Workable Socialism II : What is to be done?

[sologdin]

scot--

it's both, as according to the declaogue in chapter two of the manifesto of the communist party, to wit:

Quote

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

basically, the proletariat must 'win  the battle of democracy' by achieving 'political supremacy' through parliamentary procedure.  at that point, thus raised to the position of 'ruling class,' the proletariat takes control of all capital from the bourgeoisie through the ten 'despotic inroads' listed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

scot--

it's both, as according to the declaogue in chapter two of the manifesto of the communist party, to wit:

basically, the proletariat must 'win  the battle of democracy' by achieving 'political supremacy' through parliamentary procedure.  at that point, thus raised to the position of 'ruling class,' the proletariat takes control of all capital from the bourgeoisie through the ten 'despotic inroads' listed.

So, you do recognize for abolition of the rights of inheritance to work all gifts have to be barred as well, otherwise everyone can bypass the prohibition by transferring property to their desired heirs before death.

Then again I suppose the 10k yearly cap on gifts would allow most gifts to pass without tax penalties, but does that not bypass the whole idea of ending inheritance rights?

[sologdin]

surely 'abolition of all rights of inheritance' contemplates consignment to the abyss of donations inter vivos as well as mortis causa.

[felice]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then again I suppose the 10k yearly cap on gifts would allow most gifts to pass without tax penalties, but does that not bypass the whole idea of ending inheritance rights?

Nobody is going to become a millionaire from $10k annual gifts, let alone a billionaire. The idea is to prevent transfer of excessive accumulated wealth.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, felice said:

Nobody is going to become a millionaire from $10k annual gifts, let alone a billionaire. The idea is to prevent transfer of excessive accumulated wealth.

That’s not what Sologdin said.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

35 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That’s not what Sologdin said.

Scot, I think this is why I wanted to define socialism early on. Not all socialists want the same thing. But I see the error in my thinking. Perhaps outlining what socialists (and Marxists) hope to achieve would be more productive. Much of what you've protested since this thread was started I find myself thinking, "Who wants that?" Treating the Communist Manifesto as a gospel is absolutely not the way it should work. There is no sacred text that socialists follow. Over a hundred years of critical theory and exploration has refined and branched the movement in many different directions. Right now, many of us would be happy, I think, if we could find a way to stop a handful of super corporations from dictating the direction of the entire world (without anyone to answer to but shareholders). Their accumulated and hoarded wealth is so excessive, we'd love to see it go back to the workers. Not all of it, but enough to make life better. For me, I say better around the world. Others might say better in the U.S. 

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, sologdin said:

basically, the proletariat must 'win  the battle of democracy' by achieving 'political supremacy' through parliamentary procedure.  at that point, thus raised to the position of 'ruling class,' the proletariat takes control of all capital from the bourgeoisie through the ten 'despotic inroads' listed.

Except that the current ruling class has also read the manifesto and therefore isn't about to let anyone else achieve political supremacy (through parliamentary procedure or otherwise). Also, even when people following variations of those rules have managed to come to power, they've generally struggled to make a functional economy without quite a bit of capitalism.

[sologdin]

althy--

yeah, i think the general assimilation of marxist ideas by its enemies is a good example of counterperformativity.

there's a large literature on stalinism as state capitalism.  

[Zorral]

Finally, an intelligent question:  "What if the problem of poverty is that it is profitable to other people?"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/07/evicted-poverty-and-profit-in-the-american-city-matthew-desmond-review

 

[sologdin]

Treating the Communist Manifesto as a gospel is absolutely not the way it should work. There is no sacred text that socialists follow.

this is quite correct.  the MCP's decalogue is presented as a prediction of how we might expect the 'despotic inroads' to look generally across the capitalist world, allowing for local variation, limited by the knowledge available to the mid 19th century.  it is also a piece of political propaganda with a summary version of early historical materialist theory, which went through an evolution even during the writers' other writings.

zorr--

i like how the alternative is presented by the article as 

Quote

 

What if the problem isn’t that poor people have bad morals – that they’re lazy and impulsive and irresponsible and have no family values – or that they lack the skills and smarts to fit in with our shiny 21st-century economy?

 

who are these people who sincerely hold this frivolous belief, and to which re-education camp might i consign them?

[Conflicting Thought]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

Treating the Communist Manifesto as a gospel is absolutely not the way it should work. There is no sacred text that socialists follow.

this is quite correct.  the MCP's decalogue is presented as a prediction of how we might expect the 'despotic inroads' to look generally across the capitalist world, allowing for local variation, limited by the knowledge available to the mid 19th century.  it is also a piece of political propaganda with a summary version of early historical materialist theory, which went through an evolution even during the writers' other writings.

zorr--

i like how the alternative is presented by the article as 

who are these people who sincerely hold this frivolous belief, and to which re-education camp might i consign them?

There where a couple of them on the ayn rand thread (unexpected), belive it or not. 

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, sologdin said:

Treating the Communist Manifesto as a gospel is absolutely not the way it should work. There is no sacred text that socialists follow.

this is quite correct.  the MCP's decalogue is presented as a prediction of how we might expect the 'despotic inroads' to look generally across the capitalist world, allowing for local variation, limited by the knowledge available to the mid 19th century.  it is also a piece of political propaganda with a summary version of early historical materialist theory, which went through an evolution even during the writers' other writings.

zorr--

i like how the alternative is presented by the article as 

who are these people who sincerely hold this frivolous belief, and to which re-education camp might i consign them?

Everybody with whom I grew up.  I fear re-education camps wouldn't even change their mind.  These are people who complain that poor people seeking work have cell phones.

[Jace, Extat]

Yeah, if you've ever been to a red state every halfwit right wing intellectual believes that shit.

[Larry of the Lawn]

3 hours ago, Jace, Basilissa said:

Yeah, if you've ever been to a red state every halfwit right wing intellectual believes that shit.

If you've ever lived in a blue state in the boonies it's exactly the same.  I'd say 95% of the people in the trades I work with spout this stuff verbatim.  There's a lot of self-loathing involved too.  I dunno how many times I've come back from lunch to hear some dude say "you know I was listening to Rush on break and he brought up some really good points".  I don't even hope for the disambiguation that would be Geddy Lee lyrics anymore.

[Altherion]

8 hours ago, Zorral said:

Finally, an intelligent question:  "What if the problem of poverty is that it is profitable to other people?"

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/07/evicted-poverty-and-profit-in-the-american-city-matthew-desmond-review

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really support the answer to the question that it prefers. In most cities, today's slumlords would much rather not be slumlords. Think about what an eviction looks like from the landlord's point of view: they have to pay a lawyer to go through the same lengthy legal process and they miss out on the rent that is not being paid during this time as well as during the transition between tenants. Furthermore, when doors are broken in an altercation (to use the articles example) or when the property is otherwise damaged, the landlord is forced to pay for repairs.

If given a choice, I'm pretty sure that most slumlords would greatly prefer replacing the slums on their land with places that can be rented to white collar professionals who not only pay more, but are far less likely to default on their rent, break down doors, require police intervention, etc. etc.

[Larry of the Lawn]

19 minutes ago, Altherion said:

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really support the answer to the question that it prefers. In most cities, today's slumlords would much rather not be slumlords. Think about what an eviction looks like from the landlord's point of view: they have to pay a lawyer to go through the same lengthy legal process and they miss out on the rent that is not being paid during this time as well as during the transition between tenants. Furthermore, when doors are broken in an altercation (to use the articles example) or when the property is otherwise damaged, the landlord is forced to pay for repairs.

If given a choice, I'm pretty sure that most slumlords would greatly prefer replacing the slums on their land with places that can be rented to white collar professionals who not only pay more, but are far less likely to default on their rent, break down doors, require police intervention, etc. etc.

This really depends.  For example I'm currently sitting in a bar in Troy NY.  Rennesselaer Polytechnical Institute is right up the street.  It's also a cross between a slum sprawl and a bunch of happening bars and food spots.  I've repaired many buildings here.  It's about 50/50 slumlords and landlords that care; so many of the buildings haven't been maintained (lots of 1940s and 50s electrical wiring, lead paint, asbestos) and the City doesn't inspect anything because they just want to reinvigorate the tax base.  There are a lot of building s where you can get an apt for $500 a month but the utilities are spotty and there's mold and lead and asbestos.  

This only 20 minutes from the capitol of NY.

Two blocks away are converted factory-to-loft units that go for $2000 a month a piece.  

There also many middle of the road 2 bedrooms for $1500 with laundry in the building.  But the slim Lord thing is definitely still profitable because property values are rising, why spend $ on it when you can milk your tenants (knowing there is no retribution from the city for failing to be a decent landlord)?  And these places are often the only places certain people can rent, because of credit checks, background checks, etc.  The structure fires here per capital are insanely high.

[Martell Spy]

1 hour ago, larrytheimp said:

This really depends.  For example I'm currently sitting in a bar in Troy NY.  Rennesselaer Polytechnical Institute is right up the street.  It's also a cross between a slum sprawl and a bunch of happening bars and food spots.  I've repaired many buildings here.  It's about 50/50 slumlords and landlords that care; so many of the buildings haven't been maintained (lots of 1940s and 50s electrical wiring, lead paint, asbestos) and the City doesn't inspect anything because they just want to reinvigorate the tax base.  There are a lot of building s where you can get an apt for $500 a month but the utilities are spotty and there's mold and lead and asbestos.  

This only 20 minutes from the capitol of NY.

Two blocks away are converted factory-to-loft units that go for $2000 a month a piece.  

There also many middle of the road 2 bedrooms for $1500 with laundry in the building.  But the slim Lord thing is definitely still profitable because property values are rising, why spend $ on it when you can milk your tenants (knowing there is no retribution from the city for failing to be a decent landlord)?  And these places are often the only places certain people can rent, because of credit checks, background checks, etc.  The structure fires here per capital are insanely high.

The housing situation is so crazy here in the Seattle region that this housing sounds rather attractive, structure fires and all.

[Zorral]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really support the answer to the question that it prefers. In most cities, today's slumlords would much rather not be slumlords. Think about what an eviction looks like from the landlord's point of view: they have to pay a lawyer to go through the same lengthy legal process and they miss out on the rent that is not being paid during this time as well as during the transition between tenants. Furthermore, when doors are broken in an altercation (to use the articles example) or when the property is otherwise damaged, the landlord is forced to pay for repairs.

If given a choice, I'm pretty sure that most slumlords would greatly prefer replacing the slums on their land with places that can be rented to white collar professionals who not only pay more, but are far less likely to default on their rent, break down doors, require police intervention, etc. etc.

You are naive. Or not up to date on how rentier capitalism actually works. For only a single example, see: Jared Kushner.

[sologdin]

no retribution from the city for failing to be a decent landlord

the seed of workable socialism germinates from this sort of class struggle--capture of the regulatory apparatus by members of one stratum or the other.

[Datepalm]

On 7/20/2019 at 3:50 AM, Altherion said:

It's an interesting article, but it doesn't really support the answer to the question that it prefers. In most cities, today's slumlords would much rather not be slumlords. Think about what an eviction looks like from the landlord's point of view: they have to pay a lawyer to go through the same lengthy legal process and they miss out on the rent that is not being paid during this time as well as during the transition between tenants. Furthermore, when doors are broken in an altercation (to use the articles example) or when the property is otherwise damaged, the landlord is forced to pay for repairs.

If given a choice, I'm pretty sure that most slumlords would greatly prefer replacing the slums on their land with places that can be rented to white collar professionals who not only pay more, but are far less likely to default on their rent, break down doors, require police intervention, etc. etc.

Having read Desmond's work, this is precisely the case he builds - it is in fact still very possible to be a slumlord by mobilizing state infrastructure and exploiting legal loopholes and he inherent precarities of the low-income population in a US city. He describes a constant - and utterly predictable - cycle of eviction precipitated by landlords.