• Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    Socialized housing isn’t an overnight project. It starts with regulating the current housing marketing and prioritizing the take down of corporate slumlords. It starts with revising zoning laws, promoting higher density housing and multifamily homes, and creating walkable and accessible neighborhoods for all.

    I get the idealism from Lemmy, but this is also it’s pitfall. Anything less than a leftist utopia is not worth working towards, and so we sit in righteous inaction.

    • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      It’s not a utopia, housing has been nationalized successfully in several countries, with the result of the abolition of homelessness, extremely affordable rent (think 3% of monthly incomes), and evictions essentially not existing.

      I’m all for revising zoning laws, enacting rent caps, and other transitional measures, but the end goal should be the collectivization of housing, which would eliminate the parasitism altogether.

      • Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        23 hours ago

        History is path dependent. Not every country has the same literacy rates, civic participation, income inequality, intergenerational wealth, social inertia, and so on.

        What is rational and common place in one country is radical progressivism in another.

        You can do what is ideal, or you can do what works. You can deny a reality of systemic barriers to affordable housing, or accept that they are real and must be tackled one at a time.

        In an ideal world, yes, there would be no landlords. In the real world, property, laws, the economy, and people are so deeply intertwined that to propose the elimination of landlords is about as facetious as eliminating bankers because of exploitation in banking.

        • Socialism_Everyday@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          21 hours ago

          I don’t know why you keep bringing up the word “ideal”. Marxists are opposed to idealism, we’re staunch materialists. Saying that “things change over time and place” doesn’t automatically negate historical examples , and following those historical examples doesn’t imply not achieving progressive victories over time.

          You claim to follow the path that works, but that’s what the western left has been following for the past 50 years and look where that led us.