This is Ron Paul-level crudity. Socialism is not a synonym or stand-in for any statist or collectivist policy.
how does socialism not equate to collectivist policy? and how are they not both related to projects? the connection seems obvious
What do y'all think about demolishing projects?
- Thread starter Dusty Bake Activate
- Start date
how does socialism not equate to collectivist policy? and how are they not both related to projects? the connection seems obvious
Dusty Bake Activate
Fukk your corny debates
C/S. This is one of the few topics that, despite finding interesting, I tend to stay out of because the commentary tends to be dehumanizing instead of informative or thought-provoking.
And here's a pretty good example of the above.
They might be related, and in fact, they are, but that doesn't mean one is automatically equated or synonymous with the other.
First of all, statism and collectivism are two different things, and in fact, they're often completely at odds. Collectivist policy with regards to housing would be something like a commune or co-op, whereas more statist policy would be the projects.
Second, Socialism is an umbrella term for a wide variety of belief systems that often contradict each other with regard to these issues. You have Libertarian Socialists, for example, who are completely anti-statist and would strongly oppose housing projects, a centralized economy, etc, and would completely defy your use of the term to refer mainly to things that approach (but still don't qualify as) State Socialism.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
I've lived in the projects my whole life, still live in the jects, so I've got a stake in this situation.
In Canada, they followed suit with Public Housing much like the U.S. , building massive public housing complexes, except they are usually in pockets around the city, not normally clustered like the U.S.
I lived in Canada's largest and notorious housing project, Regent Park, for the greater portion of my life, and currently live in another housing project not too far away.
Both communities are subject to revitalization, which Regent Park already being half torn down and replaced with mixed housing, public and private. The results so far have been mixed, with the Gang Members still having their way with each other, but the quality of life has increased noticeably for those who are in the revitalized part at least. Businesses have moved in, and the middle income people spend money in these businesses which are mandated to hire people in the community, which further brings in income.
The actual houses themselves are smaller, but clearly a step up from the houses they used to have (which were honestly
), and the area doesn't look as dilapidated and dangerous as it once did. Displacement is a fear however. I will have moved out on my own by the time they begin to revitalize my current neighborhood, but some people may be displaced, and that represents a human rights issue that the planners of these projects should be aware of.
Overall, I think that the revitalization model is a success, even though it isn't an overnight sucess. The violence in the community and the drug dealing wont go away overnight, or ever, but mixing the communities with middle and higher income people will give more of a voice to the problems of the community, and help to reverse them. People in the projects from experience only meet other people from high school, and when they drop out of high school, they don't meet anyone else period. It's literally a whole other world.
So, in short, I'm for demolishing the projects if they are doing it in the spirit of revitalizing it using 21st century knowledge in sociology, economics and architecture, but demolishing them simply for the purpose of capitalism is totally abhorrent, which I fear would happen in the U.S.
In Canada, they followed suit with Public Housing much like the U.S. , building massive public housing complexes, except they are usually in pockets around the city, not normally clustered like the U.S.
I lived in Canada's largest and notorious housing project, Regent Park, for the greater portion of my life, and currently live in another housing project not too far away.
Both communities are subject to revitalization, which Regent Park already being half torn down and replaced with mixed housing, public and private. The results so far have been mixed, with the Gang Members still having their way with each other, but the quality of life has increased noticeably for those who are in the revitalized part at least. Businesses have moved in, and the middle income people spend money in these businesses which are mandated to hire people in the community, which further brings in income.
The actual houses themselves are smaller, but clearly a step up from the houses they used to have (which were honestly
), and the area doesn't look as dilapidated and dangerous as it once did. Displacement is a fear however. I will have moved out on my own by the time they begin to revitalize my current neighborhood, but some people may be displaced, and that represents a human rights issue that the planners of these projects should be aware of.Overall, I think that the revitalization model is a success, even though it isn't an overnight sucess. The violence in the community and the drug dealing wont go away overnight, or ever, but mixing the communities with middle and higher income people will give more of a voice to the problems of the community, and help to reverse them. People in the projects from experience only meet other people from high school, and when they drop out of high school, they don't meet anyone else period. It's literally a whole other world.
So, in short, I'm for demolishing the projects if they are doing it in the spirit of revitalizing it using 21st century knowledge in sociology, economics and architecture, but demolishing them simply for the purpose of capitalism is totally abhorrent, which I fear would happen in the U.S.
C/S. This is one of the few topics that, despite finding interesting, I tend to stay out of because the commentary tends to be dehumanizing instead of informative or thought-provoking.
And here's a pretty good example of the above.
in reality a discussion of moving/demolishing projects and a discussion of moving/demolishing homes are treated completely different
you can try to demand it, but when the government owns your home its hard to make the case that you should be treated as an individual
nothing is for free, if the government owns your home your demand to be treated as an individual will most likely fail
which goes to my point, projects inherently leads to the violation of the rights of "them" because the american system is based on ownership
what? so they are related but not synonymous
and becuase some obscure form of socialism called libertarian socialism are against projects i shouldnt equate projects with socialism weak sauce
what? so they are related but not synonymous
weak sauce
Yes, things can be related but not synonymous. Is that really such a controversial claim? Housing projects have been part of some socialist projects, and that's the empirical relationship between them, not that housing projects = socialist. They don't have their origins in strictly Socialist thinking and are not part of every Socialist agenda, historically or theoretically.
As for Libertarian Socialism, it's not obscure at all, and its anti-statist thinking even influenced the kind of ideology you now claim to espouse, but even if it was, it's not as if housing projects square with all the other forms of socialism- only with some.
In the US, public housing originated primarily with the New Deal, which was a Liberal Democratic plan, not a Socialist one. If know your history, you'll note that while many different ideological groups and movements were allowed to contribute ideas for the New Deal, the American Socialist Party and its proposals were completely rejected and the group itself almost completely destroyed by FDR. Liberal /= socialist, just like Conservative /= Social Darwinist.
Broke Wave
The GOAT
It's sad that a substantive discussion about public housing, which could have had a variety of interesting opinions has to turn into people educating TWISM's autistic ass on basic political lingo. He is a troll and a loser who derails threads because of his constant need for attention.
Are you native american or something? Hell no the government doesn't own it, the fact that you own it and not the government is the basis of the american economy, that's why I was saying projects are unamerican
no, I'm not Native American
I have a personal agenda with asset forfeiture but I choose not to talk about that here
I think you are splitting hairs and bringing up caveats but in a broad sense it's appropriate to equate projects with socialism
I'm actually dropping a lot of jewels in this thread
I grew up in the projects also and I've had a lot of deep thoughts about projects
I've actually broken down the problem with projects at a theoretical level that goes beyond just talking about "them" and crime, but it's cool, my jewels take a while to digest
alrighty then