The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.
While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?
Care to explain the “another iteration of the problem”? Abolishing slavery ends slavery, abolishing serfdom ends serfdom, abolishing rent ends rent. The Venezuelan case is an example of the latter. You asked how to change the social structure, here’s a tried and true method that has worked from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cuba. You’re free to present your own with better track records.
I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.
The concept of suitable housing as a right is too uncommon. I wish the US government would put more focus on tangible needs like housing, access to healthy food, and healthcare.
If they did that, the USA would sanction the USA. Can’t have those Marxist-Sanderists thinking they own the place.
While I feel like I might understand some of the impulse to restrict resources as a way to ensure all members contribute to society, we can see that this isn’t actually the outcome of such restrictions; this tells me that the motivation isn’t about improving society but rather improving the standing of a select few. It is all about power and control. How do we change the social structure at this point?
Here’s an idea that worked in the past!
If we keep finding ourselves in another iteration of the problem, did it really work? There has to be a more permanent solution.
Care to explain the “another iteration of the problem”? Abolishing slavery ends slavery, abolishing serfdom ends serfdom, abolishing rent ends rent. The Venezuelan case is an example of the latter. You asked how to change the social structure, here’s a tried and true method that has worked from Russia to China to Vietnam to Cuba. You’re free to present your own with better track records.
I see I was looking at the conversation from a wider perspective and likely misunderstood the context added by the image. I don’t disagree with your comment “abolishing ‘x’ ends ‘x’”. However, abolishing any given inequity, one at a time, in one area at a time is not the progress I was speaking of when I asked how to change social structure. Before we can abolish anything, we need people who believe it should be abolished, and we need enough of them to institute change. My question was directed more toward the earlier steps: identifying necessary change and then creating/maintaining a movement which can enact that change.
You can’t inventivize people to work to death if they have free housing and healthcare - some neoliberal probably