700,000 in public housing

[bluethread]

On Lawrence O'Donnell last night, he focused on the 700,000 people living in public housing in New York. His point was that none of the federal candidates were bothering to visit this voting block. He showed how run down this housing is. For example, the representative from this districts said that NY law mandates that all apartments get painted every two years, but the NY housing authority does not do it.

So, the question is are these projects a sign of the success of socialist policies, giving people a place to live off the street, or the failure of socialism, unsustainable dependency.

[Divine Insight]

So, the question is are these projects a sign of the success of socialist policies, giving people a place to live off the street, or the failure of socialism, unsustainable dependency.

Having a few social programs within a capitalistic economy does not constitute socialism. If this is failing it's a failure within a capitalistic economy. It's not a failure of socialism.

[bluethread]

So, the question is are these projects a sign of the success of socialist policies, giving people a place to live off the street, or the failure of socialism, unsustainable dependency.

Having a few social programs within a capitalistic economy does not constitute socialism. If this is failing it's a failure within a capitalistic economy. It's not a failure of socialism.

Sure, it isn't. It's also probably Bush's fault. But seriously, whatever you call it, is the government providing housing 700,000 people in New York, at little or no cost to them, a good idea? If the answer is yes, would you consider the current situation a success? Why or why not?

[Divine Insight]

Sure, it isn't. It's also probably Bush's fault. But seriously, whatever you call it, is the government providing housing 700,000 people in New York, at little or no cost to them, a good idea? If the answer is yes, would you consider the current situation a success? Why or why not?

I haven't studied the specific case you are referring to. Nor do I care to.

I have no doubt that things aren't being handled very intelligently. That's par for the course in just about everything that humans set out to do.

I personally don't think it's wise to just hand out free housing to people and NOT also provide some sort of social leadership to inspire the people who move into to those places to improve their lives as well. And I'm willing to bet that there was no effort in that department.

So no, just handing people free housing and then ignoring them is not a good idea in any type of social structure, be it a capitalistic or socialistic economy.

However, I think it may be informative to add that if the economy was based on socialism to begin with then these other social services that I'm talking about would already exist. They don't exist in capitalism. So that would be a major difference right there.

Keep in mind that capitalism is based on inspiring competition.

Socialism is based on inspiring cooperation.

These are extremely different approaches entirely.

So unless you have the inspirational cooperative environment included in the package, there's no point in calling it "socialism".

And I seriously doubt that the situation in New York had that all-important socialism element. In fact, I don't even see how it could since New York is as capitalistic as can be.

[Furrowed Brow]

So, the question is are these projects a sign of the success of socialist policies, giving people a place to live off the street, or the failure of socialism, unsustainable dependency.

If the aim is just to keep people from living on the street the bar is set very low and I think that hardly counts as socialism. For example, the council house program in the UK really got going after WWII and was a massive public housing project. At its peak (1979) 42% of the British population lived in a council house. link A figure of 42% is not an attempt to keep people from living on the street. It runs far deeper than that. The aim was to provide good quality, well planned, and affordable homes available to more or less everyone. The program was a response to the loss of housing stock bombed during WWII, the poor quality of property available in the private rented market and the inability of private industry to build a sufficient number of home quick enough, and what was being built was poorly planned. Entirely new towns were built. It was also an attempt to raise the standard of living of a large portion of the population.

Social housing is presently being phased out in the UK through conservative policies. This program started with Maggie Thatcher who introduced a neo liberal agenda. Thatcher had also worked out that a population in debt and with a mortgage over their heads was far less likely to take industrial action than those in more affordable council houses.

I can't really comment on the NY public housing, but for public housing to work there needs to be continual reinvestment. Failure to reinvest is not a failure of socialism in the sense socialism has failed. It is a failure of socialisms in the sense of lacklustre government commitment to social programs.

I would add the comment that social programs in the UK have been deliberately undermined in multiple ways following a neo liberal agenda. The chances of a socialistic program being a success diminish in direct proportion to the reactionary forces, wealth and power determined to see its end. The strategy has been to underfund, and introduce chaos either through complex regulation and management systems and private finance initiatives placing huge debts on these programs. the aim is create a disaster which forces people to demand something be done. The next step is to fully privatise, or rather hand out big fat government contracts to private contractors. This is not socialism.

The idea of "unsustainable dependency" is misleading. Living in social housing is not a form of dependency it is a form of freedom from the corporate state. This was a major reason why Thatcher and consequently her followers are determined to see the end of social housing in the UK. Thatcher was well ware that people saddle with debt and a mortgage were far less likely to be ready to take industrial action. It also handed over large part of the population to the banking industry. At first the deal was sweet. But now housing is near entirely unaffordable and we are face with "generation rent" and a generation of people living at home with parents. The eradication of social housing is an act of class war, and unwittingly phrases like "unsustainable dependency" are the language of that war. It is a political phrase not a factual one. We might equally say people in the private sector are dependent on the bank for the roof over their heads. That system has proven to be highly unstable. It is unsustainable if we mean to imply standards of living are sustained. In my area we are now at the point that a two bedroom terraced house is something like 12-15 multiples of local average wage. A new trend of many people living under one roof is emerging which was how things were prior to WWII. The collapse of socialism is seeing a massive decline in the hopes and aspirations of a generation, maybe longer.

[koko]

Having a few social programs within a capitalistic economy does not constitute socialism. If this is failing it's a failure within a capitalistic economy. It's not a failure of socialism.

Agree 100%

If anyone has any doubt as to whether such words of true wisdom have no basis, one should read Riis's
How the Other Half Live:

http://www.bartleby.com/208/


Or they should review the many online photos of Hooverville's or even the many Reaganville's.




Such phenomena exist thanks to reformers who seek to limit the damage caused by the abuses of capitalism.