We're as atomized and alienated as ever, but now we also can't afford to buy a house or raise kids. Libs will celebrate this.
Look, having nuclear — my uncle was a great professor and scientist and engineer, Dr. John Trump at MIT; good genes, very good genes, OK, very smart, the Wharton School of Finance, very good, very smart
Holy shit Trump posts get me every time lol
There will never be a funnier president.
I'm predicting a rise in church attendance over the next few decades, especially those new age cult-lite churches like Hillsong. People are desperate for community.
Something something opiate of the masses.
People take the opiate to self medicate an existing problem.
At my loneliest I've considered going to a Quaker meetinghouse. I bet you're right
Counterpoint: Nixon was a Quaker.
Join the Shakers. They uphold volcel.
Not gonna lie, sometimes I think leftists in the US should just start building churches, but that teach about Marx and class struggle instead of Jesus. I think it could be a way to fight back against alienation and get people organized and militant in a way that is already familiar to our culture.
Like, just imagine if there was a place in your neighborhood that was a place where you could go and make friends doing fun activities, get free food or stuff like that if you're struggling financially, but instead of having weekly sermons about the bible or whatever had classes where you could learn about marx and stuff like that.
A dozen or so episodes back, the chapos theorized Mormonism is the only religion in America that has enough sense of community (and land/property) to become a serious political power in a the event of a general collapse.
Protestantism will be more like barbarous tribes.
No idea what the Catholics will do.
As an ex-mormon living in Utah, I think that would be the case 10 years ago, but maybe not so much anymore because the church is starting to lose membership and the mormon population is becoming less concentrated due to in-migration from other parts of the country/world in the more urban parts of the Utah.
Ugh the death of the nuclear family was a small blip of hope in this hell world but you're right; it's just the death of the family part not the nuclear part. We are more nuclear if anything...
I don't want to come off the wrong way in this thread; the nuclear family structure is shit and we should always strive towards more communal and egalitarian relations. I'm just worried what we're getting in its place is just as far from that goal. Same patriarchal structure, just with more precarity.
Or maybe I'm wrong, Idk I'm just here to stoke a struggle session.
I’m just worried what we’re getting in its place is just as far from that goal. Same patriarchal structure, just with more precarity.
We should have seen the writing on the wall and got real fucking concerned when corporations started appropriating familial language.
Ugh, just imagine how much less stressful raising kids would be if it were a collective obligation over like a bunch of people that cared about one another.
I like the way Ursula Le Guin depicted parenting in the Disposessed
The same amount of property ownership is going on. It's just increasingly owned by a landlord instead of the people living there. That's not an improvement.
Small business owners are impossible to radicalize because they are not the proletariat. Working home owners still have material struggles besides for housing.
The fuck? There are people who work for a living so they can buy a place to live. The fact that it is a capital asset and literally a necessity for life is not the fault of the working class person. If you live in the thing you own, it's fuckin yours. Renters should also own the homes they live in and essentially pay mortgage on.
Let's not lose the ball here. The problem is not the person who owns their own home-- it's literal capitalists who flip houses for $$$
House flippers are very different from home owners. Flippers are basically in the same category as Landlords.
I would agree with this. The thing is, with regular recessions the collapse of housing markets as a result of over-financialization, not even these people can seriously make bread in the long term. They're bound to get crushed. Educating working class people on how to save their money and not blow it on capital assets is part of our job.
There are ways to invest money that don't involve becoming the oppressor and exploiting the fuck out of people.
I'm not saying you get Central Park if you own stock or a house or some shit. I'm saying don't create more systems of oppression in your pursuit to survive and thrive in this hellworld.
Everyone who has a 401k is evil, but you need a 401k to have a decent shot at retirement. It’s not worker’s fault, but that doesn’t change the reality.
Weird.
The fact that we all have to sell our souls and that it doesn’t have to be this way is how you get people to be Communists.
Yeah, telling people they are evil for owning a home but don't worry because you could stop being evil under socialism is not a great way to turn people into communists.
A great way to do that however is what leftists did here when the state decided that prior safeguards preventing "primary residence" forfeiture should be abolished to appease our creditors and the IMF. Primary residence basically means the house you live in. The bank was allowed to take any other houses you might own, but not your primary residence, it was supposed to be a safe guard to help
evil petit bourgeoisordinary people who owned the house they live in and nothing more from being thrown out of their residence. What leftists did was show up at the forfeitures and auctions and obstruct them. It was one of the most successful ideas of recent years, it protected many people (at least for some time) and it was widely approved by everyone from anarchists to just regular family people who weren't into swallowing boots whole. And it is something we weren't going to do if we thought home owners were evil capitalists (which they aren't).They don't "lose money" because they aren't selling their home, because they live in it. They don't care. That is what I'm telling you. Most people who own one house that they live in (with some exceptions, although there are opposite exceptions of people who own more than one house) don't care to sell their house or rent it out, because again, that would probably be more of a hassle than it is worth for them, since they'd have to move all their stuff, go somewhere else that they probably don't like as much, and have to pay rent PLUS the taxes they already have to pay for owning a house, so unless their house is already very expensive (in which case they are indeed hard to radicalize, because they're already fucking rich and it's not who we are talking about). Idk why you are acting you found some deep truth or something, it's just not the case.
They haven't "become", they have been that way for a long time, including when Marx was alive. Idk how I can convince you because you have a weird view of working class home owners that doesn't really correspond to reality.
It's just that it's not the case, and even for the people who view it as their retirement fund, a retirement plan is miles from being a small business tyrant.
Homeowners don't have employees to exploit their value and they can be wage slaves like everyone else. They can't exploit the value of their house so simply because, well, that's where they live in, they can't like rent it out unless they move out themselves in which case they have to start paying rent and it is usually a net loss and a hassle. In many countries home ownership rates are much, much higher than the US, and they are far more class conscious.
People don't have a blindspot, it's just that your analysis is weird, and comes from the "good things are actually bad" school of thought. It is funny that you say "American leftists" because America actually has an unusually low home ownership rate especially among developed countries. Leftists living in countries with higher home ownership rates don't share this illusion.
Cars are capital. Owning a car makes you a capitalist. Computers are capital. Owning a computer makes you a capitalist. Basically the only way to not be a capitalist and be prone to become class conscious is if you're homeless and naked.
Also if you don't secretly hate everyone, you're a liberal and a revisionist.
I am not a Christian, I wasn't brought up a Christian, and I am not into weird Christian self flagellating stuff so I'll pass.
I don't know or care which particular current is more self flagellating than the other. All I have first hand experience with is orthodox Christianity and they don't care much about original sins, they seem to be more concerned with being pissed at people, fantasising about getting back Hagia Sophia from the evil Turks, mumbling stuff in old Greek that no one understands and getting paid by the state.
Well personally I don't think they're remotely close to ruling but you do you I guess...
First of all, their value isn't expected to increase everywhere. In many places it is the opposite. Second, that they have a finite life doesn't make them fundamentally different. Hell, houses have a finite life too, especially if they are old. Land doesn't but that's a different thing. But again, finite life isn't the distinguishing line between capital and non capital, the computers you have at work are not dissimilar from yours, but they are capital. Capital is only "capital" as long as you can realize its potential somehow. If you can't realize its potential because you live in it and don't trade it, don't rent it out, etc then it is not the same as the capital owned by landlords, small business owners etc. Because they are actually using it to make a profit, whereas the person who just buys a house to live in isn't, and isn't planning to. You could argue that if push comes to shove then they have selling their house as an option, but if push comes to shove to the point where they lose their house, then it's not very hard for them to reach class consciousness.
Working people who own a single home describes a very large percentage of the people I know because I live in a country with high home ownership rates. I don't doubt some of these people are obsessed with the value of their house etc, but that has more to do with ideological brainworms and temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome than any real material reason.
Even pretending like a retirement plan is on the same footing as even a small business owner because it kinda looks like M-C-M is vulgar analysis that disregards the kinds of relations that put capitalists in one camp, workers in another. Like, even in the case you outlined, you know what that person would prefer? They would prefer if they could have a decent retirement plan that didn't have to involve them selling their house (which is precarious anyways, especially after we've seen how badly the housing market can crash) and paying rent. So advocating for them having that option will always trump the secondary "interest" they have in keeping the value of their house high.
First of all, the "good things are actually bad" school of thought is, well, bad and terribly counterproductive.
Second, what I am telling you is that it is NOT a major barrier to affordable housing, because 1) wage earning home owners don't intrinsically have a serious material interest in their houses having a high value, because most people are never planning to move out and sell it anyways, and the even for the people who do as a retirement plan or whatever, it's nothing deep, and 2) they are nowhere close to being the significant barrier, the significant barrier is the landlords, the banks and the real estate companies. Assume that a leftist party or whatever you include affordable housing in your program. The landlords are gonna be pissed at you of course, but it is not a major concern for the wage workers who own houses, EVEN those who are planning to sell it etc, when the rest of your program is nothing but good stuff for them. Similar to how, say, switching to renewables may make many workers unemployed, but it's not them who is the major barrier to that, and they wouldn't have a problem if your program guaranteed they would find a better job afterwards. So if there is opposition, it is a matter of ideological brainworms, but this is a very broad issue that afflicts everyone regardless of background. Bottom line, their material interest is NOT directly opposed to a leftist program, the material interest they have in maintaining the value of their house is secondary, and they are not the people most at fault for blocking affordable housing programs. Furthermore, saying home ownership is a bad thing is counterproductive because it is contradictory to the stated goal of improving the living standards of the working class, and just looking at home ownership rates in various countries should confirm that it really isn't negatively correlated to class consciousness.
You keep using logic here
Well sorry for using logic I guess! I'm gonna stop using logic, real anprim hours lol
I am not operating under the assumption normies read Marx or whatever. If someone believes that something is in their favour when it isn't really, then that is not a material interest, that is ideology and you're getting into a much different issue, that afflicts EVERYONE (to varying degrees), up to homeless minorities. Again, a large percentage of the people I know is wage earning normies who own their own house, the only people I know who oppose affordable housing is either deeply ideological mega neolibs, rich people and landlords. So if it is more common where you live or whatevs it is because of ideology, not a real material interest, and that is malleable and depends on how good a job the left is doing at permeating society.
Is that asset enough to turn them away from the struggles of their own class though? Hell, I know a good deal of leftist's who still put into 401k for retirement. Those are capital assets are they not? People have to survive, and it doesn't look like capital is gonna fall anytime soon, who can fault someone for wanting to build a life for themselves. Obvious it's not the most ideal circumstances for radicalization but wanting less people to own homes so it's easier to push them left kinda sounds like accelerationism.
Uhhh, do you have a source for that claim? There are a million other factors at work that keep us from reducing pricing on houses. The availability of housing isn't really the biggest issue.
Ngl I think UncutRichardJewells is completely firing off the gut and posting some shit. Not really any basis for any of the things they are saying.
This take is unbelievably wrong wtf. How did you even arrive here?
It’s almost impossible to make a homeowner class conscious though.
At the same time, they need to be taught that it is BAD.
Because UncutRichardJewells is not doing a very good job of presenting their argument. I see, understand, and tentatively agree with a few points, but I had to go through the whole thread a second time to get there.
Yeah, first they start of by saying "This [deterioration of conditions] should be celebrated", with the implication that now people can become proletarians. Only then to later concede that individuals having a decent life is still good but the current form of home ownership does impede class consciousness (which is correct). That, the hostile tone and remarks plus only starting to explain their ideas bit by bit after being pressed by repliers multiple times, make this a horrible way of arguing the right position. Like, this isn't twitter; you can type long comments and expect good faith interpretations. No need for this.
Think of NIMBYs, YIMBYs and the general scaremongering about 'property values' to create opposition to decent policy. Being a homeowner in these general conditions will put you in the camp of small business tyrants if you aren't convinced that social democracy is good at the very least.
