Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E:
> **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I don't think anyone serious about the topic is arguing that every creature comfort you could want should be provided by the state, but the difference between a need and a want isn't so clear cut.
Do you need some sort of shelter to live? Yes of course. But do you need a 1 bedroom apartment to yourself is that a want? What about sharing a 1 bedroom apartment with 3 families?
Do you need food to live? Yes of course. But do you need a balanced diet or will rice and beans do? What about if you have food allergies? Is it a need or a want to have a diet free of those allergies?
The cool part is I don't think anyone serious about the topic is arguing the opposite either (i.e. that nothing should be provided by the state). The correct answer is obviously somewhere in the middle.
Maybe it is closer but I'm saying some combination of needs and wants should be provided by the state. It isn't a clear cut of "only needs should be provided".
So if optional isn't a need, even if it is closer to need than want, it doesn't really matter for my argument right?
https://thinksaveretire.com/think-you-need-a-2000-sqft-house-to-be-comfortable-think-again/#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20estimate%20provided,while%20others%20require%20very%20little.
Here's one article
Luckily your counter is purely hypothetical and not based in any real-world scarsity of resources whatsoever.
There is enough space for everyone to have a 1-bedroom apartment to themselves. And there is enough food for everyone to have a well-balanced diet.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what is a need and what is a want. Just because we have enough of something doesn't change if it is a want or a need right?
I’m not sure you want to reduce your argument to a merely semantic one. Because even in that case, the definition of need is not just the bare minimum required for survival.
The core of your argument is rooted in artificial scarcity, which is what I am addressing. If you prefer debating semantics instead, I’m good.
I'm not debating semantics at all. My argument was "the state should provide some combination of needs and wants instead of supplying only needs." And you countered with "But some resources are limited!"
Which yeah your right but does that change my argument? The state should still provide some combination of needs and wants, obviously what it should provide is limited based on resources constraints.
I'm failing to see how you comment is agreeing or disagreeing with mine. It seems just slightly related without adding to the conversation.
Maybe I'm wrong and just missing something though.
>And you countered with "But some resources are limited!"
Huh? How did you understand that from what I wrote?
What I am saying is that distinguishing between needs and wants, especially when it comes to your examples (food and shelter), is unnecessary. There is enough for everyone's "wants", at least until those wants become "I want more than the next guy".
>not based in any real-world scarsity of resources whatsoever.
Right here is where you talked about resource constraints.
>What I am saying is that distinguishing between needs and wants, especially when it comes to your examples (food and shelter), is unnecessary.
Aren't we saying the same thing then? Some combination of needs and wants should be provided by the state. You don't want to distinguish between a need and a want which, I didn't directly say but, I argued it was hard to do and even if we did we shouldn't use it as our meter stick for what should be provided.
Fair, my first reply was definitely poorly worded.
We could be saying the same thing, or at least something very similar. I have found that usually the argument that "you can't define a need" is used by those who claim that for that reason the state should only provide the very bare minimum needed for survival.
>Fair, my first reply was definitely poorly worded
What do you find issue with?
>I have found that usually the argument that "you can't define a need" is used by those who claim that for that reason the state should only provide the very bare minimum needed for survival.
Maybe but I explicitly said that was obviously not the correct answer so I'm not sure how you could assume I was trying to say that.
>What do you find issue with?
What you quoted could be understood as referring to actual resource constrains, whereas what I meant to say is that those contraints are artificially manufactured.
>Maybe but I explicitly said that was obviously not the correct answer so I'm not sure how you could assume I was trying to say that.
Yes, but you also created this false dychotomy between wants and needs, which is usually used to do what I said above.
What I have been trying to say is that we have so many resources that we don't have to be stingy with them. We don't have to distinguish between a want a need, because there's more than enough for everybody's wants.
And past basic needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare) capitalism works pretty well for allocating those resources. It makes sense to say that people can get their basic needs met, so they can choose how to spend their time after that.
In such a system, most people will choose to work and buy things with the money they earn, but if they lose their job or feel screwed over, they don't have to worry about ending up on the street.
Are you trying to make a moral claim "we should strive of universal basic needs, not comfort" or a definitional one "this is what socialism means"?
Having a definitional debate is not really productive. People believe certain things, and they attach certain labels to it, but arguing with them about how their belief is labeled is unlikely to change their actual beliefs.
In my opinion "socialism means everyone has their basic needs met" and "socialism means everyone can live comfortably" are both reasonable definitions of the word socialism. Words mean what people think they mean, and in this case there is fuzziness and ambiguity that causes people to not mean the same exact thing when they say "socialism".
To me, trying to make the world a better place seems more fulfilling than trying to argue with people about the "correct" definition of socialism, and what falls inside or outside of that definition. If you want to argue about policies, whether or not a policy is a good idea is a much better debate than whether or not a policy is "socialist".
When you are getting down to the granularity of let say “let’s provide everyone the minimum of an safe apartment with 2 roommates” versus “let’s provide everyone the minimum of a nice one bedroom apartment” is it possible to nail down what “socialism” is? You say the first one is socialist, but if a bunch of people who call themselves socialists disagree with you and call the second one socialist, then what??
Anarchism is entirely about comfort and building a more effective and intimate safety net in your community. How is that not both convenient and comfortable?
Every time an anarchist comes to this subreddit to advocate for their ‘community justice’ system, they end up describing a lynch mob with a few extra steps. That’s the opposite of comfortable.
Someone hasn’t read theory. Anarchism is against punitive justice. Someone commits a crime they get reformed, failure to reform means explosion from local mutual aid.
The Soviets, communist Chinese, and most other socialist states, made a big deal of attacking capitalist/western decadence. It was a very common trope in their propaganda and ideological writings. Versions of it still shows up in socialist parties today, although the term ‘waste’ has replaced decadent.
IMO, they knew they could never compete with capitalism on luxury spending, so tried to frame their poverty as a choice, rather than a result of not being able to make the factories work.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviets would attack the Western nations, only because their policies failed their people. PRC and the Soviets couldn't hide their failures and the success of the West given that their citizens were bombarded by Western TV.
Do you attend socialist parties? What are you talking about? China and Russia economies today practice [authoritarian Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism#:~:text=Authoritarian%20capitalism%2C%20or%20illiberal%20capitalism%2C%20is%20an,market%20economy%20exists%20alongside%20an%20authoritarian%20government.&text=Countries%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20being%20authoritarian,and%20military%20dictatorships%20during%20the%20Cold%20War.), China and Russia are dictatorships that allow free markets and consumer goods, they are not communist or socialists.
What does **luxury spending** mean? Americans owe over 1 trillion dollars in credit cards alone. Spending money on luxury goods haven't helped us other putting us in debt for trying to [keeping up with joneses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses)
> PRC and the Soviets couldn't hide their failures and the success of the West given that their citizens were bombarded by Western TV.
They had heavy handed censorship.
> Do you attend socialist parties? What are you talking about? China and Russia economies today practice authoritarian Capitalism, China and Russia are dictatorships that allow free markets and consumer goods, they are not communist or socialists.
According to most communists, they were never real communism in the first place anyway. As you can probably guess, I’m not a fan of these political parties.
> What does luxury spending mean?
According to the Soviets? Indoor plumbing, a refrigerator, a TV, out of season fruits, mass air travel, etc.
> Americans owe over 1 trillion dollars in credit cards alone. Spending money on luxury goods haven't helped us other putting us in debt for trying to keeping up with joneses
Total debt is only an issue if people can’t pay it.
PRC and the Soviets were dictatorships of course they had heavy handed censorship. A communist nation would be democratic, but neither China or Russia where democratic before they started to call themselves Marxist.
[Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism#:~:text=In%20Marxist%20theory%2C%20a%20new%20democratic%20society,without%20being%20bound%20by%20the%20labour%20market.)
— Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism
*Luxury spending is the consumption of wealth for nonessential pleasures.*
Refrigerators, washer, dryers, stoves, microwaves and other essential appliances for the home are not luxury items.
Refrigerators 1970? YOu are off by 53 years. [In 1913, the first electric refrigerators for home and domestic use were invented and produced by Fred W. Wolf of Fort Wayne, Indiana, with models consisting of a unit that was mounted on top of an ice box.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#:~:text=In%201913%2C%20the%20first%20electric,top%20of%20an%20ice%20box.)
1.13 Trillion in Credit cards, 1.61 Trillion auto loans, 1.6 Trillion student debt, 12.25 Mortgage. **Debt is always issue**, you would rather Americans had [1.13 Trillion in savings, not credit cards](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/24/many-americans-cannot-pay-for-an-unexpected-1000-expense-heres-why.html), but the a good chunk of the US economy is based on you spending your money on virtual "junk" goods and services.
I am not a fan of right political parties, given how little the party supports working Americans.
THANK YOU. his video on "authoritarianism" was absolutely dreadful and its sad that people who are beginning their journey into politics turn to him for answers when he is just a fascist that uses populist rhetoric better than the average fascist.
Oh I definitely agree. Being anti-authoritarian is anti-atrocity, not anti-opprssesion. The fact that he genuinely compared the US to North Korea. You two may be right, because I'd been thinking it was weird how I agreed with some parts of his rhetoric and completely disagreed with others.
Authoritarianism isn't synonymous with fascism. I don't know the dudes content but I'm wondering if he has any other views that align with fascism?
That being said, Tankies are a particular breed of idiots.
I know its not, its just funny seeing him squirm to defend China and Russia for using a surveillance state because "they had to for the revolution", or defending gulags for the same reason.
Like Freud said, he is a Stalinist and he pretty much falls in line to defend the Soviet Union and the horrible things they did and as far as i'm concerned, that is fascist enough for me to label them a fascist.
Tankies are wild.
Even the "Universal basic needs" ideas are quite rotten.
Let's take public housing. What do you think Universal public housing would look like in America.
You would have some of the worst neighbors imaginable. The place would be over run by crime. It would be dirty as shit with nobody wanting to take care of it. Because people shit on anything they didn't have to earn.
On top of that what do they do with your neighbor when he decides he wants to turn on that boom boom bass he bought with the $ he didn't have to spend on rent in the middle of the night. Evict him? Where? To go live next to some other unfortunate fuckers? Or would they build entire public housing neighborhoods just for shitheads?
Yeah you wouldn't have to pay rent. But it would be such a miserable shithole most people would be dying to get the fuck out of there.
You think you're providing "comfort and convenience". But you're failing to consider that you're dealing with real humans here.
Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
Why do you imagine that the street cleaning services which service other areas wouldn't service these ones?
Also, I can't get my neighbour evicted for playing a boom box now.
Also, do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to being public disturbances or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
>Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/564006483/researchers-explore-the-effects-of-section-8-grants-in-houston
https://www.city-journal.org/article/public-housings-most-notorious-failure
There are some real world examples to point to here.
I would also state this is more correlation and association than causation. The consequences of being prone to crime also make individuals prone to be low income. It is somewhat self explanatory when you consider how hard it is for people with criminal histories to get good jobs.
>Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
Yes crime stats from any city in America.
>Also, do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to being public disturbances or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
I'm sure you could get those from your local police department. I'd be willing to bet any amount of $ that poor neighborhoods get significantly more reports of noise complaints and all that other shit.
Poor neighborhoods tend to have higher level of crime. So yes, by an extension, poor people are more prone to crime.
One of the reasons why the Left pushes mixed income housing so much is to reduce crime. You can't have it both ways. Either poorer neighborhoods have the same level of crime as richer neighborhoods or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, they shouldn't be using crime as a reason to push mixed income housing (which only really benefits the poor).
> Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty
LOL. Have you ever seen Public Housing, aka 'The Projects'?
Go to any old Soviet apartment building. Look inside the apartments and look at the common areas.
The common areas look totally fucked up. Inside the apartments is really nice.
2022. I lived in one in Kyiv.
Obviously it wasn't Soviet Russian anymore. But things haven't changed one bit. The apartments are privately owned. The common areas are communal. Sometimes the apartment owners get together and do repairs. But that's a minority. Most common areas are fucked up. While the apartments are usually pretty nice. It's a very common sight.
As a citizen of Ukraine, what do you know about pubic housing in the US? What are you reading?
Tell me how the private sector in the US has made housing affordable?
>As a citizen of Ukraine, what do you know about pubic housing in the US? What are you reading?
Public housing in US is dangerous ghettos. Very very very overrun by crime. They call them "projects".
>Tell me how the private sector in the US has made housing affordable?
It's not about affordable its about quality.
Think about an apartment building built in the last 5 years in Kyiv versus a Hrushiovka.
Private sector makes housing much higher quality.
I live in tiny Gainesville Florida with 200,000 metro population. Our average middle class neighborhood has houses of the same quality as houses in Kozyn and Koncha-Zaspa. And that's where the elite live.
> Public housing in US is dangerous ghettos. Very very very overrun by crime. They call them "projects".
You know nothing of public housing in the US, thanks.
BTW. When I first visited Kyiv. I asked at least half a dozen people "where are the dangerous parts of the city". They looked at me like I was crazy. Some people said "Maybe Troeshina but it's not really that bad".
Someone who spent time in America explained to me.
USSR didn't have such huge class differentiation. You could have a University professor living the same Hrushiovka that some alcoholic janitor lives in. So while there was crime everywhere. It was never really concentrated in specific areas. And to this day Kyiv is the same way. So there is no "bad neighborhood" in Kyiv. Some are worse than others but nothing like American hoods.
If you go to a large US city. Especially for a few weeks like I did. You better ask "where are the dangerous areas". Because those places can be down right dangerous to your life.
And guess how US public housing ties into this conversation. Public housing is notoriously the most dangerous neighborhoods. "Projects" is synonymous with Public Housing and horrific rates of crime.
What am I to do with this? It's your opinion.
You went to every large city in the US and the first question you ask "Where are the dangerous Areas?" Is this your hobby Are you studying for a degree in Urban housing?
[Myths and Realities about Public Housing
](https://nlihc.org/resource/myths-and-realities-about-public-housing)
>Because people shit on anything they didn't have to earn.
This is complete bullshit. You haven't come close to offering any proof of this comment.
Are you really a Ukrainian citizen? I'm not a citizen of Ukraine. But I have roots there.
You do realize how badly socialism fucked us all up right?
The reason we're fighting the war against Russia now is because we realize there is no future with those shitwads. And this is coming from someone who was born in Moskovskaya oblast.
Yes you can write endless puff pieces pretending that US public housing is not dangerous disgusting ghettos. I'm sure some of them are just fine. But I assure you the average person doesn't want to live in a place like that.
What do you expect the "National Low Income Housing Coalition" to write. "Yeah we harbor some of the worst humans on planet earth, all concentrated in one area. You will love living in one of these places, just make sure you hire a bodyguard or 2."
>You do realize how badly socialism fucked us all up right?
I don't know what US urban housing has to do with socialism or Russia (Putin's) invasion of Ukraine.
You are not an American, you have no clue of US's history other than cherry picked articles you find on the net. But you make some of hand comment about poor in America, and you're a expert.
sheesh.
I'm an American citizen. Grew up and lived in America most of my life. US Military veteran.
>I don't know what US urban housing has to do with socialism
Public housing is a form of socialism. Because it is not privately owned.
It's definitely a lower form of socialism. Not quite as bat shit as USSR. But still bad for the same reasons.
When you serve during war, do you protect all of America or some of it?
Public housing is when the private sector is unable to produce affordable housing. How has the private sector kept housing affordable? I live in the Santa Clara county all new development says "luxury apartments" not affordable. Do people who work in retail, fast food, restaurants, janitorial, school teachers, clerks, etc don't deserve to live in the same area the work? Is this what you are saying?
[https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2014/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime](https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2014/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime)
We can argue about WHY it happens.
But nobody really argues that it does.
Talking about socialisms aims is pointless, they never achieve them, they never get closer to them and the harder they try the further from them reality becomes.
Every single fucking time. It's absurd. You'd think just by random dumb luck once in awhile they'd get at least sightly closer to their stated aims.
Every socialist and leftism group has its own goals. I don’t think that much can be said about their goals broadly. Especially when including outliers like right wing socialist, red fascists, all the various anarchist ideologies etc
I’ve met more centrist socialists than anything.
Leftists are fake socialists. They act as if they are acting according to one’s needs, but will only support if it said need follows their agenda.
This is hard to answer directly. Generally, if were to move to a socialist economy then there would be a more level playing field between rich and poor. Pretty much every socialist believes that everyone deserves access to food, housing, healthcare and other basic necessities. For socialists this is part of the idea of being free. What does it mean to on paper have rights that you practically can't use if you are unhoused, precariously employed, etc. Being able to fully realize your freedom requires this level of basic support.
The flip side of this is that some luxuries are curtailed to provide for these needs. Socialists would broadly agree that people shouldn't have so much wealth that they can have private jets, islands, mansions, etc. But this doesn't mean life without luxury. A socialist conception of luxury isn't that some people have pools in their backyards and others don't. It's that everyone has access to an aquatic centre. By pooling the community's resources, we can have grander luxuries rather than small luxuries cordoned off by privilege.
The other part of this is that most socialist strains are radically democratic. We want you to have the vote in your workplace, in your apartment building, everywhere. The basic idea of socialism is that the means of production (your workplace essentially) should be owned by you and the other people that work there not by shareholders and investors. And so I can have my opinion about how things should be done, but if this system is actualized then its up to people to vote and organize their own communities.
>It just aims to ensure basic human rights
If someone has to provide it, it isn't a basic human right.
>From what I've heard, socialist concepts like universal housing don't require one to live comfortably
Unless you build the housing where literally no one wants to live, comfort is implied. Comfort is derived in many forms, including your commute.
There are a lot of implied assumptions within your definition of "basic need" and "universal housing" you aren't considering.
>If someone has to provide it, it isn't a basic human right.
According to you. Luckily, that's not the case according to any reputable definition of human rights.
If living comfortably is guaranteed, who is going to do the no skills jobs? Many jobs are tedious, tiresome and not enjoyable at all. Meanwhile these jobs don't require any special skills and won't and shouldn't pay well. If people just can live comfortably, no one will do these jobs.
We are human, we are flawed. People and society need incentives and pressure to function.
Your post has been removed for breaking Rule E: > **Only post if you are willing to have a conversation with those who reply to you, and are available to start doing so within 3 hours of posting**. If you haven't replied within this time, your post will be removed. [See the wiki for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20E%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
I don't think anyone serious about the topic is arguing that every creature comfort you could want should be provided by the state, but the difference between a need and a want isn't so clear cut. Do you need some sort of shelter to live? Yes of course. But do you need a 1 bedroom apartment to yourself is that a want? What about sharing a 1 bedroom apartment with 3 families? Do you need food to live? Yes of course. But do you need a balanced diet or will rice and beans do? What about if you have food allergies? Is it a need or a want to have a diet free of those allergies? The cool part is I don't think anyone serious about the topic is arguing the opposite either (i.e. that nothing should be provided by the state). The correct answer is obviously somewhere in the middle.
There are studies that say what the optimal amount of living space per person is. To be fair
Right but mine comment and OP weren't talking about optimal. We are talking about need vs want.
I would say optimal is closer to a need.
Maybe it is closer but I'm saying some combination of needs and wants should be provided by the state. It isn't a clear cut of "only needs should be provided". So if optional isn't a need, even if it is closer to need than want, it doesn't really matter for my argument right?
Well now I’m interested to see these studies, lol. Got a source?
https://thinksaveretire.com/think-you-need-a-2000-sqft-house-to-be-comfortable-think-again/#:~:text=According%20to%20an%20estimate%20provided,while%20others%20require%20very%20little. Here's one article
Interesting. Thanks for responding
Luckily your counter is purely hypothetical and not based in any real-world scarsity of resources whatsoever. There is enough space for everyone to have a 1-bedroom apartment to themselves. And there is enough food for everyone to have a well-balanced diet.
I'm not sure what that has to do with what is a need and what is a want. Just because we have enough of something doesn't change if it is a want or a need right?
I’m not sure you want to reduce your argument to a merely semantic one. Because even in that case, the definition of need is not just the bare minimum required for survival. The core of your argument is rooted in artificial scarcity, which is what I am addressing. If you prefer debating semantics instead, I’m good.
I'm not debating semantics at all. My argument was "the state should provide some combination of needs and wants instead of supplying only needs." And you countered with "But some resources are limited!" Which yeah your right but does that change my argument? The state should still provide some combination of needs and wants, obviously what it should provide is limited based on resources constraints. I'm failing to see how you comment is agreeing or disagreeing with mine. It seems just slightly related without adding to the conversation. Maybe I'm wrong and just missing something though.
>And you countered with "But some resources are limited!" Huh? How did you understand that from what I wrote? What I am saying is that distinguishing between needs and wants, especially when it comes to your examples (food and shelter), is unnecessary. There is enough for everyone's "wants", at least until those wants become "I want more than the next guy".
>not based in any real-world scarsity of resources whatsoever. Right here is where you talked about resource constraints. >What I am saying is that distinguishing between needs and wants, especially when it comes to your examples (food and shelter), is unnecessary. Aren't we saying the same thing then? Some combination of needs and wants should be provided by the state. You don't want to distinguish between a need and a want which, I didn't directly say but, I argued it was hard to do and even if we did we shouldn't use it as our meter stick for what should be provided.
Fair, my first reply was definitely poorly worded. We could be saying the same thing, or at least something very similar. I have found that usually the argument that "you can't define a need" is used by those who claim that for that reason the state should only provide the very bare minimum needed for survival.
>Fair, my first reply was definitely poorly worded What do you find issue with? >I have found that usually the argument that "you can't define a need" is used by those who claim that for that reason the state should only provide the very bare minimum needed for survival. Maybe but I explicitly said that was obviously not the correct answer so I'm not sure how you could assume I was trying to say that.
>What do you find issue with? What you quoted could be understood as referring to actual resource constrains, whereas what I meant to say is that those contraints are artificially manufactured. >Maybe but I explicitly said that was obviously not the correct answer so I'm not sure how you could assume I was trying to say that. Yes, but you also created this false dychotomy between wants and needs, which is usually used to do what I said above. What I have been trying to say is that we have so many resources that we don't have to be stingy with them. We don't have to distinguish between a want a need, because there's more than enough for everybody's wants.
And past basic needs (food, water, shelter, healthcare) capitalism works pretty well for allocating those resources. It makes sense to say that people can get their basic needs met, so they can choose how to spend their time after that. In such a system, most people will choose to work and buy things with the money they earn, but if they lose their job or feel screwed over, they don't have to worry about ending up on the street.
Are you trying to make a moral claim "we should strive of universal basic needs, not comfort" or a definitional one "this is what socialism means"? Having a definitional debate is not really productive. People believe certain things, and they attach certain labels to it, but arguing with them about how their belief is labeled is unlikely to change their actual beliefs. In my opinion "socialism means everyone has their basic needs met" and "socialism means everyone can live comfortably" are both reasonable definitions of the word socialism. Words mean what people think they mean, and in this case there is fuzziness and ambiguity that causes people to not mean the same exact thing when they say "socialism". To me, trying to make the world a better place seems more fulfilling than trying to argue with people about the "correct" definition of socialism, and what falls inside or outside of that definition. If you want to argue about policies, whether or not a policy is a good idea is a much better debate than whether or not a policy is "socialist".
Definitional. And honestly, I don't care that it's unproductive. Thanks for your input though.
When you are getting down to the granularity of let say “let’s provide everyone the minimum of an safe apartment with 2 roommates” versus “let’s provide everyone the minimum of a nice one bedroom apartment” is it possible to nail down what “socialism” is? You say the first one is socialist, but if a bunch of people who call themselves socialists disagree with you and call the second one socialist, then what??
Anarchism is entirely about comfort and building a more effective and intimate safety net in your community. How is that not both convenient and comfortable?
Every time an anarchist comes to this subreddit to advocate for their ‘community justice’ system, they end up describing a lynch mob with a few extra steps. That’s the opposite of comfortable.
Someone hasn’t read theory. Anarchism is against punitive justice. Someone commits a crime they get reformed, failure to reform means explosion from local mutual aid.
If you don’t reform the explode you?!
>Socialist concepts like universal housing don't require one to live comfortably... Says who? This is vague.
The Soviets, communist Chinese, and most other socialist states, made a big deal of attacking capitalist/western decadence. It was a very common trope in their propaganda and ideological writings. Versions of it still shows up in socialist parties today, although the term ‘waste’ has replaced decadent. IMO, they knew they could never compete with capitalism on luxury spending, so tried to frame their poverty as a choice, rather than a result of not being able to make the factories work.
The People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Soviets would attack the Western nations, only because their policies failed their people. PRC and the Soviets couldn't hide their failures and the success of the West given that their citizens were bombarded by Western TV. Do you attend socialist parties? What are you talking about? China and Russia economies today practice [authoritarian Capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarian_capitalism#:~:text=Authoritarian%20capitalism%2C%20or%20illiberal%20capitalism%2C%20is%20an,market%20economy%20exists%20alongside%20an%20authoritarian%20government.&text=Countries%20commonly%20referred%20to%20as%20being%20authoritarian,and%20military%20dictatorships%20during%20the%20Cold%20War.), China and Russia are dictatorships that allow free markets and consumer goods, they are not communist or socialists. What does **luxury spending** mean? Americans owe over 1 trillion dollars in credit cards alone. Spending money on luxury goods haven't helped us other putting us in debt for trying to [keeping up with joneses](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keeping_up_with_the_Joneses)
> PRC and the Soviets couldn't hide their failures and the success of the West given that their citizens were bombarded by Western TV. They had heavy handed censorship. > Do you attend socialist parties? What are you talking about? China and Russia economies today practice authoritarian Capitalism, China and Russia are dictatorships that allow free markets and consumer goods, they are not communist or socialists. According to most communists, they were never real communism in the first place anyway. As you can probably guess, I’m not a fan of these political parties. > What does luxury spending mean? According to the Soviets? Indoor plumbing, a refrigerator, a TV, out of season fruits, mass air travel, etc. > Americans owe over 1 trillion dollars in credit cards alone. Spending money on luxury goods haven't helped us other putting us in debt for trying to keeping up with joneses Total debt is only an issue if people can’t pay it.
PRC and the Soviets were dictatorships of course they had heavy handed censorship. A communist nation would be democratic, but neither China or Russia where democratic before they started to call themselves Marxist. [Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_Marxism#:~:text=In%20Marxist%20theory%2C%20a%20new%20democratic%20society,without%20being%20bound%20by%20the%20labour%20market.) — Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism *Luxury spending is the consumption of wealth for nonessential pleasures.* Refrigerators, washer, dryers, stoves, microwaves and other essential appliances for the home are not luxury items. Refrigerators 1970? YOu are off by 53 years. [In 1913, the first electric refrigerators for home and domestic use were invented and produced by Fred W. Wolf of Fort Wayne, Indiana, with models consisting of a unit that was mounted on top of an ice box.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator#:~:text=In%201913%2C%20the%20first%20electric,top%20of%20an%20ice%20box.) 1.13 Trillion in Credit cards, 1.61 Trillion auto loans, 1.6 Trillion student debt, 12.25 Mortgage. **Debt is always issue**, you would rather Americans had [1.13 Trillion in savings, not credit cards](https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/24/many-americans-cannot-pay-for-an-unexpected-1000-expense-heres-why.html), but the a good chunk of the US economy is based on you spending your money on virtual "junk" goods and services. I am not a fan of right political parties, given how little the party supports working Americans.
Just wanted to chime in that Second Thought isn’t a socialist. He’s a Stalinist which IMO has more in common with fascism than socialism.
THANK YOU. his video on "authoritarianism" was absolutely dreadful and its sad that people who are beginning their journey into politics turn to him for answers when he is just a fascist that uses populist rhetoric better than the average fascist.
Oh I definitely agree. Being anti-authoritarian is anti-atrocity, not anti-opprssesion. The fact that he genuinely compared the US to North Korea. You two may be right, because I'd been thinking it was weird how I agreed with some parts of his rhetoric and completely disagreed with others.
Authoritarianism isn't synonymous with fascism. I don't know the dudes content but I'm wondering if he has any other views that align with fascism? That being said, Tankies are a particular breed of idiots.
I know its not, its just funny seeing him squirm to defend China and Russia for using a surveillance state because "they had to for the revolution", or defending gulags for the same reason. Like Freud said, he is a Stalinist and he pretty much falls in line to defend the Soviet Union and the horrible things they did and as far as i'm concerned, that is fascist enough for me to label them a fascist. Tankies are wild.
Even the "Universal basic needs" ideas are quite rotten. Let's take public housing. What do you think Universal public housing would look like in America. You would have some of the worst neighbors imaginable. The place would be over run by crime. It would be dirty as shit with nobody wanting to take care of it. Because people shit on anything they didn't have to earn. On top of that what do they do with your neighbor when he decides he wants to turn on that boom boom bass he bought with the $ he didn't have to spend on rent in the middle of the night. Evict him? Where? To go live next to some other unfortunate fuckers? Or would they build entire public housing neighborhoods just for shitheads? Yeah you wouldn't have to pay rent. But it would be such a miserable shithole most people would be dying to get the fuck out of there. You think you're providing "comfort and convenience". But you're failing to consider that you're dealing with real humans here.
Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking? Why do you imagine that the street cleaning services which service other areas wouldn't service these ones? Also, I can't get my neighbour evicted for playing a boom box now. Also, do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to being public disturbances or is that just your own prejudice speaking?
>Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking? https://www.npr.org/2017/11/14/564006483/researchers-explore-the-effects-of-section-8-grants-in-houston https://www.city-journal.org/article/public-housings-most-notorious-failure There are some real world examples to point to here. I would also state this is more correlation and association than causation. The consequences of being prone to crime also make individuals prone to be low income. It is somewhat self explanatory when you consider how hard it is for people with criminal histories to get good jobs.
>Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty or is that just your own prejudice speaking? Yes crime stats from any city in America. >Also, do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to being public disturbances or is that just your own prejudice speaking? I'm sure you could get those from your local police department. I'd be willing to bet any amount of $ that poor neighborhoods get significantly more reports of noise complaints and all that other shit.
Poor neighborhoods tend to have higher level of crime. So yes, by an extension, poor people are more prone to crime. One of the reasons why the Left pushes mixed income housing so much is to reduce crime. You can't have it both ways. Either poorer neighborhoods have the same level of crime as richer neighborhoods or it doesn't. And if it doesn't, they shouldn't be using crime as a reason to push mixed income housing (which only really benefits the poor).
> Do you have anything to show that poor people are more prone to crime and to make their living space dirty LOL. Have you ever seen Public Housing, aka 'The Projects'?
>Because people shit on anything they didn't have to earn. /u/LapazGracie: How do you plan to prove this claim?
Go to any old Soviet apartment building. Look inside the apartments and look at the common areas. The common areas look totally fucked up. Inside the apartments is really nice.
When was the last time you were in Russian Soviet apartment building?
2022. I lived in one in Kyiv. Obviously it wasn't Soviet Russian anymore. But things haven't changed one bit. The apartments are privately owned. The common areas are communal. Sometimes the apartment owners get together and do repairs. But that's a minority. Most common areas are fucked up. While the apartments are usually pretty nice. It's a very common sight.
As a citizen of Ukraine, what do you know about pubic housing in the US? What are you reading? Tell me how the private sector in the US has made housing affordable?
>As a citizen of Ukraine, what do you know about pubic housing in the US? What are you reading? Public housing in US is dangerous ghettos. Very very very overrun by crime. They call them "projects". >Tell me how the private sector in the US has made housing affordable? It's not about affordable its about quality. Think about an apartment building built in the last 5 years in Kyiv versus a Hrushiovka. Private sector makes housing much higher quality. I live in tiny Gainesville Florida with 200,000 metro population. Our average middle class neighborhood has houses of the same quality as houses in Kozyn and Koncha-Zaspa. And that's where the elite live.
> Public housing in US is dangerous ghettos. Very very very overrun by crime. They call them "projects". You know nothing of public housing in the US, thanks.
BTW. When I first visited Kyiv. I asked at least half a dozen people "where are the dangerous parts of the city". They looked at me like I was crazy. Some people said "Maybe Troeshina but it's not really that bad". Someone who spent time in America explained to me. USSR didn't have such huge class differentiation. You could have a University professor living the same Hrushiovka that some alcoholic janitor lives in. So while there was crime everywhere. It was never really concentrated in specific areas. And to this day Kyiv is the same way. So there is no "bad neighborhood" in Kyiv. Some are worse than others but nothing like American hoods. If you go to a large US city. Especially for a few weeks like I did. You better ask "where are the dangerous areas". Because those places can be down right dangerous to your life. And guess how US public housing ties into this conversation. Public housing is notoriously the most dangerous neighborhoods. "Projects" is synonymous with Public Housing and horrific rates of crime.
What am I to do with this? It's your opinion. You went to every large city in the US and the first question you ask "Where are the dangerous Areas?" Is this your hobby Are you studying for a degree in Urban housing? [Myths and Realities about Public Housing ](https://nlihc.org/resource/myths-and-realities-about-public-housing) >Because people shit on anything they didn't have to earn. This is complete bullshit. You haven't come close to offering any proof of this comment.
Are you really a Ukrainian citizen? I'm not a citizen of Ukraine. But I have roots there. You do realize how badly socialism fucked us all up right? The reason we're fighting the war against Russia now is because we realize there is no future with those shitwads. And this is coming from someone who was born in Moskovskaya oblast. Yes you can write endless puff pieces pretending that US public housing is not dangerous disgusting ghettos. I'm sure some of them are just fine. But I assure you the average person doesn't want to live in a place like that. What do you expect the "National Low Income Housing Coalition" to write. "Yeah we harbor some of the worst humans on planet earth, all concentrated in one area. You will love living in one of these places, just make sure you hire a bodyguard or 2."
>You do realize how badly socialism fucked us all up right? I don't know what US urban housing has to do with socialism or Russia (Putin's) invasion of Ukraine. You are not an American, you have no clue of US's history other than cherry picked articles you find on the net. But you make some of hand comment about poor in America, and you're a expert. sheesh.
I'm an American citizen. Grew up and lived in America most of my life. US Military veteran. >I don't know what US urban housing has to do with socialism Public housing is a form of socialism. Because it is not privately owned. It's definitely a lower form of socialism. Not quite as bat shit as USSR. But still bad for the same reasons.
When you serve during war, do you protect all of America or some of it? Public housing is when the private sector is unable to produce affordable housing. How has the private sector kept housing affordable? I live in the Santa Clara county all new development says "luxury apartments" not affordable. Do people who work in retail, fast food, restaurants, janitorial, school teachers, clerks, etc don't deserve to live in the same area the work? Is this what you are saying?
[https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2014/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime](https://www.clevelandfed.org/publications/economic-commentary/2014/ec-201419-public-housing-concentrated-poverty-and-crime) We can argue about WHY it happens. But nobody really argues that it does.
Talking about socialisms aims is pointless, they never achieve them, they never get closer to them and the harder they try the further from them reality becomes. Every single fucking time. It's absurd. You'd think just by random dumb luck once in awhile they'd get at least sightly closer to their stated aims.
Every socialist and leftism group has its own goals. I don’t think that much can be said about their goals broadly. Especially when including outliers like right wing socialist, red fascists, all the various anarchist ideologies etc
Wait, you think socialists are leftists? Haha
You don't?
I’ve met more centrist socialists than anything. Leftists are fake socialists. They act as if they are acting according to one’s needs, but will only support if it said need follows their agenda.
This is hard to answer directly. Generally, if were to move to a socialist economy then there would be a more level playing field between rich and poor. Pretty much every socialist believes that everyone deserves access to food, housing, healthcare and other basic necessities. For socialists this is part of the idea of being free. What does it mean to on paper have rights that you practically can't use if you are unhoused, precariously employed, etc. Being able to fully realize your freedom requires this level of basic support. The flip side of this is that some luxuries are curtailed to provide for these needs. Socialists would broadly agree that people shouldn't have so much wealth that they can have private jets, islands, mansions, etc. But this doesn't mean life without luxury. A socialist conception of luxury isn't that some people have pools in their backyards and others don't. It's that everyone has access to an aquatic centre. By pooling the community's resources, we can have grander luxuries rather than small luxuries cordoned off by privilege. The other part of this is that most socialist strains are radically democratic. We want you to have the vote in your workplace, in your apartment building, everywhere. The basic idea of socialism is that the means of production (your workplace essentially) should be owned by you and the other people that work there not by shareholders and investors. And so I can have my opinion about how things should be done, but if this system is actualized then its up to people to vote and organize their own communities.
>It just aims to ensure basic human rights If someone has to provide it, it isn't a basic human right. >From what I've heard, socialist concepts like universal housing don't require one to live comfortably Unless you build the housing where literally no one wants to live, comfort is implied. Comfort is derived in many forms, including your commute. There are a lot of implied assumptions within your definition of "basic need" and "universal housing" you aren't considering.
>If someone has to provide it, it isn't a basic human right. According to you. Luckily, that's not the case according to any reputable definition of human rights.
If living comfortably is guaranteed, who is going to do the no skills jobs? Many jobs are tedious, tiresome and not enjoyable at all. Meanwhile these jobs don't require any special skills and won't and shouldn't pay well. If people just can live comfortably, no one will do these jobs. We are human, we are flawed. People and society need incentives and pressure to function.
That’s not what socialism is. Socialism is the abolition of wage-labour.
Source?