Americans are really living in conditions of a developing country. I am watching a documentary on homelessness in LA. With so many homeless people, why don't they organize and demand property?


Estas preskaŭ nekompreneble.

Other urls found in this thread:


Ili estis instruita ĝis ilia nasko ke ili ne havas kapablon kaj ŝanĝiĝo ne eblas.

This is why Lenin called imperialism "capitalism in decay." All the investment in military and exporting capital, combined with the national monopolies deliberately strangling progress for the sake of max profits, means that the actual conditions of the masses in the imperial core will be worse than ever. The thing is, imperialism also pays off a labor aristocracy and the petty booj, which mitigates tensions.

They are, but they're also struggling just to live. On top of that, cops can literally just assassinate anyone who starts organizing out in the open.

They dont believe they earned it

En Brazilo, la homoj sen lando organizas sin. Tio estas ebla ankaŭ en Usono.

Capitalism has been in decay for a long time then. Homelessness vs labor aristocracy has been around for over a century.

Não seria
En Brazilo, la homoj sen hejmoj organizas sin. Tio estis eblis ankaŭ en Usono?

Also people ITT are right that the homeless don't organize because on top of everything they are also loaded up with ideology that casts them down, specially on big cities. 99% of orgs are just going to do them charity and do nothing to disperse that feeling.

So many people in that documentary did refuse to identify as homeless even though they clearly were.
Similar to how most Americans refuse to identify as working class.

Because no one would listen to them. Petty bourg home owners don't want their net worths decreasing. Home ownership leads to reactionary politics.

Yeah, you can basically measure the level of decay by cities like Detroit and Baltimore.

Reminder that even SocDems like George predicted this would happen as cities expanded and property was bought up, the average rent which followed the average wages of the tenets would have on it added also the newly speculated value of being near public services. People have known since the 19th century this would occur.

no they fucking don't, have you even step foot on a third world country?, unless there is secret homeless cities in the sewers, of people hiding themselves from right wing paramilitary groups wanting to purge them like in here, they don't have the same conditions

There literally is, and there have been for decades upon decades. They're labeled "mole people" and they live in abandoned NYC subways.

Henry George had little to do with Social Democracy, you could call him a pre-Marxist Socialist or an Utopian Socialist.


yeah but do they fight right wing paramilitary groups?, if not they are still in better conditions

That wasn't what you suggested the definition of homeless was. That isn't the definition of homeless. They are constantly abused or even murdered by the NYPD, and I think that counts as much.

yeah the two don't even compare

Nobody cares about your definition of the homeless when people are homeless living in the thousands in shacks underground you stupid asshole

Go back to Holla Forums

Nah, he was definitely the left-wing of capitalism.

What are you smoking? Detroit, Baltimore, Flint, and many other industrial cities have completely decayed as a result of the "capital flight" of imperialism.

Do you really think this happens in every single 3rd world country? Also, what the hell do you think the police are?

My friend's pipes just froze over in the US east coast deep freeze so they have no water or heat, and his landlord is refusing to repair it.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧real estate🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧real estate🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧.

wow parenthesis turn into union jacks. I wonder what that could mean


the bank of england is controlled by kike shills that own all the real estate and homeless goyim in this post. ooh wow i speak english and americas an english colony. the royal family is being controlled by the jews as usual.>>2341490

I've always sort of wanted to explore America, because I'm certain that it's full of horrible things they don't let the outside world find out about.
In part, it's just that they always show you New York and San Francisco rather than trailer park villages full of people like Chris Chan's family, but it goes a bit deeper than that. There could be anything, you could disappear in America. Britain's small, you can't vanish forever - but America? It's a miracle anyone is found. Actually, that's a massive disincentive to exploring - but maybe by plane, you know? Just fly over and see what they don't show you on television.
That might sound overly vague. It's actually two points melded together - there's the "Oh yeah, that's awful but understandable" stuff like someone going without healthcare, and then there's the stuff that just seems cosmically wrong, not in a moral sense but in a metaphysical one.

yeah at least some third world countries have a temporarily positive trajectory

the Bank of England is (becoming) SOCDEM

It's not that bad though.
t. Trailer park white trash.

It's so strange that the guy uses economic refugee in a sympathetic way.


If you're ever in the US, consider exploring Appalachia. I was driving through the Blue Ridge Mountains last week and the settled areas were a weird mix of well-off ranch homes with big pickups and obvious poverty in hundred year-old farmhouses. Every once in a while you come across a tiny hamlet town with a church/general store that's been there for 200 years. During the Civil War the people that lived there were conscripted into the Confederate army, and were hunted down and shot if they tried to desert back to their farms. Also found a park with a memorial to the dirt-poor families that were evicted back in the 30s to make it public land.




wtf is happing

How about he just gets the license though


How fucking ugly.


Behold the efficiency of capitalism!

It's more profitable to deal with the symptoms than curing the actual disease.

couldn't one just get a sledgehammer or something and break them all?

Offering people attracts people who need help, thus lowering everybody's property values, and that's a big no no among suburbians.

Don’t worry, under state socialism we’ll bulldoze all those people’s houses because they’ll be deemed inefficient by some metric we made up, and they’ll get to live in concrete housing blocks. That’s what stalin would want after all.

Horrible shitpost. Suburban hellholes are not worth defending, much less if they're full of vacant residences.

This, but un… eh, not necessarily concrete.

No, Suburbia will be bulldozed and everyone will live in agricultural communes.

You misunderstand the homeless situation in the US, especially California. The vast majority of the homeless people aren't normally functioning people, they're mentally disabled. They can't hold down even a ditch digging job, let alone be trusted with a weapon they'll try to pawn off or use to rob someone. Many are only barely literate and most have substance abuse problems. Such a situation was created in the 1980s when the US dismantled it's mental healthcare system, moving from forced institutionalization of individuals to at-home or outpatient clinic services. It's resulted in a deluge of retarded people onto the streets, who usually die before age 50.

As for California in particular, most other states just bus their homeless there because the weather is warm enough where they won't freeze to death in the winters. LA has this problem pretty bad and what you are seeing in that video is Skid Row, an area south of downtown where homeless people from all over socal are dumped. They sit there until they commit a crime bad enough to warrant a judge forcing them to accept mental health treatment involuntarily. San Francisco has it much worse because the city has no policy on homeless people control so they wander the main artery (Market Street) where they pitch tents and shit on the sidewalk at all hours. They beg on the local metro and nothing ever happens because the city does not prosecute them for violating the law.

Why does it persist? Most voters are homeowners who live up in the hills - places like SF's Excelsior district, Burlingame, Palo Alto, Chatsworth, Bel-Air, and Westwood. The natural landscape deters any pedestrian entry and the police remove any homeless who happen to stray in. Meanwhile the highways they use to get to work are heavily policed (so no sideshows as is the case in Oakland) as are the commuter rail trains they might take if driving inconvinences them. Their vote matters and they generally vote against tax increases, such as ones needed to build large asylums (which they don't want in their neighborhoods either).

We should either be urban or rural, no suburbs of any kind.

As it applies to San Francisco transit specifically we see a toxic mess of suburbanite elitism combined with naive leftism. Specifically, suburbanites vote for maximum law within their neighborhoods and their transit while well-meaning but deluded leftists are elected into urban offices who then don't enforce laws. This creates a two fold situation: abject poverty inside urban areas and a space for criminals to freely navigate. SF's District Attorney in particular will not ever press charges on homeless people for panhandling, child endangerment, truancy, drug possession, (genital) exposure, public defacation or battery. Unsurprisingly, the homeless population has boomed and with it a market of entrepreneurs who work the same angle gypsies do. It's a gold mine for theives, SF sees over 100 car break ins every day and last year over 20 firearms were stolen from SFPD vehicles alone.

Meanwhile, just 30 miles south soccer moms will call 911 if they witness an unattended minor walking himself to his highschool. This is reflected in their transit: the suburban transit routes all use Proof-Of-Payment systems that require all passengers to have a valid ticket on them at all times, and that ticket must be validated by a unionized Conductor. As a result, their trains and stations don't have any crime or homeless because anyone who cannot immediately identify themselves and their payment is removed by armed security.

The dynamic here is fairly typical of capitalism, including the part where leftists inadvertently destroy their own spaces by choosing to not enforce laws upon the homeless out of pity. This causes everyone else to stick their nose up and wall themselves off. Criminals then walk into the urban areas and wreck everything. Everything then logjams, which is evidenced by a lack of broader communal resources (transit, housing, employment) that ultimately crashes the local economy. San Francisco itself is at the crest of it.

By comparison, LA just buses them all to Skid Row. It's not a good solution, but it's the best one they have short of reinstitutionalization and single-payer healthcare.

Good. The degenerate petty bourg who populate that disgusting city nowadays deserve to be harmed by the poverty that they create.

In a socialist society homeless people would have a safe place to live (even if that place is just a grass lawn with functional toilets/showers at one end) and mentally disabled ones would be forced to accept healthcare (be it just medicine or an assisted living complex) while criminals would be arrested if they tried offering services or stealing from other people. This creates a phenomenon known as "civilization".

The bourgeoisie aren't harmed, like I said they live up in the hills where homeless people aren't going to hike up to reach, not that it would matter because as soon as they walk in a police officer is going to be sent to watch and wait for them to commit a crime (usually jaywalking or sitting on the pavement). It's an extremely effective and ruthless system, since homeless are content to be bumped down into the older commercial areas where they can prey upon renters and workers.

(though when the tech industry crashes and all those renters join the homeless's ranks this will probably change, and SF will suddenly have an army of arsonists wrecking havoc upon the upper class whose wooden homes are surrounded by unkempt shrubbery)

Also to add insult to injury, SF did in fact have a solution to this between 1965 and 1998 in the form of Genva Towers, two high rise homeless shelters on the southern edge of SF. The city didn't care to maintain them and by the late 80s they had no functional utility services or windows and became a great place to do drugs.

An investment in that could have prevented much of this. It didn't happen though, and here we are twenty years later with third-world conditions in most of downtown SF.

Thus why I said "petty bourg." All tech workers in silicon valley currently are basically petite bourgeoisie or have that mindset. Any pain that they experience from the poverty of their surroundings is justice.

there's no way they would stay there

I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be a choice. Nor should it be.

so like, how would they live?

How they lived before deinstutionalization: people judged to be mentally incompetent would be put into an assisted living facility or an asylum as necessary, if their condition improves they are released. This system was imperfect (and was used to oppress gays) but it was effective in giving them a safe place to reside by unionized nurses who understood them and not allowed to exploit them.

As for "regular" homeless they'd be given a place in public housing and not interfered with unless they panhandle or pulled their kid out of school to work. In which case they're fined or put in jail.

so basically people are forced to surrender their children to indoctrination under threat of force? I'm curious about this public housing you mention. what are the details on that?

i'm curious, at what point during all of this are they in the grass field with the toilets?

Homeless user in LA here. I'll try to keep it brief.

What I would like to see is a fucking web app that is like airbnb but for squatters and allowing the use of property for free. You riced out neckbeards with thinkpads can probably use the development of such FOSSils to start a tech coop, do a great deal to disrupt the infrastructure of renting.

Also if you guys send me dogecoin I will use it to feed other homeless people #FreeMilkForDoge #UnionOfEgoists

It's a minor quibble, but I don't think we should use the term "developing country." That's liberal propaganda. "Third-world" more accurately describes these countries' interactions with the West.

You’re an authoritarian attempting to cloak your sociopathy in socialism, stop.

Why do you choose to exist within Los Angeles? If I ever lose my home, I plan on living out in the countryside outside of society. I would want nothing to do with it.

good one. i lost everything and have no way to leave. sorosbucks barely pays for my food. why did I choose to exist in the first place? that is a question for camus or sarte, they would say I had no choice in the matter. the only choices I get to make are sly ones like, will I pay rent and go insane or not pay rent and still go insane?
I have been trying actively to get enough money just to leave for 4 years now, but because there is no safety net, it is almost impossible to recover from falling through the cracks. It is truly a Kafkaesque brutal nightmare of beurocracy to get the slightest thing done, just to move an inch.

because you shouldn't need to pay the government to let people into your own home. letting your rich suburbanite friends crash after a party because they've had too much to drink is fine but because they're homeless he has to pay?

There's a bunch of homeless tent cities nearby me and the police come around trying to fuck with them all the time, they sometimes bulldoze entire tent cities during the winter so the homeless can freeze to death