Communion Posted July 16 Author Posted July 16 (edited) 23 minutes ago, VOSS said: In case the revolution doesn't come I'd prefer to fix the barriers to housing supply under our current system 33 minutes ago, Communion said: Would we advocate that Nestle controlling more natural water sources is the only way to get clean water to more people? Should one advocate for the building of charter schools because they're at least still expanding access to education? I'm not sure this addresses the above! Edited July 16 by Communion
byzantium Posted July 16 Posted July 16 7 hours ago, Communion said: De-commodifying housing is the process in which housing is made a public utility under the responsibility of the government. Would we advocate that Nestle controlling more natural water sources is the only way to get clean water to more people? Should one advocate for the building of charter schools because they're at least still expanding access to education? I already know where these conversations go. At the end of the day, YIMBYism and NIMBYism are sectarian identity labels that don't actually address a socialist view of housing. To be a leftist, one has to acknowledge that housing is an inherently material need for survival that people are entitled to and thus must be de-commodified. Sectarian cultural movements like being a YIMBY or a NIMBY are two sides of the same capitalist coin that don't acknowledge the leftist perspective. Of course not everyone is a socialist! But it's also not surprising that people who don't support exploiting poor people then don't believe in market housing. I'm well aware of what the de-commodifying concept is. What I disagree on is a few points: (1) you are more likely to achieve de commodification through advocating for less restrictive zoning. (2) I don't think it's a very socialist position to take a position that actively restricts people's ability to have "an inherently material need for survival that people are entitled to" (3) It is possible to be a socialist and not let their ideology come before actually achieving the world one wants to see. That mentality is all a bit too coastal.
Virgos Groove Posted July 17 Posted July 17 On 7/16/2024 at 5:24 AM, Communion said: I'm not sure this addresses the above! I get what you mean and agree that housing shouldn't be commodified, but what exactly is the plan then? I'm asking this in good-faith because I really doubt we're having a socialist revolution in the West anytime soon and it looks like electoral politics are a dead-end too.
Communion Posted July 17 Author Posted July 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Virgos Groove said: I get what you mean and agree that housing shouldn't be commodified, but what exactly is the plan then? I'm not sure what needs explaining, genuinely. New housing should simply be under.the domain of the government and not through for-profit mechanisms. Programs to subsidize rent and which heavily regulate the landlord in private housing should continually work to be expanded. It feels like people either are unfamiliar with what the reality of housing is in America and thus don't realize what the "build more housing" movement actually wants or know what they want and are part of that movement. No one is talking of revolution. The US already utilizes programs to increase housing access that leftists would lean on because they utilize the leverage of government. Section 8 aa a program was more helpful to me as someone who grew up destitute than the idea of affordable housing lotteries. The average "affordable housing" advocate is someone who has issues with zoning laws and wants countless large-scale, high-end apartment complexes built as a means of generating large revenue for private corporations and will do things like "5 apartments out of this 200 apartment building will be alloted to an affordable housing lottery if this new development is signed off on by the city council". Public housing - like council estates in the UK or big block apartment buildings meant for working class people like in part Europe - don't really exist in America. It feels some people miss out on how profit driven everything is. That's why I make the comparison to charter schools. Public education did not exist as it is now in the US only what is a relatively short time ago. Public education as an institution had to be fought for and built. And public education advocates emphasize how charter schools aim to undermine and crumble that institution. It's not different than how letting all discussions of housing be about zoning and for-profit market housing ultimately is not beneficial to leftist goals. I don't want affordable housing. I want public housing. I don't affordable healthcare. I want socialized medicine. Prioritizing actual socialist solutions like universal healthcare is no different than advocating for de-commodifying housing over other options. Leftists have the responsibility to normalize our ideas and promote them. Of course we need more housing. Build baby build! But i don't trust people who claim to be housing advocates yet then come out against policies like this that regulate greed on the behalf of poor renters. They're not advocating housing then. They're advocating for profits ddd. Edited July 17 by Communion
Virgos Groove Posted July 17 Posted July 17 35 minutes ago, Communion said: I'm not sure what needs explaining, genuinely. New housing should simply be under.the domain of the government and not through for-profit mechanisms. Programs to subsidize rent and which heavily regulate the landlord in private housing should continually work to be expanded. It feels like people either are unfamiliar with what the reality of housing is in America and thus don't realize what the "build more housing" movement actually wants or know what they want and are part of that movement. No one is talking of revolution. The US already utilizes programs to increase housing access that leftists would lean on because they utilize the leverage of government. Section 8 aa a program was more helpful to me as someone who grew up destitute than the idea of affordable housing lotteries. The average "affordable housing" advocate is someone who has issues with zoning laws and wants countless large-scale, high-end apartment complexes built as a means of generating large revenue for private corporations and will do things like "5 apartments out of this 200 apartment building will be alloted to an affordable housing lottery if this new development is signed off on by the city council". Public housing - like council estates in the UK or big block apartment buildings meant for working class people like in part Europe - don't really exist in America. It feels some people miss out on how profit driven everything is. That's why I make the comparison to charter schools. Public education did not exist as it is now in the US only what is a relatively short time ago. Public education as an institution had to be fought for and built. And public education advocates emphasize how charter schools aim to undermine and crumble that institution. It's not different than how letting all discussions of housing be about zoning and for-profit market housing ultimately is not beneficial to leftist goals. I don't want affordable housing. I want public housing. I don't affordable healthcare. I want socialized medicine. Prioritizing actual socialist solutions like universal healthcare is no different than advocating for de-commodifying housing over other options. Leftists have the responsibility to normalize our ideas and promote them. Of course we need more housing. Build baby build! But i don't trust people who claim to be housing advocates yet then come out against policies like this that regulate greed on the behalf of poor renters. They're not advocating housing then. They're advocating for profits ddd. Oh okay, that makes sense. From the way you were framing it, I (mis)understood that you denying the need to build more housing. I agree with your point. It's similar to how, here in Europe, some people will be in favour of PPPs because they're "efficient", but fail to mention (or don't know) that the reason public-run services are innefective is because they're being castrated by their own managers, who receive money from the private sector. Capitalism will create the problem and then try to present itself as the solution. 1
Capris Groove Posted July 19 Posted July 19 On 7/15/2024 at 6:14 PM, MatiRod said: I'll say it again, BC is far from the perfect place to live, but it has some of the most incredible rental protections, the rent increase is capped at less than 4% for all landlords period (it used to be 0% for covid years), doesn't matter if you are just renting out one single unit that you own, and it's really hard to evict anybody. The UK and big cities in the USA that have out of control rents need something like this, because right now, there are so many people being plunged into poverty, because of how criminal these rent increases are getting. Hello fellow BC'er! I totally agree, the BC government leans left and has for decades and you really feel it in the policy. There are a lot of hidden benefits people don't necessarily know about too, for instance I lost my job last year and as a result earned less than $50K, and because of that, BC Hydro installed a free air conditioner in my apartment. I also got a heavily subsidized gym membership. Anyway, that's off topic, but it goes to show you the impact of left leaning politics in action. I hope the USA gets decent rent control now, I'm astonished that they don't have it already. Does this mean your landlord can increase your rent at any time to whatever they feel like?
Recommended Posts