This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.

This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.

There are a number of errors here.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.
"Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.
Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.

All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.

Judging systems by their internal static snapshots and not by how they fit within the broader system and their trajectories is the peak of Idealism. The Nordic Countries, which you are referencing, enjoy high safety nets because they are Imperialist and drastically exploit the Global South, they are not affording these off their own backs. Additionally, they are seeing sliding worker protections and decreased unionization rates due to being Capitalist, and Capitalists slowly clawing back more profits via eroding the safety nets.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (11 children)

This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

Sure, but this supports my original point, this is because they dropped the price below market value implying that there is a value to begin with. We already established we’re using different definitions of value so it probably not worth arguing past each other.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

"Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago (10 children)

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

Red Vienna's housing policies remain.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

Again, you have no analysis of trajectories, nor how they fit in the grand scheme of things. You ignored my entire section on that, actually.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

Again, analyze trajectories and context. Socialist countries have done the most to uplift their population, far moreso than Capitalist countries. Capitalist countries in the Global North rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to even exist in the first place. If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.

I thought communism was when property and wealth are communally owned. The extreme of this is that higher value labor doesn’t get proportionally rewarded at an individual level. In other words, it tends to favor equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago

You're correct in that it's about communal ownership of property, yes, but the idea that labor isn't rewarded proportionally is false. Higher skill or more intense labor creates more Value with respect to that which is required to create it. In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx explains what would likely happen as the means of production are sufficiently advanced:

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

-Karl Marx

load more comments (8 replies)