how do you think the homelessness problem would be solved from a socialist/communist perspective?
Visually pleasing architecture serves the people passing through an area more than the people actually living there. If you live there, even the nicest architecture won’t be noticed after the first week or so. It all just fades into the background as your brain optimizes away the unnecessary information.
Mmmm yes tons of houses surrounded by trees and parks instead of parking lots. So depressive.
Sure it’s great on the ground, but it’s ruining the view from my private helicopter.
also its just the image colors and weather
I see this meme a lot, but no one seems to point out that this “communist architecture” was built this way less out of ideology and more through necessity. They needed a lot of housing quickly, so that’s what was done.
Capitalists build what’s cheap and will fetch the highest profit, but a state can (and often does) choose to prioritise beauty and community benefit.
As an example, I often point to what the (leftist) government of British Columbia did when financing the construction of the SkyTrain expansion in Vancouver. Rather than build a series of generic, near-identical stations, they hired different architects for various stations, a decision that netted considerable criticism from the opposition.
But they did it anyway, and the results are gorgeous. Here’s a spread of four of them designed by two firms.
(leftist) government of British Columbia
As a BC resident, I can tell you that BC’s government was never “leftist.” Then again that word has been mutated in the US and Canada to mean “anything left of hunting the poor for sport.”
Rather than build a series of generic, near-identical stations, they hired different architects for various stations, a decision that netted considerable criticism from the opposition.
Extremely valid critism IMO. How many more stations could they have built with the same budget (barring NIMBYs and shit) if they had built the same stations at each location? Transit funding in Canada is pathetic as it is compared to car infrastructure funding, given the choice between nice looking stations and being able to go to more places on the train, I know which I’d choose.
Also, why isn’t the same visual astethetic demand applied to car infrastructure? The nicest highway interchange or parking lot still looks like shit compared to the ugliest transit station. Is it because the people designing car infrastructure know how beneficial reusable, utilitarian design is? Is it not conceivable that the way transit designers get burdened by “it can’t look ugly” from the NIMBYs who will never not drive anywhere is one of the systemic problems plaguing car oriented countries like Canada?
Also also, the Millennium Line is as much a glamour project as it is a transportation project. It’s right in the name, it was the line built in celebration of the millennium. Socialist countries have glamour projects too, and the Millennium Line definitely looks more in line with how those are designed than the average commieblock. I’m not saying that’s inherently wrong or that there’s never room for astethetics in public infrastructure, but let’s not pretend that the Millennium Line stations are better at providing the actual service of transportation because they’re all unique. In fact, I’d argue that Sapperton in particular is awful, with its long narrow skybridge leading to the station and the fact that the platforms are separated by stairs. That’s been a constant pain during the construction of the new train yard where you often have to switch trains at Sapperton to get to Lougheed. Looks cool yes, not as cool to actually use. Brentwood station straddles a busy stroad and is also not great to use.
Actually, the setup of having individual side platforms on most Skytrain stations is super annoying because you have to leave the platform, go down a flight of stairs, through the main station concourse (sometimes even leave and reenter the fare gated area), and then back up a flight of stairs just to get to the other side. I get that with this configuration you don’t have to break the viaduct into two separate ones just to put a platform in the middle, which saves cost, but if they cared about the actual passenger experience, I think whatever money they paid the architects should have went to building more center platform stations where you can just walk over to the other side. The Expo Line mostly used center platforms, the Millennium line seemingly traded that for nice looking stations.
Finally, BC then decided to use cookiecutter stations with only small variations for every expansion project after that. The stations on the Canada Line, Evergreen, and future Broadway and Langley extensions all look pretty much the same and no one really cares because you stop noticing the architecture by the third or fourth commute.
I’d argue that BC’s pitiful transit system currently has the same necessity that gave us commieblocks. Maybe we should look to commieblocks for inspiration on how to build quickly and efficiently because we desperately need a ton of new transit infrastructure as soon as possible.
deleted by creator
That architecture’s principle is older than WW1 and had been invented for british colonies. I’d call that early capitalism.
They were manufactured in factories and deployed at scale to provide much better housing for people in the context of a genocidal war against them destroying countless homes. Capitalism didn’t house the people, socialism did. The styling of the architecture originating for British colonies is like calling socialist factories “capitalist” due to having electric power. What was once used for oppression is instead used for liberation.
how do you think the homelessness problem would be solved from a socialist/communist perspective?
Socialism is (supposed to be) a solution to homelessness, regardless from which perspective. But homelessness is not the only problem societies develop, honestly. For example, GDR had huge fairness issues as the planners of resource distribution completely lacked transparency of checks and balances.
Above architecture was at least never meant to be for their leader and his staff (six degrees of separation) but for workers (everybody but them regardless of performance).
The GDR was forced to pay reparations for the damages the Nazis committed against the soviets, and the USSR was in no position to build them back up as the west did for west Germany. Even still, the disparity in the GDR was far lower than in western Germany, and that includes housing.
You should include prison and work camp inmates in your disparity considerations. A non-economically forced, neglectable income in context of exponential aggregation should weigh a lot right there.
Also, how capitalist was that Marshall Plan exactly?
Sure, even when prisoners are included disparity in capitalist nations is far higher. It’s also not like western Germany actually de-Nazified either, they were protected, entrenched, and in many cases evacuated in Operation Paperclip.
The Marshall Plan was extremely capitalist, in that it was a plan by a capitalist country to protect its profits.
Fascism is not an economic category. How was far broader politically suppressing, normalist, centralist GDR not been fascist anyway.
Fascism is when a capitalist state resorts to more violent measures domestically to protect and entrench bourgeois rule. It cannot be separated from this context. The GDR suppressing Nazis and spies from the west while maintaining a socialist economy isn’t fascism, it’s socialism under constant siege and threat.
Only the rich may prosper in scenarios of radical regime changes. They simply translate money into power, security, education or mobility. Everyone else has to step down and to suffer more or less.
Aside, fascism and capitalism aren’t congruent. There is more to fascism than just economic exploit and vice versa, etc. This is why I said you mixed up categories. Or maybe you are just overgeneralizing.
Finally, transformations into Socialism have to happen globally (Marx said, I believe). That’s due to the “constant siege and thread” radicals get; why things turn out bad. You just can’t come up with completely new rules within a game of 280 more players.
First of all, you’re wrong about socialist states, they’ve historically been tremendously uplifting for their working classes. There simply isn’t the “translation of money into power” you’re posturing about, but instead a dramatic reorientation of society to where the working classes are on top. The rest of your comment is based on this essentially false premise.
Fascism isn’t capitalism generally, fascism is capitalism in specific conditions. I am generalizing, but I’m not wrong here either.
Communism must be global, but each country can become socialist before then, and actually must. The reason communism has to be global isn’t because of “siege,” or claiming society can’t change, it’s because in order to abolish class all production and distribution must be collectivized. Things don’t “turn out bad” in socialism historically.
how do you think this lack of transparency can be fixed?
Having read Luhmann (systems theory) and being grown up in post-GDR East-Germany I’d say: Capitalist democracies (power) delegate most resource management to a different functional system (finance). Transparency is strongly regulated, can be fought for through a third separate functional system (law) and can be observed though a fourth functional system (mass media).
In GDR, all these delegated systems strongly depended on the centralized planning. So to make one possible conclusion: to fix that transparency issue to a certain degree, you could delegate resource plannig to a decentralized, self-managed system.
I understand, that some present decentralized, self-managed systems are Monopoly games, also considered capitalisms. But this doesn’t hold true for all. Most are just very decentralized and just almost self-managed systems. Law fights monopolies. Lawmakers dampen extreme aggregation and extreme poverty.
Approaches to transparent Socialisms should not only include transparency as a starting condition but also the constant structural reproduction of it from within. From scratch, it is hard to come up with completely different functional systems (not power-finance-law-media) that harmonize better than what we have. (game theory) Luhmann said, we have to fix it step by step until we come to a better, different system. Marx also knew that wanted workers to become self-aware, solidary and tough enough to accomplish adjustments against the rich. You see, this democracy already looks totally socialist when compared to the 1920s.
Cheaper rents (though flats overflow) would solve a lot of Germany present day problems like
- lack of flats
- vanished income disparity between minimum wage and basic income (in some cases, it doesn’t pay off to work because rents for receivers of basic incomes are paid 100% but not for low income workers while rents explode)
It has to be done using public investment (tending or subsidies). We don’t have that yet. Workers should fight for THAT and NOT for lashing basic income receivers harder.
You’re making a critical error in erasing the class character of the state. Modern Germany is closer to fascism than it is to socialism if we are to take a Marxist analysis. Laws in capitalism exist with the consent of the largest capitalists, and any independent org is allowed to the extent that it upholds the status quo. What workers should organize for is the overthrowal of the capitalist state and replacing it with a socialist one.
IDK why you bring up fascism and how to put Maxist analysis in context. I doubt state overthrowals ever had been beneficial for the working class, certainly not more than for the rich.
I brought up fascism because there’s absolutely no basis to saying modern Germany is “more socialist” now. It’s still a dictatorship of capital.
Secondly, working class revolution and establishing socialism has been greatly beneficial for the working classes in the USSR, PRC, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, and even partial overthrowals such as in the Bolivarian revolution and Nicaraguan revolution have been tremendously beneficial. Socialism works, and disparity within socialism, though real, neither comes close to capitalism nor is erasing disparity the goal of socialism, but creating a society focused on satisfying the needs of everyone.
Sorry, you mix up too much for me. What’s a low disparity in an overall poor country worth anyway.
What did I mix up? Further, again, I agree, lowering disparity isn’t the primary concern but instead directing the economy towards improving the lives of the working classes through a working class controlled and directed state and economy. Capitalist economies are directed towards profits above all else, and Germany in particular is an imperialist country that plunders the global south.
Lawmakers do not fight monopolies.
Lawmakers serve the merchant class,
and any laws protecting it will be circumvented.The only exception is when
the lawyer class fears a socialist revolution
and decides to take a left turn
within the capitalist system,
going full social democracy,
in order to preserve the capitalist system,
as an alternative to taking the fascist route,
which the US did when FDR came to power,
which ended with Nixon’s administration.The German lawyer class right now serves the US merchant class. They have been since 1945 and 1990.
Laws protecting German workers stem from the FDR-Johnson era.
It is also on the brink of collapse as the German lawyer class decided to hand over everything to the US oligarchs.Germany’s present day problem is a total collapse of its merchant class from what’s left of it.
It’s bread and butter, the German car industry is about to go down soon.There is no left turn coming to the rescue from the US this time around.
The US no longer fears a socialist revolution from the worker and academic classes imitating the USSR, while its raw power is fading instead of rising on the world stage and thus has decided to take the fascist route.
i think a lot of the homeless have mental conditions that would be there in either economic system. the questions will be: will the system provide for them, if they reject having an identity, talking to a persom or filling out a form? will the system provide shelter against their will? is it okay to force them? but if there’s unconditional healthcare, some cases may be healed or less severe, so at least those will be able to move in.
what do you mean by that?
i mean, it’s a good start to have affordable or even free housing, even if some ppl dislike the looks. but don’t expect this to solve homlessness. it will help a few homeless ppl, but many others won’t move in due to mental health issues and a few even refuse free treatment.
how do you think that can be solved?
I think in the case of, for example, someone who chooses homelessness due to schizophrenia, it should be legal for them to live wherever they’re not causing some kind of legitimate harm. (ie, not blocking an exit or damming up a river, etc.) They should be offered survival supplies and invited to care facilities. I don’t think it’s acceptable to involuntarily commit such a person regardless of good intentions, as it violates their sovereignty as an individual.
But at what point is it considered right to impose treatment when someone creates horrible living conditions on themselves because they have a disease? Schizophrenia is treatable. Part of the disease is not wanting/trusting help. Once medicated, most schizophrenia patients, even those who were treated involuntarily, are grateful.
IMO the line is whether they pose a direct danger to themselves or others. (Ideally the healthcare system would be such that most accept voluntary treatment before reaching a severe stage.) If they’re so far just hanging out in the woods and not hurting anyone, the treatment plan should be observation and attempts to reason them into voluntary treatment.
Involuntary treatment can have the unfortunate effect of feeding into a person’s distrust, causing a loop of future involuntary treatment. If you can convince a patient to come in on their own you increase the likelihood that they’ll continue their medication on their own.
I get that. But if forcing them to take medication leads to them having a huge quality of life improvement, including them realizing that they need the medication and are grateful for it?
I get what you mean, but unless someone is in actual danger or threatening others then what gives any of us the right to forcibly control what they do? I know people who suffer from undiagnosed issues due to their refusal to get therapy or try medication, but isn’t it their right to refuse treatment? If immediate danger isn’t the line then where do you propose we draw it?
I think a lot of people living in such architecture have mental conditions. Also, some people own enough now to make room for homeless ones and live somewhere else but they have mental conditions now.
