we can tell from history. By the time it became obvious they weren’t really progressive they were already in power.
The Cuban people literally joke that the government should be less democratic because of how much they consult the people, I dont think it is an authoritarian dictatorship and it is under immense pressure as it is 70 miles away from the imperial core and has been effectively blockaded for 60 years or so.
Sure, different ones have different levels of dictorshipness. To be clear, democratic and authoritarian are not opposites at all. Chattel slavery in the US was extremely authoritarian and awful, yet it was democratic. Abolition was a minority viewpoint until around the time of the Civil War.
Grass is greener on the other side
“They took my father’s slaves!”
Shut the fuck up, colonizer.
deleted by creator
how old were you when the USSR fell? Did you experience communism, or the capitalist takeover after communism fell?
You need to tell your story more, and include the feelings, and include how the communist policies did that destruction.
People like communism because they don’t know your story.
deleted by creator
What Country?
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.
This is capitalist solution to homelessness
I love the top one, because it’s the same way they deal with pigeons. They see poor people as just another pest.
Personally I’ve never seen the spikes or anything that horrific in Canada. But fuck do those stupid bench “armrests” ever piss me off
There are much more examples, search hostile architecture or hostile urbanism
The nicest
This was an art exhibit by Fabian Brunsing, not a real thing used in cities.
I have also found this out, although it describes the general idea of capitalism very well. The actual architecture and street furniture solutions are not much better either, as can be seen in the other images.
Don’t they want people to sit on the park bench? That looks uncomfortable as even just general seating.
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.
100% couldn’t agree more.
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.
deleted by creator
Why did Napoleon take power after the French Revolution if Capitalism doesn’t have dictators every time a revolution occurs?
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?
But I want to defend my -ism
Name checks out lol
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.
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.
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”.
In the 2000s and onwards yes. Because often these were sold to private investors in the capitalization of former communist/socialist countries.
At the time when they were built they did provide a great improvement in housing, especially as most of eastern Europe has been terrible destroyed by the Nazis.
Not in the UK. Our government is looking to ban the tents next. That’ll fix the homeless issue 😕
deleted by creator
Those were not built for homeless people.
They were built for the Prolitariat, which homeless folks are quite literally a part of.
That is some good mental gymnastics there…
No duh, they were built to be very affordable so you wouldn’t have as many homeless people. It’s incredible that you thought that answer was somehow insightful
They were built to be affordable for working class and had nothing to do with homelesness… Communists/socialists did not acknowledge existence of homelessness because it would mean party admitting of making a mistake or system being flawed.
Affordable and available housing has everything to do with homelessness though, it’s one of the best ways to actually keep people from becoming homeless in the first place. If more people can afford a place to live, less people will be homeless. Won’t fix all of it but a huge chunk anyhow
I have no idea if or how much old Eastern Bloc countries lied about the number of homeless. I wouldn’t be surprised at all, but I haven’t seen any studies or statistics about this so I can’t assume they were all lying or that the situation was universally worse than in Western countries.
But that was no goal of communist party at all. It is only your justification for this meme and proving your point about current capitalism.
And yet they still would affect the rate of homelessness.
So they affect shit volume produced on a toilet.
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.
“Darn that’s a lot of tents, this is starting to become a real problem. Better build more rental properties.”
deleted by creator
“Add more spikes. The skulls… Maybe later.”
As a matter of fact yes. More housing supply would be a good thing for all Americans.
Not if it gets snapped up by corporate landlords who proceed to sit on them empty. More empty homes than homeless.
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.
“Get politics out of my entertainment” is a literal nazi talking point.
Tf? Politics are currently pretty difficult and I am spending way to much of my time discussing it. Excuse me for just wanting to see a few bad memes on a meme sub and not slide into the next discussion. I don’t even know what to answer to bullshit like this. You know what also was “literal nazi talking point”? Food. Sex. Drugs. After all they are still human and a human is defined by more than just their ideology.
Don’t make me get that 10 minute alt-right “get politics out of my video games” youtube video. Neither of us want that.
We haven’t seen a communist solution; they’ve all had governments
The USSR and CCP were/are Marxist states. Saying they weren’t is just a cope from American socialists who feel the need to defend leftism anywhere, presumably because dumbasses think all socialists need to answer for every flaw while capitalism always has “context.”
Regardless, they, and various social democracies, did do something America refuses to, solve homelessness and hunger (after some… Initial difficulties).
I don’t particularly like the concept of the welfare state but it’s better than nothing and union busting.
Do the leader of those countries hold more power than the worker?
If so then there is a class struggle and you can’t consider it
This post is retarded but there is a nice middleground that works well for us europeans as well. There are more options than the extremes.
I find that most people talking about the “extremes” tend to not be able to define what, exactly, they find so terrible about the idea that the workers should be the primary beneficiaries of their work.
Because that’s all left/right is. If you want to talk about the pitfalls of Marxist-themed authoritarianism I’m all ears but it isn’t “extreme socialism” anymore than fascism or an absolute monarchy is “extreme capitalism.”
And, just for the record, the wealth gap is growing faster in Scandinavia than America. The ruling classes might deign to take care of the most vulnerable but the model doesn’t actually solve the underlying problems, it just treats the most severe symptoms.
Which is better than nothing, I’ll take a ruling class that believes in noblesse oblige over one that does not, but the cancer remains. The system funnels wealth to the owner class, it can not do anything else without breaking.
Europe also benefits from literally trillions of dollars a year in net wealth extracted from the global south.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X
In a communist society i would most likely have to live in a building like that, in capitalism i can use my skills and effort to earn money for a nice home. Only the lazy, unskilled people want communism.
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.
Most of them fucked up their life with drugs, it’s their own fault
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
Their own fault? That’s the dumbest thing I’ve read today. Yeah because most home less people are in that situation ONLY because of their own choices, not bad circumstances, right?
Like people affected by natural disasters… 🌧 🌧 🔥 🌳🔥 who had their homes destroyed and couldn’t afford to rebuild - welp- MUST BE DRUG ADDICTION
Aside, even if it is addiction, why are those people undeserving of help now? Just because there are callus jerrks who don’t care about other humans generally, doesn’t mean we’re all like that. Grow some compassion, eh?
Try to indulge me, as I try to humanize the people you are talking about in a way that might resonate with you.
Imagine you work 40hrs a week, getting paid minimum wage or next to minimum wage, the housing market continues to worsen around you as rent continues to increase but wages don’t. If you have a place already and are just barely scraping by living paycheck to paycheck, which a lot of people are these days. One small bad financial day from an emergency or unexpected cost and you’re screwed. You miss your rent payment and you get evicted. Now, if you don’t have a safety net of people, which we can’t guarantee everyone does have living family or friends that will take you in for a month while you get back on your feet, you become homeless. You get fired from work because you’ve taken too many unpaid days off to try and get your life sorted so you don’t have to sleep on the streets. Now you can’t get another job because most places won’t hire you without an address, and collecting unemployment becomes difficult because if you have no address and no direct deposit you can’t get it mailed to you to claim.
As for the drugs that you say they have chosen to ruin their lives with, a pack of cigarettes, a small bag of weed, some opiates, or alcohol costs a whole lot less than rent for a month or even a motel room for the night.
The financial and housing situation for a lot of people out there in the world is really fragile, and if you add on other issues that I didn’t list such as mental health issues, lack of education or job experience with any education you have, or existing addiction, it can really add up and make it so your going from sleeping in a small bachelor’s apartment one night to sleeping on a park bench the next.
I don’t fully ascribe to the concept of communism myself (it’s a good label for most folks but I’m too picky about nitty gritty stuff so say I like it when I would want to adjust a few things about it), but I definitely think social housing is how you fix homelessness. Cities and states / provinces waste more money dealing with homelessness the way they do now then just building them socialized housing.
Yes, because the mentally ill and the old and the unlucky deserve the tents.
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.
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”.
If I was living in a tent under an overpass, I’d LOVE to move into a building like that.
It’s a prison.
What’s the good urbanist response to homelessness?
Less fucking road, less cars, more co-op housing. Leta stop wasting space for cars, and use that space for mixed use housing.
hate both of them
deleted by creator
