Socialism and the Homeless People.

[tradeunionsupporter]

Would a Socialist state help the Homeless here in the West the Government does not do much for Homeless people living and dying on the streets in the cold would there be be free housing in a Socialist state ?

US: Homeless die in frigid weather

By Jeremy Johnson
2 February 2004

While the US news media has provided ample coverage of the near-record cold wave, very little is being said this winter about the loss of lives and suffering among those forced to live on the streets. The toll has been particularly harsh during January, which has seen ice, snow and subfreezing temperatures settle in over much of the eastern half of the country. The severe weather has brutally exposed a deepening social crisis of poverty and unemployment that has left record numbers homeless.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/feb2004/hlss-f02.shtml

[kapitalyst]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".

Mother Russia:
http://www.lindsayfincher.com/news/grozny_apartments.jpg

Lovely Vietnam:
http://www.zimbio.com/img/831c/RBGStreetScholar/803m.jpg

Mighty Cuba:
http://www.dcmin.org/RoomView2.jpg

Noble North Korea:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mfHLcqTExH0/TSPlQvVl3xI/AAAAAAAAAFI/dX826p6mYUM/s1600/north+korean+poverty.jpg

Why anyone wants to try this again is beyond me...

[Veovis]

^^ Those countries are socialist to the same degree that China is a People's Republic.

i.e. they're not.

[Nicolai]

Nice try troll, but I think you need to conduct more research before you point out so called "socialist states".

[Klaatu]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol". <snip> Why anyone wants to try this again is beyond me...

Do you realize that Soviet Union, etc are(were) actually CAPITALIST? (just not privately-owned)

Socialism is really about people-owned (really!) NOT about a few wealthy owners (which is the fundamental intrinsic property of capitalism!)

(A) The Workers Own The Means Of Production = Socialism

(B) The wealthy billionaire owns the means of production = Capitalism

I will always go with "A" because "B" is morally wrong, on so many levels

[tir1944]

Also in socialist countries everyone (or almost everyone) had a roof over the head.

Also i'm amazed (not really,but...) to see people immediately starting with this "state capitalist blah blah " bullshit instead of pointing out that he randomly took some photos of worn-out neighborhoods as if they truthfully illustrated the housing standards in these countries...

[Che a chara]

@ kapitalyst, you would have a point if those pictures you posted were truly representative of the dwellings within those so-called socialist states. google for pictures of poor housing in the USA and for slums in any developed capitalist nation and you'll find dwellings in the same if not in worse condition - and you'll also find that these capitalist nations have a higher homeless rate -- and there's no spinning that.

[RedGrunt]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".

Mother Russia:
http://www.lindsayfincher.com/news/grozny_apartments.jpg

Lovely Vietnam:
http://www.zimbio.com/img/831c/RBGStreetScholar/803m.jpg

Mighty Cuba:
http://www.dcmin.org/RoomView2.jpg

Noble North Korea:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mfHLcqTExH0/TSPlQvVl3xI/AAAAAAAAAFI/dX826p6mYUM/s1600/north+korean+poverty.jpg

Why anyone wants to try this again is beyond me...


Photos that prove nothing.. we could also show pictures of America, with its crappy infrastructure, mass poor, evicted, and homeless.

[RichardAWilson]

First of all, the former Soviet-Union, Vietnam and North Korea have nothing to do with socialism and everything to do with Privilege and Tyranny. (The workers controlled nothing and the labor unions were state dominated)

You should become more informed on socialism before comparing apples to oranges.

Intelligence means admitting that you don't know everything and then working to learn those things that you've admitted that you don't know.

Symbols of American Prosperity?

Welcome to St. Louis

http://builtstlouis.net/eaststlouis/images/eaststl-314.jpg

Welcome to Michigan

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01423/house_1423724c.jpg

Welcome to the City of Brotherly Love

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L2MwiWHpg7A/SX5xIw1ywGI/AAAAAAAAA-U/nSkKGFuTPss/s400/camden.jpg

Welcome to Urban America

http://www.openideo.com/open/what-is-the-global-challenge-that-most-concerns-you-right-now-and-that-global-innovation-leaders-could-begin-to-solve/agenda-concepts/how-can-we-close-the-gap-between-rich-and-poor-in-developing-and-developed-countries/gallery/unemployment-extension-helps-americas-poor-300x300.jpg/

[RichardAWilson]

Meanwhile, in rural America, we see more and more substandard trailer parks.

http://turbowhitetrash.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/trailer-park.jpg

[kapitalyst]

@ kapitalyst, you would have a point if those pictures you posted were truly representative of the dwellings within those so-called socialist states. google for pictures of poor housing in the USA and for slums in any developed capitalist nation and you'll find dwellings in the same if not in worse condition - and you'll also find that these capitalist nations have a higher homeless rate -- and there's no spinning that.

You actually have a point... I DID do a quick search and post the lousiest pics I could find. :lol:

But... It was to illustrate a point. The living conditions in these countries were, well... how do I put this nicely? Shit... And oh the tales we've heard. I've heard the accounts of people in the USSR, forced to live in communal tenements crammed like sardines... the government installed "service stairs" that led to back doors in many of the apartments, to which only they had the key. That way they could search people's homes and silently make arrests. People had to put wax seals on the doors to know if the police had snooped in their apartments... This didn't happen to every single person, but the USSR was a shit country to live in.

They're also shit for most people in China... Just look at this... :blink:

SIp_AmVtsqM

And of course I know none of these countries were "true" or "pure" socialists. And that's half of the point here... There's no such thing. As soon as the revolution is over, everything just gets one new owner... and it sure as hell ain't the people... :crying:

[Kamos]

To answer the original question, yes, there would. Having a roof over your head should be as elementary a right as having food and clean water.

[molotovcocktail]

I think that kapitalyst need to realize, that even though these "socialist" countries are poor, the poorest countries are capitalist. Like Congo or Somalia. They have no trade restrictions, so they are the most capitalist countries in the world. And the poorest countries in the world.

[CommunityBeliever]

Capitalism:

Welcome to imperialism:

http://www.hiroshimagatewaytopeace.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/hiroshima-ruins.jpg

http://thewe.cc/thewei/&/&/images4/photos/nagasaki_view.jpe

If you want to talk about horrific places, Hiroshima and Nagasaki pretty much take the cake. However, even conventional bombardment produces considerable destruction, for example the contemporary bombardment of Libya, which involves the utilisation of depleted uranium, is incredibly destructive.

In order to understand all imperialist activity you must first understand the capitalist mode of production which leads to it in the first place. Capitalist society may start out laissez-faire, but then monopolies, cartels, syndicates, and trusts inevitably arise, especially around natural monopolies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly) like electricity, telecommunications, sewage systems, etc as well as public services (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_services) like the fire service and health care. These monopolies will form quickly relative to socio-economic developments, and then they will attempt to fuse with the government, which inevitably eliminates laissez-faire capitalism.

The economic surpluses which result from monopoly capital cannot be absorbed through consumer-consumption, so the surest way to spend this surplus is on imperialist endeavours. This leads to Imperialism (the highest stage of capitalism) as explained by V.I Lenin:


We must now try to sum up, to draw together the threads of what has been said above on the subject of imperialism. Imperialism emerged as the development and direct continuation of the fundamental characteristics of capitalism in general. But capitalism only became capitalist imperialism at a definite and very high stage of its development, when certain of its fundamental characteristics began to change into their opposites, when the features of the epoch of transition from capitalism to a higher social and economic system had taken shape and revealed themselves in all spheres. Economically, the main thing in this process is the displacement of capitalist free competition by capitalist monopoly. Free competition is the basic feature of capitalism, and of commodity production generally; monopoly is the exact opposite of free competition, but we have seen the latter being transformed into monopoly before our eyes, creating large-scale industry and forcing out small industry, replacing large-scale by still larger-scale industry, and carrying concentration of production and capital to the point where out of it has grown and is growing monopoly: cartels, syndicates and trusts, and merging with them, the capital of a dozen or so banks, which manipulate thousands of millions. At the same time the monopolies, which have grown out of free competition, do not eliminate the latter, but exist above it and alongside it, and thereby give rise to a number of very acute, intense antagonisms, frictions and conflicts. Monopoly is the transition from capitalism to a higher system.

If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.
Responses:


Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace...

That has nothing to do with Marxist-socialism, as defined by the post-capitalist stage in which the means of production are collectively controlled (socioeconomic democracy).


And of course I know none of these countries were "true" or "pure" socialists. And that's half of the point here...

These countries don't even claim to have achieved true socialism. China's system, by their own admission, is the "Socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics", Vietnams system is Doi Moi, the DPRK's is Juche, etc. Similarly, the USSR was far removed from socialism after the 1965 Soviet economic reform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1965_Soviet_economic_reform), so the USSR never went beyond very early stage socialism.


There's no such thing. As soon as the revolution is over, everything just gets one new owner... and it sure as hell ain't the people... :crying:

This is why Marxism-Leninist-Maoism (MLM) emphasises the need for continual revolution, including political and cultural revolutions, that way there is no point where "the revolution is over." Nonetheless, even though many of our revolutions ended and were overturned, they were absolutely worth it, for their progressive achievements.


But... It was to illustrate a point. The living conditions in these countries were, well... how do I put this nicely? Shit...

To which countries are you referring to? I would say that the conditions of for example Cuba aren't "shit" especially relative to neighbouring countries such as Haiti that haven't had the luxury of a revolution.


Would a Socialist state help the Homeless here in the West the Government does not do much for Homeless people living and dying on the streets in the cold would there be be free housing in a Socialist state ?

It will be relatively easy to house everyone in socialism. For example, George Carlin described how we could use golf courses to house all houseless people, in his speech on homelesness and golf (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk). This is not to mention what we can do with vacants, mansions, hotels, etc.

[Tim Cornelis]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".

Why anyone wants to try this again is beyond me...

It is beyond me that anyone could browse this site for longer than a month and not have figured out only a relatively small minority of the revolutionary left considers those nations' model something worth aspiring to. Also, what you are arguing is factually false. Homelessness was rare or non-existent, instead crappy grey block flats were built.

http://www.hispanicallyspeakingnews.com/uploads/images/article-images/11172175181Favela_Brazil_P_St_Jacques_NML.jpg

http://www.wireless.ece.ufl.edu/jshea/africatrip/Soweto.jpg

(capitalism in Brazil and South Africa respectively)

(not so) Fun fact: 1 in every 6 people on this planet is a squatter. Most of these shanty towns are built on someone else's property. So if you had your way and private property rights were enforced consistently 1 in every 6 people would be thrown out of their homes.

[DarkPast]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".

Have you been playing Tropico?

[tfb]

the government installed "service stairs" that led to back doors in many of the apartments, to which only they had the key. That way they could search people's homes and silently make arrests. People had to put wax seals on the doors to know if the police had snooped in their apartments...

Luckily for you, you live in a glorious country where police break down your FRONT door without a warrant! And shoot your kids and dog! All hail capitalism!

[Bud Struggle]

I think that kapitalyst need to realize, that even though these "socialist" countries are poor, the poorest countries are capitalist. Like Congo or Somalia. They have no trade restrictions, so they are the most capitalist countries in the world. And the poorest countries in the world.

The Congo and Somalia are actually ASnarchist countries.

[Smyg]

Or not.

[robbo203]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol"....

Precisely why such regimes have fuck all to do with socialism and everything to do with state administered capitalism...

[Bud Struggle]

Precisely why such regimes have fuck all to do with socialism and everything to do with state administered capitalism...

Because while there is a shining ideal of Communism that looks pretty darn good the reality is that each and every time the Revolution came and Communism was tried--it looked like the USSR or DRNK or Cambodia or East Germany or 50 other tries.

And there are a million excuses why things didn't turn out well, but in the end it seems to many observers that Communism just doesn't work in real life. It was a worthy try, though.

[RGacky3]

Because while there is a shining ideal of Communism that looks pretty darn good the reality is that each and every time the Revolution came and Communism was tried--it looked like the USSR or DRNK or Cambodia or East Germany or 50 other tries.

And there are a million excuses why things didn't turn out well, but in the end it seems to many observers that Communism just doesn't work in real life. It was a worthy try, though.

The definition of Communism, by almost every communist, is democratic workplace controlled by the workers and a democratic economy.

If the USSR or so on was not that then communism was'nt tried was it? Its State controlled capitalism, nothing more.

Enough of that argument.

[molotovcocktail]

The Congo and Somalia are actually ASnarchist countries.
Nope, their libertarian. In an anarchist society it is no authorities, In Congo and Somalia there is an upper class of militia leaders, who steal land from villages. Before they let multinational corporations use the stolen land for mining, plantations, etc. The militias are clearly an authority.There are no restrictions on business, and it is therefore closest to libertarian.

[Smyg]

Militias, incompetent government forces, tribes, islamists... far from leaderless.

[khad]

The Soviet Union was a thousand times more humane towards the homeless than any of you asshole kids here on revleft or in real life. I really don't give a shit about your theoretical sophistry. I'm glad to see that you can take any argument and turn it into a meaningless exercise in intellectual abstraction.

If I were homeless, would I rather have your all your words of wisdom or the ironclad guarantee that civil authorities were obligated to help me find a job? That's the way it was, and the few homeless people who did exist routinely found work in grocery stores or servicing apartment complexes (which conveniently solved the problem of housing).

Come back and criticize when YOU find the homeless work and housing.

[tir1944]

"Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".... "


Precisely why such regimes have fuck all to do with socialism and everything to do with state administered capitalism...

http://fannieed.blogg.se/images/2011/double_facepalm_160181780.jpg

[Bud Struggle]

The definition of Communism, by almost every communist, is democratic workplace controlled by the workers and a democratic economy.

If the USSR or so on was not that then communism was'nt tried was it? Its State controlled capitalism, nothing more.

Enough of that argument.

And the reason they weren't Communist is because Revolutions don't produce Communism. They produce State Capitalism or Nepotistic dictatorships (think Korea and Cuba) or whatever China is today. They just don't produce Communism.

The problem is there is no way to get from here to there.

[ComradeMan]

If these regimes failed to produce communism why do they have so many ardent supporters and why is their symbology all over the place?

It seems like they are communist when we want them to be, and not when we don't.

Anyway, this whole thread? What is it? A competition to see who has the worst slums?

In order to try and answer the OP- under the ideal of socialism/communist democracy the idea is that there would be no homeless people and that everyone would have a home. It's not that the workers live in 1970s style concrete apartment blocks while the functionaries of the party have nice villas on the Baltic coast.

[ComradeMan]

The problem is there is no way to get from here to there.

Kind of agree on the first point, the second one (above) is open. There's no point giving up.... it would help if people stopped basing their politics on things like Total War and Red Alert though!!! :unsure:

[Revolution starts with U]

There is no specific reason socialists have to take care of the homeless. The advocacy is for worker control of the means of production. Communism on the other hand, in the sense of the post-scarcity global stateless/classless commune, by definition would render the idea of homelessness as not only obsolete, but absurd. Now, after inserting that important caveat...

Regardless of people's self-interest, and further, greed, when they have to deal directly with populations, they engage heavily in posturing. Most people, regardless of whether or not they are, do not like to be seen as dicks. So in all likelihood, when the workers control the means of production, workers who have a direct connection with the community, they will provide assistance for the homeless. If for nothing else but the silent bragging rights of being seen helping the homeless.

It is my opinion that we are socialists because we are economic progressives, and most of us are cosmopolitans because we are socially progressive. But they are largely seperate issues. The distinction is relatively arbitrary, and I am of the opinion that economic progression requires social progression, and vice versa, but it is a distinction, imo, nonetheless.

And now for a few more commas,,,,,,,, , , , ,,,, , , ,,, ,,, ,, , , , , ,,, :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Bud you have to realize that revolutions often turn to dictatorship only when the "leaders" are given authority over the "legislature."
There is another problem. Whereas you (probably) consider the american revolution a success, I don't. The african and native american communities really recieved the raw end of the deal.
No revolution has really been sucessful because we do not yet have global communism. Until then, all revolutions are failed revolutions.
But revolutions stand to make abrupt change to the social environment, for good or worse. They are just the shock that is needed sometimes... sort of like a punctuated equillibrium :lol:
Do you really think Social Democracy and the New Deal would have ever happened without the threat of the USSR? Do you think feudalism-proper would have fell so quickly in europe without the threat of the US (Do you think it coincedence the french and american revolutions happened at roughly the same time)?

Revolution is sort-of like a social experiment. We try it, and see what we did wrong. Then we try it again with hopefully better methods. Looking at it like this; the revolution is an ongoing process.

(We must also keep in mind that there is The Revolution; ie, the political revolution. And there are also revolutions; ie, dynamic social shifts like the industrial and scientific revolution.)

[Rafiq]

Under socialist regimes, typically everyone is homeless except Mr. Chairman, our Dear Leader, who lives in the marvelous palace... and the inner-party members, who enjoy mansions, condos and vacation resorts. The rest live in tenement blocks and have "community roach patrol".

Mother Russia:
http://www.lindsayfincher.com/news/grozny_apartments.jpg

Lovely Vietnam:
http://www.zimbio.com/img/831c/RBGStreetScholar/803m.jpg

Mighty Cuba:
http://www.dcmin.org/RoomView2.jpg

Noble North Korea:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_mfHLcqTExH0/TSPlQvVl3xI/AAAAAAAAAFI/dX826p6mYUM/s1600/north+korean+poverty.jpg

Why anyone wants to try this again is beyond me...



You dumb fuck, the only reason those homes in Russia are so shitty is because they were built under socialism, and back then they were brand new. And now capitalism in russia isnt efficient enough to build new ones.

You fucking snake, I could take pictures of homes here in Detroit 100x worse than the ones you posted. And most homes in Cuba DO NOT fucking look like that, you dumb shit. Go die a long and painful death. I really cannot express my hatred for you in words. At least put up a good argument instead of resorting to disgustingly obvious propaganda.

[robbo203]

Because while there is a shining ideal of Communism that looks pretty darn good the reality is that each and every time the Revolution came and Communism was tried--it looked like the USSR or DRNK or Cambodia or East Germany or 50 other tries.

And there are a million excuses why things didn't turn out well, but in the end it seems to many observers that Communism just doesn't work in real life. It was a worthy try, though.

Unfortunately for your argument Communism wasn't tried. Condition were such that even if , say, the Bolsheviks wanted to try it they could not begin to do so. There was neither the mass working class support for , and understanding of, communism - and the working class itself was only a small percentage of the population - nor was there the advanced technological linfrastructure to support and sustain a communist society. Any Marxist would tell you that these are the absolute and basic preconditions that need to be met for communism to stand a chance of suceeding. Even Lenin frankly conceded that communism was a very long way off and argued instead that state capitalism was the way forward for Russia. Specifically he urged that Russia adopt the state capitalist model of the German war economy for which he expressed fulsome praise.

[Manic Impressive]

You dumb fuck, the only reason those homes in Russia are so shitty is because they were built under socialism, and back then they were brand new. And now capitalism in russia isnt efficient enough to build new ones.

You fucking snake, I could take pictures of homes here in Detroit 100x worse than the ones you posted. And most homes in Cuba DO NOT fucking look like that, you dumb shit. Go die a long and painful death. I really cannot express my hatred for you in words. At least put up a good argument instead of resorting to disgustingly obvious propaganda.

Troll 1 Rafiq 0 :laugh:

[Revolution starts with U]

Idk, the one in N Korea is a peasant's house most likely. Looks pretty good for peasant living :D

Long live our Glorious Leader! May his laughter ever cause the world to spin. :blushing:

[Klaatu]

Also in socialist countries everyone (or almost everyone) had a roof over the head.

Also i'm amazed (not really,but...) to see people immediately starting with this "state capitalist blah blah " bullshit instead of pointing out that he randomly took some photos of worn-out neighborhoods as if they truthfully illustrated the housing standards in these countries...

Similar photos can be taken in the U.S. (a capitalist country!) I live in Detroit. I have seen neighborhoods here that look far worse than these!
Therefore I can make a similar argument against capitalism, using photos of some Detroit neighborhoods.

[RichardAWilson]

I concur with you, though I think the words used above were too harsh.

One has to learn tact when dealing with the opposition and those with which we disagree.

Living standards are poor in urban and rural America and they're poor in North Korea and Vietnam.

Neither, of course, is an exemplification of socialism in practice.

Scandinavia, Venezuela and Cuba have come closer to socialism than even the former Soviet-Union.

The worker occupations of Argentine factories have shown that workingmen are prepared to take over the administrative duties of running a business. The same can be said for Industrial Worker Cooperatives in Venezuela.

[RGacky3]

And the reason they weren't Communist is because Revolutions don't produce Communism. They produce State Capitalism or Nepotistic dictatorships (think Korea and Cuba) or whatever China is today. They just don't produce Communism.

The problem is there is no way to get from here to there.

The Leninist model produced what your talking about, they all followed the Lenininst model.

[EvilRedGuy]

Troll 1 Rafiq 0 :laugh:

What do you mean.