You may be a Communist if . . .

Post Reply New Topic

Late stage capatalism is a danger to society and I am skeptical of third-way capitalism as well.


Most of this video is based except near the end he sounds dumb and no understanding of physics, talking about how he thinks water could have replaced coal for power in the 1800s. Dams disrupt the ecosystem and there's just not enough power to be had to replace coal in the way that he suggests.

That being said, I do think that greedy capitalist boomer psychopaths are a danger to us all in modern times. Coal might have been necessary in the 1800s, but I think people found ways around that, I do think they are trying to censor science and alternative forms of energy, I think we could have had clean energy for a long time now and its being suppressed. And its all because of Capitalism. Capitalists will always get more profits from dirty energy instead of clean energy, there is no capitalists incentive for clean energy because with clean energy, people do not have to work as slaves as much, the Sun and Wind, does most of the work. With dirty energy there is more available a slave workforce to exploit for profits. This is also why with Capitalism we do not have nice things, we get things that just "kind of" function, but constantly malfunction, if things actually functioned smoothly then they wouldn't have as much profits.

That being said, I don't consider myself a "true communist", true communists are anarchists and you never see anarchists making significant changes to bad corporate behavoirs. Obviously a government is needed to keep the corporations well behaved.

It sounds like you're perfectly fine with greedy people hording wealth, you're just offended by the idea of horded wealth being equitably distributed.

Yes absolutely. It's private property, always was, always is and not once have private houses ever been "communal" property.

If the community wants houses redistributed, why don't they save up as a group and buy them? Or is it just easier to steal them and not do any of the work.?

Because they likely are incapable of accumulating that much capital.

Why should someone be able to keep housing they own vacant in order to drive up the cost of rentals for everyone who's dependent upon that?

I'm fine with squatters taking over and actually making use of housing that sits empty.

I'm also fine with the state becoming much more involved in providing low income housing, even if that means appropriating some of that housing from the current slumlord owners.

If the community wants those houses, then they should look for the capital. An entire community getting together and still failing is implausible.

What if it's being let out by the owners?

I'm not particularly interested in the state appropriating housing that's actually being rented out, it's not artificially contributing to shortages if it's occupied.

If landleeches knew the state might appropriate real estate they own under certain terms, that's an additional incentive for them to consider selling - at least if it seems like they're close to meeting those terms. This might benefit those seeking to own that real estate as a collective.

Squatters can bring bugs and cockroaches, some of them are junkies that just trash the place sometimes they don't even poop in toilets, they could bring pets and pee all over the place. Surely there is a better solution than that, maybe there could be monthly checks by state employees to make sure they are civilized squatters? Nothing too invasive, just a 1 minute check to make sure the place isn't a total cesspool

Some of that comes down to incentives. If squatters know they'll never be able to own the building they have no incentive to keep it orderly or to perform maintenance.

If they know they can apply for ownership after a certain period they have a stronger incentive to keep things nice.

If they know that applying for ownership will come with an evaluation that might lead to the building being condemned they have even more incentive to keep things nice.

Still a dice roll though. And they have enough incentive already even if they don't own the place, inherently people shouldn't want to live in bugs and cockroaches and pee everywhere even if they only plan to live there a few months.

They already had that provision in the UK for a long time. They actually ruined it by vandalism and poor behaviour which resulted in the government banning squatting in residential buildings.

Odds are the place was already filled with vermin and excrement from the time it was left abandoned, so I'm not sure why the blame automatically goes to the human occupants.

But also, if you're already used to living in filth, you'll be less bothered by it. A lot of people who've been unhoused for an extended period get used to living in circumstances no one else would tolerate because they know they have no other viable options.

I'm sure that's the excuse used, but it doesn't make it true. Odds are they changed things because the people who owned those buildings demanded it, with poor behaviour being the excuse used to shift blame.

Perhaps it even was a factor, but I'd be shocked if it was the primary one.

Adverse possession as it is called was almost never used by squatters but what really screwed them over was organised squats where the place was often sprawled with graffiti and the fact they often had their own homes anyway. The ones that didn't have their own homes were often even worse.

If you watch "Can't pay we'll take it away" you'll see what squatters are like with even the court officers saying they always trash the place. Of the handful of squatting evictions on the show, one was full of junkies who shat in the bathtub and then burned the building down in revenge for an eviction and the other was an organised squat that vandalised the place and hidden knives in toilets.

Hardly the people you would want to live near, yet alone entrust them with a property. They were just out looking for trouble.

The law was changed so that once people like that squat a residential building, the home owners can call the police instead of going through the courts to evict them (by which time the house was trashed)

See, that's where I'd happily let the state take ownership of the building. I see two parties that can't be trusted to own that property.

State appropriating property it thinks isn't being used properly:

State taxing the unimproved value of land to ensure valuable land is used effectively via market mechanisms: