Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
FFS, "some things are going to be more popular than others" is not supposed to be a gotcha, it's rather obvious.
The best we can do is make sure the scarce things aren't essential, but you need some mechanism to distribute scarse things without giving power to the people controlling access.
Like, I would love to spend a few hours with Denis Villeneuve talking about Dune as seen by someone from Québec, but he doesn't have enough hours to do that with everyone who wants to do it.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
It of course, again, varies, but there are plenty of communist models where your years studying and working as a pediatric oncologist means you get a nicer house and can dine out more. Or your work repairing sewer lines. Society gives to you in proportion to your ability and willingness to give to society, while maintaining a comparatively level class structure and a good baseline quality of life.
If you are stratifying society, based on education, skill set and training, and you provide some strata with greater benefits than others, that is literally a class-based society. Also, I don't think the saying is, "to each according to his abilities." Like, this is starting to sound like Bizarro World communism.
Like I said, there are various schools of communism and they don't all agree, but we're discussing a model where direct and, to varying degrees, special, contributions to society earn you a life with more creature comforts. It doesn't mean you're establishing an owner class nor is it predicated on another's poverty. A classless society is not the goal in and of itself, its what you get by removing class from society, and there's plenty of thought on how a rewards system for skill and work effects that.
God knows its a fairer distribution criteria than capitalism's.
Except you are establishing an owner class, because somebody has to decide who's getting those increased benefits and comforts, and what the criteria for them are. And something tells me that the people making those choices, the high-level managers who can organize large business enterprises and are the guiding voice in who works where or what is produced, those people are going to wind up among the haves, rather than the have nots.
No, having a nicer house because your job really sucks does not mean you are an ownership class. We're talking about who owns the means of production. Getting a better wage doesn't mean you're owning the means of production.
There is no effective difference, because the people at the top will still have a monopoly on power, if for no other reason than because they are part of the rare few that can actually organize and steer the means of production in any meaningful, beneficial way. Like, the system you are describing is pretty much the Soviet system, and for all their claims, they very much had an elite class who, if not in name, in action controlled the means of production.
"The people at the top" here are worker collectives and worker committees. Like yeah this might all fall apart but that doesn't mean compensating people based on the difficulty of the labor is the same as creating an owner class.
Then the entire project is doomed to failure. If things are being run by a collective, and everyone in a large enterprise has an equal say in how it is operated, it will suffocate itself with poor management. The people who have no clue how to manage something of that scale is always going to outnumber the people who do by a very hefty margin. That’s why effective administrators who can successfully manage an operation involving hundreds or thousands of people command such a high salary.
As one of those effective administrators you’re talking about, I think you’ll find that on the whole, without the profit motive there would be a much greater sharing of information and knowledge. Right now there are a few folks with a genuine desire to educate their fellow managers, and a majority who are grifting on a superficial model of management to get rich
If we remove most financial means to get ahead, and give more money and prestige to those with management experience, what makes you think this management class is going to be eager to dilute that prestige by making more managers?
People (not all, maybe, but enough) yearn to feel superior. That creates some perverse incentives.
I don’t believe that there should be additional tangible rewards for management. I know that was sort of but not really floated by others ITT, but I don’t hold that view, just to be clear.
It’s important to remember we are also talking about a monumental shift in culture. You might have seen me post the below before but it really is very illustrative of how orthodox marxists think about how society interacts. It is fair to assume, based on this paradigm, we would see a significant shift in attitudes commensurate with the shift in the base. We can get into this in more detail if you’d like, but essentially, it’s about an erosion of the hierarchical mindset folks take into and from the workplace.
Additionally, there is far less incentive to hang around a shitty boss in our glorious new world order. Retention becomes far more dominant, as it will directly 1:1 correlate with results. If bosses lose their coercive power over their folks, they’d better hope that they’ve built a solid utilitarian or principles based source of power, or their people are gonna hit da bricks. Naturally, there are folks who will put up with shit bosses for a variety of reasons; but I have absolutely no doubt they will be in the minority given “I need this job to feed myself/my family” is no longer a real going concern. Hell, who knows. It’s not unheard of for socialist workplaces to elect their managers. If you’re a power hungry prick, there’s a good chance you’ll get voted out.
Semi-relatedly, but I also think the role of manager significantly changes also. Certainly, the hiring and firing portion does and in our current society, that’s the part most people tend to focus on.
I've asked the question before if folks think we're going to find a way around human nature, or transcend it. You seem to be on team Transcend. Which is a position I can respect, even if I don't find it plausible. There's an exhaustive body of literature showing that humans go out of their way to create hierarchies so they can place themselves at the top, even if it means they're worse off overall.
Talking about hierarchies is not an effective analysis, from my materialist perspective. For historical materialists, we seek to understand what these things we call hierarchies are and why they exist. For instance, its all well and good to say that there’s a ‘hierarchy’ with white people on top and poc on the bottom, but that has no explanatory power. A historical materialist analysis of race, such as that given in the book Settlers by J Sakai shows how racism originates in colonialism and slavery and is maintained by black and brown peoples’ proletarianisation, lumpenisation and both subtle and blatant genocide. These are class issues, not something to do with skin colour or ‘race’, but a ‘hierarchy’ analysis is unable to understand that because it accepts hierarchies as given, is thus metaphysical and not dialectical, and therefore cannot truly challenge such systems. Essentially, hierarchies are a symptom, not a cause
What is the actual point you're trying to make?
If I understand Jeffe correctly, his position is that people are drawn to hierarchy and people want to be at the top of that hierarchy, and nothing can really be done about that. My argument is seeing the hierarchy-establishing behaviour as an innate factor of the human condition is wrong-headed, and it’s possible to analyse the material conditions surrounding the situation to better shape the outcome.
What data is your premise based on?
The material conditions for the situation in question.
The material conditions existing are context and influence the expression, but the hierarchical impulse is native to the species.
You can certainly create conditions that mitigate it, but there is not an external entity creating hierarchical impulses. This is how we evolved, for better or worse.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Classless and stateless yes
Moneyless, well…
- Existential Comics, “Anarchist Monopoly”
Lanz. On Page 1, you literally agreed with a post that described communism specifically as a classless, moneyless, stateless society. So yes, I'm using the definition you agree with.
Unless you no longer find that definition accurate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
It's not just luxury goods. The same answers - 'slave labor', 'i dunno, a committee', 'people will want to sew for reasons' came back yesterday when we were asking about basic consumer necessitates like shoes.
'Luxury Goods' like Beatles Tickets or Van Goughs or Big Sur beachfront property are very simple bullet points without baggage and the first questions people ask. The kind of day-1 questions that should be addressed with a clear answer in the 'Communist FAQ'.
That there is no consistent answer, none of the inconsistent answers are anything anyone finds satisfying, and people saying 'no, I really would like to know' is met with anger and deflection really is not building any confidence that this idea of a communist revolution isn't just being winged.
+12
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
It of course, again, varies, but there are plenty of communist models where your years studying and working as a pediatric oncologist means you get a nicer house and can dine out more. Or your work repairing sewer lines. Society gives to you in proportion to your ability and willingness to give to society, while maintaining a comparatively level class structure and a good baseline quality of life.
If you are stratifying society, based on education, skill set and training, and you provide some strata with greater benefits than others, that is literally a class-based society. Also, I don't think the saying is, "to each according to his abilities." Like, this is starting to sound like Bizarro World communism.
Like I said, there are various schools of communism and they don't all agree, but we're discussing a model where direct and, to varying degrees, special, contributions to society earn you a life with more creature comforts. It doesn't mean you're establishing an owner class nor is it predicated on another's poverty. A classless society is not the goal in and of itself, its what you get by removing class from society, and there's plenty of thought on how a rewards system for skill and work effects that.
God knows its a fairer distribution criteria than capitalism's.
Except you are establishing an owner class, because somebody has to decide who's getting those increased benefits and comforts, and what the criteria for them are. And something tells me that the people making those choices, the high-level managers who can organize large business enterprises and are the guiding voice in who works where or what is produced, those people are going to wind up among the haves, rather than the have nots.
No, having a nicer house because your job really sucks does not mean you are an ownership class. We're talking about who owns the means of production. Getting a better wage doesn't mean you're owning the means of production.
There is no effective difference, because the people at the top will still have a monopoly on power, if for no other reason than because they are part of the rare few that can actually organize and steer the means of production in any meaningful, beneficial way. Like, the system you are describing is pretty much the Soviet system, and for all their claims, they very much had an elite class who, if not in name, in action controlled the means of production.
"The people at the top" here are worker collectives and worker committees. Like yeah this might all fall apart but that doesn't mean compensating people based on the difficulty of the labor is the same as creating an owner class.
Then the entire project is doomed to failure. If things are being run by a collective, and everyone in a large enterprise has an equal say in how it is operated, it will suffocate itself with poor management. The people who have no clue how to manage something of that scale is always going to outnumber the people who do by a very hefty margin. That’s why effective administrators who can successfully manage an operation involving hundreds or thousands of people command such a high salary.
As one of those effective administrators you’re talking about, I think you’ll find that on the whole, without the profit motive there would be a much greater sharing of information and knowledge. Right now there are a few folks with a genuine desire to educate their fellow managers, and a majority who are grifting on a superficial model of management to get rich
If we remove most financial means to get ahead, and give more money and prestige to those with management experience, what makes you think this management class is going to be eager to dilute that prestige by making more managers?
People (not all, maybe, but enough) yearn to feel superior. That creates some perverse incentives.
I don’t believe that there should be additional tangible rewards for management. I know that was sort of but not really floated by others ITT, but I don’t hold that view, just to be clear.
It’s important to remember we are also talking about a monumental shift in culture. You might have seen me post the below before but it really is very illustrative of how orthodox marxists think about how society interacts. It is fair to assume, based on this paradigm, we would see a significant shift in attitudes commensurate with the shift in the base. We can get into this in more detail if you’d like, but essentially, it’s about an erosion of the hierarchical mindset folks take into and from the workplace.
Additionally, there is far less incentive to hang around a shitty boss in our glorious new world order. Retention becomes far more dominant, as it will directly 1:1 correlate with results. If bosses lose their coercive power over their folks, they’d better hope that they’ve built a solid utilitarian or principles based source of power, or their people are gonna hit da bricks. Naturally, there are folks who will put up with shit bosses for a variety of reasons; but I have absolutely no doubt they will be in the minority given “I need this job to feed myself/my family” is no longer a real going concern. Hell, who knows. It’s not unheard of for socialist workplaces to elect their managers. If you’re a power hungry prick, there’s a good chance you’ll get voted out.
Semi-relatedly, but I also think the role of manager significantly changes also. Certainly, the hiring and firing portion does and in our current society, that’s the part most people tend to focus on.
I've asked the question before if folks think we're going to find a way around human nature, or transcend it. You seem to be on team Transcend. Which is a position I can respect, even if I don't find it plausible. There's an exhaustive body of literature showing that humans go out of their way to create hierarchies so they can place themselves at the top, even if it means they're worse off overall.
Talking about hierarchies is not an effective analysis, from my materialist perspective. For historical materialists, we seek to understand what these things we call hierarchies are and why they exist. For instance, its all well and good to say that there’s a ‘hierarchy’ with white people on top and poc on the bottom, but that has no explanatory power. A historical materialist analysis of race, such as that given in the book Settlers by J Sakai shows how racism originates in colonialism and slavery and is maintained by black and brown peoples’ proletarianisation, lumpenisation and both subtle and blatant genocide. These are class issues, not something to do with skin colour or ‘race’, but a ‘hierarchy’ analysis is unable to understand that because it accepts hierarchies as given, is thus metaphysical and not dialectical, and therefore cannot truly challenge such systems. Essentially, hierarchies are a symptom, not a cause
What is the actual point you're trying to make?
If I understand Jeffe correctly, his position is that people are drawn to hierarchy and people want to be at the top of that hierarchy, and nothing can really be done about that. My argument is seeing the hierarchy-establishing behaviour as an innate factor of the human condition is wrong-headed, and it’s possible to analyse the material conditions surrounding the situation to better shape the outcome.
What data is your premise based on?
The material conditions for the situation in question.
The material conditions existing are context and influence the expression, but the hierarchical impulse is native to the species.
You can certainly create conditions that mitigate it, but there is not an external entity creating hierarchical impulses. This is how we evolved, for better or worse.
I disagree! This is the basis for historical materialism. I really would urge you to seek out resources to learn a bit more about it. From our dealings now and in the past I think you would find it fascinating
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
It's not even really about luxury goods specifically, though. Pick any two goods where good B is a cheaper substitute for good A, but there is a limited supply of good A.
Housing was just an example, and the point remains even with more equitable distribution.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Operating on a practical and not literal definition of course.
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
+11
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
if your method of resource management has to rely on the existence of a post-scarcity society, you're gonna have a bad time.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Classless and stateless yes
Moneyless, well…
- Existential Comics, “Anarchist Monopoly”
Lanz. On Page 1, you literally agreed with a post that described communism specifically as a classless, moneyless, stateless society. So yes, I'm using the definition you agree with.
Unless you no longer find that definition accurate?
The general thrust, but to me the defining traits are it’s classless and stateless nature, not the moneyless aspect.
I can see the utility for something akin to Bakunin’s labor vouchers, but at the same time can see the concern for their abuse as feared by Kropotkin
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
Yes, obviously. Communist models have means to handle scarcity. We've covered it. There are various options for various models. Its not some mystery or something Marx failed to consider. Sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
We enslaved and massacred people over gold.
Damn, sure glad capitalism put an end to all that.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
Is this only an acceptable response from the communist point of view? "Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. "
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Classless and stateless yes
Moneyless, well…
- Existential Comics, “Anarchist Monopoly”
Lanz. On Page 1, you literally agreed with a post that described communism specifically as a classless, moneyless, stateless society. So yes, I'm using the definition you agree with.
Unless you no longer find that definition accurate?
I'm not gonna speak for Lanz, but there are about as many unique forms of communism as there are communists.
They can range from "idk we'll get post-scarcity and things will automatically sort themselves out" to having market systems that aren't that far off from capitalism, and everything in between.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
We enslaved and massacred people over gold.
And diamonds
And the correct verb tense is not the simple past.
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
Yes, obviously. Communist models have means to handle scarcity. We've covered it. There are various options for various models. Its not some mystery or something Marx failed to consider. Sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures.
I don't think we have covered it. You listed some but have not really considered the implications of all those options. And the discussion keeps getting derailed by someone going "Well actually, X isn't scarce!"
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
It's not like there aren't solutions. Some of them aren't great, but saying it'll be first-come, first-served, or distributed on a lottery or rotating basis or something and some people will just be SOL is a reasonable answer. I mean here and now it's basically if you can't afford it you can suck it and learn to live without.
Or you can say that if the demand is there production will be ramped up, and if we can't get enough workers we'll pull from the gulags to increase shifts and production. Not good, but at least it's an attempt at an answer / solution!
The problem comes when people refuse to acknowledge there are going to be flaws and limitations in anything short of a Culture post-scarcity society and try to go full 'but comrade, there won't be scarce goods' which just feels like the setup to a whole bunch of 'In Soviet Russia' jokes.
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
The answer would actually be “democratic decision making to solve a collective action problem” but people seem to be unhappy with that answer because it’s not specific enough, despite also not being specific as to what resource is scarce beyond “people want live in same city because”or “why can’t I go to concert?” Or “why can’t I own priceless cultural treasure?”
Lanz on
0
Options
jmcdonaldI voted, did you?DC(ish)Registered Userregular
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
We enslaved and massacred people over gold.
Damn, sure glad capitalism put an end to all that.
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
...how on earth do you have a market in a classless, moneyless, stateless society?
Are we bartering goods and services directly for preferred real estate?
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
Being concerned about making sure there's enough luxury apartments for people to live in, when there's a housing shortage for those looking for affordable housing? That's capitalism right now, my friend!
The survey, conducted by the federal Census Bureau between February and mid-July 2021, presents a sweeping review of New York City’s housing stock, median rents and individual borough vacancy rates that reflect the city’s affordable housing crunch. In Manhattan, more than 10 percent of apartments sat vacant. In the Bronx, the vacancy rate was less than 1 percent. In Queens and Staten Island, the vacancy rate was 4.15 percent. It was 2.73 percent in Brooklyn.
The median monthly asking rent on vacant apartments was $2,750 during the survey period, meaning household income would need to top $110,000 for a tenant to pay less than 30 percent of their earnings on rent, the threshold at which a tenant is considered “rent-burdened.” More than half of New York City renter households met that threshold last year, the report found. At least 13 percent of tenants reported missing at least one rent payment.
The findings also mean that the median household income for renters—$50,000, according to the survey—would have to more than double to keep up with median asking rent.
...
At the other end of the spectrum, 12.64 percent of units priced above $2,300 were vacant and available for rent; just over 4 percent of apartments priced between $1,500 and $2,299 were empty, the survey found.
The vacancy rate disparities reflect the dwindling supply of affordable housing citywide. Between 2017 and 2021, New York City lost about 96,000 units priced below $1,500 per month while adding about 107,000 units renting for $2,300 or more, the survey found. That dramatic loss of affordable housing continues a 30-year trend across the five boroughs. New York City has lost about 500,000 apartments priced below $1,500 since 1991 while adding about 500,000 priced at $2,300 or more.
...
New York City housing production trails population growth by a wide margin, but another factor is also driving rising rents and limited supply: more than 353,400 units remain vacant but are not available for rent—up from 248,000 in 2017—the HVS found. Nearly 103,000 of those units are second homes, or pied-a-terres, according to the survey, a finding that could renew calls for a “pied-a-terre tax” on empty units used seasonally or sparingly.
"Hey look a squirrel" is a piss-poor answer.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
We enslaved and massacred people over gold.
Damn, sure glad capitalism put an end to all that.
Thank you for acknowledging that it's an issue that a government will have to contend with.
Ok I'm going to try and do the legwork for the communists here so please tell me if I'm wrong.
We know that in the current system there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance for housing in certain locations. (Like it we had an authoritarian command economy in the US we wouldn't have homelessness, we have enough homes! Just live where you've been assigned and don't complain, citizen.)
And the major differentiator isn't actually any of these luxuries, but access to good jobs.
And that's a problem regardless of capitalism or not, imo, but exacerbated by capitalism requiring jobs and requiring a lot of jobs to be bad, and the poor incentive structures that mean new cities and housing don't get built up even when the most popular cities are extremely valuable.
But jobs, jobs more than anything*, you can look at Detroit for an example.
So remove the capitalist incentive and things will just fix themselves?
And this is where i disagree, people will still need jobs and are going to want some jobs more than others. And certain industries are going to physically clump together for efficiency.
Like, yeah, i agree it wouldn't be as bad as in capitalism, but capitalism is not the only factor giving people preferences for housing.
*except maybe racism yay America
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Boy, I am sure glad to know my living conditions, in communism, will be dictated by how charismatic I am, and how good I am at negotiation, and public speaking. That sounds great and not at all like a way to create an authoritarian system.
How much of people being greedy assholes is “human nature” and how much is conditioned by environmental factors and culture
I think there is a starkly nihilistic bent being taken as fact here
That is: there is nothing to “transcend,” there’s just a set of conditions to construct society around so it stops producing amoral, greedy bastards.
Society was created by humans. We didn't get plopped into it by an outside force. We also see similar patterns in other primates and social amimals in general. The environment is a major factor (myth of the alpha wolf based on caged wolves etc.) but this comes from us. Even if it all stems from original abnormal trauma that happened to our ancestor Grug the cave person, the response to it is human.
Any system that seeks to improve our lot needs to acknowledge and work with/around/against the full scope of the species, rather than just hoping it goes away.
We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.
How much of people being greedy assholes is “human nature” and how much is conditioned by environmental factors and culture
I think there is a starkly nihilistic bent being taken as fact here
That is: there is nothing to “transcend,” there’s just a set of conditions to construct society around so it stops producing amoral, greedy bastards.
Even if we completely accept your premise, you can never eliminate the environmental factor of scarcity. Earlier you declared that a cover band concert or a recording of a concert by a the current trendy huge star band is the same as attending the actual event, which frankly I think is a ridiculous premise but let's return to something more concrete: Real Estate.
There's only so much "Central Park West". There are only so many "vineyards in the South of France". There will always be a hip, cool place to live and more people who want to live there than space available. This is a scarce resource you can do nothing about and even freed from all other want, people will have assigned value to these places.
This isn't starkly nihilistic or even someone being a "greedy asshole", people like what they like and so do many other people. Most of those things are scarce so not everyone can have one. Right now the method to determine who gets what is a naturally arising unit of measure of human desire and effort in money, and then letting people judge for themselves how much effort they're willing to expend on a certain desire.
The only solutions to this issue I can possibly see are sci-fi in nature, for example we build The Matrix and everyone in the world willingly hooks up into it, everyone gets to live their wildest fantasies free from the constraints of reality.
Tell me why the hip cool places to live are the hip cool places
Materially, what makes them so unique and beyond replication?
What is the mystic qualia at hand than prevents us from creating enough good and worthwhile places for people to live and enjoy?
There are many unique places in this world. You can't just make an extra Monterey Bay or Grand Canyon to handle the surplus demand.
You say this as if the everyone on the planet is trying to live in Monterey Bay and the… Grand Canyon.
The latter of which is literally a national park. It is literally held in the commons. It is available so that everyone can visit it.
This shit is why I don’t think you guys actually are engaging with these ideas in the way that human beings actually, like, live or consume things. It’s always weird hypotheticals where everything is some zero sum engagement and we’re all savage, brutal beasts clawing over each other for our share.
Some houses on the Monterey coastline go for eight digits. Natural beauty and local culture are things many people desire, and these cannot be mass produced. If you're happy living in any random place that's fine, but that's not how everyone works.
How much of people being greedy assholes is “human nature” and how much is conditioned by environmental factors and culture
I think there is a starkly nihilistic bent being taken as fact here
That is: there is nothing to “transcend,” there’s just a set of conditions to construct society around so it stops producing amoral, greedy bastards.
Even if we completely accept your premise, you can never eliminate the environmental factor of scarcity. Earlier you declared that a cover band concert or a recording of a concert by a the current trendy huge star band is the same as attending the actual event, which frankly I think is a ridiculous premise but let's return to something more concrete: Real Estate.
There's only so much "Central Park West". There are only so many "vineyards in the South of France". There will always be a hip, cool place to live and more people who want to live there than space available. This is a scarce resource you can do nothing about and even freed from all other want, people will have assigned value to these places.
This isn't starkly nihilistic or even someone being a "greedy asshole", people like what they like and so do many other people. Most of those things are scarce so not everyone can have one. Right now the method to determine who gets what is a naturally arising unit of measure of human desire and effort in money, and then letting people judge for themselves how much effort they're willing to expend on a certain desire.
The only solutions to this issue I can possibly see are sci-fi in nature, for example we build The Matrix and everyone in the world willingly hooks up into it, everyone gets to live their wildest fantasies free from the constraints of reality.
Tell me why the hip cool places to live are the hip cool places
Materially, what makes them so unique and beyond replication?
What is the mystic qualia at hand than prevents us from creating enough good and worthwhile places for people to live and enjoy?
Lanlaorn is talking about CPW and French vineyards, and you're wondering why they're unique and cannot be replicated? I mean I guess I could drop a joke about New Jersey, but are you seriously wondering why certain locations are unique, desirable, and not-replicable? Like why can't we just make a second Manhattan? Or create more land that has a Mediterranean coastline and is chock full of tasty stinky cheeses?
So these places then just… magically existed, birthed from the land like Athena from the forehead of Zeus?
No… history behind them? No years of design and cultivation by human hands to make them what they are? Just utterly unreplicable cities and towns, their pleasing features forever locked within their borders?
It’s like reading the accounts of European settlers descending upon the Americas and thinking what they’d found were natural gardens of Eden made for their arrival, instead of recognizing the agricultural work of the indigenous nations that lived there before the settlers were even born
Do you understand that a location is not just the sum of the buildings placed there?
Yes, but I also realize that societies are things we build, that we invest with value and worth by our actions as people! That we create the worth of these places.
Hogwash. Humanity found wonderful places and grew into them, we didn't create the worth of these places, we recognized it and then contributed to it.
Indeed. The fact that land has unequal value is a central tenet of Marxism. The strict unfairness over the unequal distribution of profitable land in the initial case is what drives the injustice that requires the correction in the labor theory
Wrt to housing, the inherent scarcity argument confuses me. Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. Some people are drawn to a specific place for specific reasons but mostly it seems to me that people just want reasonably nice homes in reasonably nice neighborhoods with the usual sorts of accomodations and distances and so on. There's no real material reason we cant deliver on that.
So who gets the nicer spots?
How does communism allocate housing? Depends on how your communist government works. It could be a market, it could be assifned based on industry, "you work in government and this is where your department office is" etc.
The way I'm thinking of communism is the availability of some stuff will go way up but the availability of other stuff will drop to zero, and this will be determined by ???
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
The first suggested option for solving real estate distribution and scarcity was "We will have a real estate market", it has been indicated that this is something that is not incompatible with communism, so let's explore this a bit more, just for sake of argument. We'll assume that there's a currency that everyone agrees on with a fixed value.
Who sets prices on land parcels in this market?
Are the prices based on demand alone?
If an individual purchases that land, does that mean the land belongs to them, or do they just have a license to utilize it, with ownership still being retained collectively?
If the collective decides that the owner should no longer own the land, is the owner recompensed for the loss of that/the use of that land?
What if someone improves that land, then sells the land for more than they purchased it for to someone who values it more than they do? Is that profit then confiscated by the market collective and redistributed to the collective? Or Do they keep it, enabling them to purchase more land elsewhere to reflect their willingness to improve something for someone else?
Or, in the case of collective-set prices, is the land price always fixed, and can only be sold back to the collective market at exact purchase price? What if something happens that reduces the overall value of that parcel of land, say, a natural disaster? Or completely erases that land parcel's existence, in the case of say natural erosion on coastlines?
This all does boil down to the question "How does communism allocate scarce goods?" to which "There won't actually be scare goods." is not an adequate answer.
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
Yes, obviously. Communist models have means to handle scarcity. We've covered it. There are various options for various models. Its not some mystery or something Marx failed to consider. Sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures.
We absolutely have not "covered it" and "sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures" is some crazy lingo when the "artificially" scarce elements are beauty, culture, camaraderie, etc.
There are a thousand units in an apartment building, one hundred thousand people want to live there and their incentives are the beauty of the location and the sense of belonging they feel in that neighborhood.
How are you going to "change" 99% of those people?
Posts
The...communist...government...could use...a market...?
That's a solution i guess.
The best we can do is make sure the scarce things aren't essential, but you need some mechanism to distribute scarse things without giving power to the people controlling access.
Like, I would love to spend a few hours with Denis Villeneuve talking about Dune as seen by someone from Québec, but he doesn't have enough hours to do that with everyone who wants to do it.
No, you asked a piss-poor question that points at the forest but asks you to ignore the trees. I've little patience for hand-wringing about luxury goods when basic needs aren't being met.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The material conditions existing are context and influence the expression, but the hierarchical impulse is native to the species.
You can certainly create conditions that mitigate it, but there is not an external entity creating hierarchical impulses. This is how we evolved, for better or worse.
Zag, markets and trade are not exclusive to a capitalist mode of production
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Classless and stateless yes
Moneyless, well…
- Existential Comics, “Anarchist Monopoly”
Failing to consider the power of luxury goods over the minds of the people is how you get the USSR.
Moneyless?
Sure but the answer is "dont resist transitioning to luxury good production as hard as they did". Its hardly insurmountable.
Lanz. On Page 1, you literally agreed with a post that described communism specifically as a classless, moneyless, stateless society. So yes, I'm using the definition you agree with.
Unless you no longer find that definition accurate?
It's not just luxury goods. The same answers - 'slave labor', 'i dunno, a committee', 'people will want to sew for reasons' came back yesterday when we were asking about basic consumer necessitates like shoes.
'Luxury Goods' like Beatles Tickets or Van Goughs or Big Sur beachfront property are very simple bullet points without baggage and the first questions people ask. The kind of day-1 questions that should be addressed with a clear answer in the 'Communist FAQ'.
That there is no consistent answer, none of the inconsistent answers are anything anyone finds satisfying, and people saying 'no, I really would like to know' is met with anger and deflection really is not building any confidence that this idea of a communist revolution isn't just being winged.
and this is why every Communist attempt ends up with some form of market economy - covert or overt.
Because once the rubber hits the road maslow was right, and people have more than basic needs, and once those needs are met the wants take over.
I disagree! This is the basis for historical materialism. I really would urge you to seek out resources to learn a bit more about it. From our dealings now and in the past I think you would find it fascinating
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
[nods in a syndicalist manner]
Not all luxuries can be mass-produced.
It's not even really about luxury goods specifically, though. Pick any two goods where good B is a cheaper substitute for good A, but there is a limited supply of good A.
Housing was just an example, and the point remains even with more equitable distribution.
Sure but I dont think society hinges on its ability to mass produce diamond encrusted watches
Some scarcity is material. Some of it is because we've built economic systems that incentivize making it so.
Operating on a practical and not literal definition of course.
Doesn't matter. Some scarcity will still exist no matter what and therefore communism must be able to deal with it.
if your method of resource management has to rely on the existence of a post-scarcity society, you're gonna have a bad time.
The general thrust, but to me the defining traits are it’s classless and stateless nature, not the moneyless aspect.
I can see the utility for something akin to Bakunin’s labor vouchers, but at the same time can see the concern for their abuse as feared by Kropotkin
Yes, obviously. Communist models have means to handle scarcity. We've covered it. There are various options for various models. Its not some mystery or something Marx failed to consider. Sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures.
We enslaved and massacred people over gold.
And diamonds
And nice land.
Damn, sure glad capitalism put an end to all that.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Is this only an acceptable response from the communist point of view? "Like yeah not everyone can live in NYC, but its hardly clear this is an insurmountable problem. "
I'm not gonna speak for Lanz, but there are about as many unique forms of communism as there are communists.
They can range from "idk we'll get post-scarcity and things will automatically sort themselves out" to having market systems that aren't that far off from capitalism, and everything in between.
And the correct verb tense is not the simple past.
I don't think we have covered it. You listed some but have not really considered the implications of all those options. And the discussion keeps getting derailed by someone going "Well actually, X isn't scarce!"
It's not like there aren't solutions. Some of them aren't great, but saying it'll be first-come, first-served, or distributed on a lottery or rotating basis or something and some people will just be SOL is a reasonable answer. I mean here and now it's basically if you can't afford it you can suck it and learn to live without.
Or you can say that if the demand is there production will be ramped up, and if we can't get enough workers we'll pull from the gulags to increase shifts and production. Not good, but at least it's an attempt at an answer / solution!
The problem comes when people refuse to acknowledge there are going to be flaws and limitations in anything short of a Culture post-scarcity society and try to go full 'but comrade, there won't be scarce goods' which just feels like the setup to a whole bunch of 'In Soviet Russia' jokes.
The answer would actually be “democratic decision making to solve a collective action problem” but people seem to be unhappy with that answer because it’s not specific enough, despite also not being specific as to what resource is scarce beyond “people want live in same city because”or “why can’t I go to concert?” Or “why can’t I own priceless cultural treasure?”
Squirrel!
How does communism solve this behavior?
Thank you for acknowledging that it's an issue that a government will have to contend with.
We know that in the current system there is definitely a supply/demand imbalance for housing in certain locations. (Like it we had an authoritarian command economy in the US we wouldn't have homelessness, we have enough homes! Just live where you've been assigned and don't complain, citizen.)
And the major differentiator isn't actually any of these luxuries, but access to good jobs.
And that's a problem regardless of capitalism or not, imo, but exacerbated by capitalism requiring jobs and requiring a lot of jobs to be bad, and the poor incentive structures that mean new cities and housing don't get built up even when the most popular cities are extremely valuable.
But jobs, jobs more than anything*, you can look at Detroit for an example.
So remove the capitalist incentive and things will just fix themselves?
And this is where i disagree, people will still need jobs and are going to want some jobs more than others. And certain industries are going to physically clump together for efficiency.
Like, yeah, i agree it wouldn't be as bad as in capitalism, but capitalism is not the only factor giving people preferences for housing.
*except maybe racism yay America
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Indeed. The fact that land has unequal value is a central tenet of Marxism. The strict unfairness over the unequal distribution of profitable land in the initial case is what drives the injustice that requires the correction in the labor theory
I mean it’s a capitalist solution… but I guess what the capitalists think doesn’t matter as compared to what the marxists what them to think
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Who sets prices on land parcels in this market?
Are the prices based on demand alone?
If an individual purchases that land, does that mean the land belongs to them, or do they just have a license to utilize it, with ownership still being retained collectively?
If the collective decides that the owner should no longer own the land, is the owner recompensed for the loss of that/the use of that land?
What if someone improves that land, then sells the land for more than they purchased it for to someone who values it more than they do? Is that profit then confiscated by the market collective and redistributed to the collective? Or Do they keep it, enabling them to purchase more land elsewhere to reflect their willingness to improve something for someone else?
Or, in the case of collective-set prices, is the land price always fixed, and can only be sold back to the collective market at exact purchase price? What if something happens that reduces the overall value of that parcel of land, say, a natural disaster? Or completely erases that land parcel's existence, in the case of say natural erosion on coastlines?
We absolutely have not "covered it" and "sometimes it means alleviating artificial scarcity by changing incentive structures" is some crazy lingo when the "artificially" scarce elements are beauty, culture, camaraderie, etc.
There are a thousand units in an apartment building, one hundred thousand people want to live there and their incentives are the beauty of the location and the sense of belonging they feel in that neighborhood.
How are you going to "change" 99% of those people?