In all our long investigation we have been advancing to this simple truth: That as land is necessary to the exertion of labor in the production of wealth, to command the land which is necessary to labor, is to command all the fruits of labor save enough to enable labor to exist.

Emphasis mine. The capitalists want it all, even the little that has been reserved for the reproduction of the worker. George goes on to finger finance capital as well:

We have been advancing as through an enemy’s country, in which every step must be secured, every position fortified, and every by-path explored; for this simple truth, in its application to social and political problems, is hid from the great masses of men partly by its very simplicity, and in greater part by widespread fallacies and erroneous habits of thought which lead them to look in every direction but the right one for an explanation of the evils which oppress and threaten the civilized world. And back of these elaborate fallacies and misleading theories is an active, energetic power, a power that in every country, be its political forms what they may, writes laws and molds thought—the power of a vast and dominant pecuniary interest.

  • RmDebArc_5@feddit.orgEnglish
    2·
    4 days ago

    If the government is the one building housing, they aren’t going to produce a massive variety of different types in various locations. They’re going to pick a bunch of standard types and produce those repeatedly

    Not necessarily its just the economically most efficient option. Also the government doesn’t necessarily need to provide the housing, it could only socialize the land and rent it out.

    If everyone is renting from the government, they’re not going to be doing things like renovating their kitchen or bathroom the way they want. It either won’t be allowed, or even if you’re allowed then if you go ahead and do it then need to move you’re just out the entire value despite making improvements for the next tenant

    Where I live it is quite common that one renovates the apartment they are renting. The government could also incentivise this by eg offering a rent reduction.

    There are all sorts of scenarios where socialized housing already has issues, like when they make an entire building just for disabled people. Sounds great, until you realize that means that people with those disabilities now have extremely limited location choice, and no ability to live in a building with able-bodied relatives or friends.

    It’s better then disabled people not having a house they can properly live. Also this isn’t something that has to be done and I personally don’t of this happening (if it did, that society likely didn’t have good support for disabled people in general, so disabled people would likely have had trouble affording a house at all regardless of housing system)

    In socialized housing situations where there aren’t enough total units, which is most of them, it also becomes almost impossible to move because they rarely like playing music chairs and tracking where everyone wants to go to. They just slap the next person on the list into a unit.

    Housing markets without out enough units exist in a non socialised housing market as well and then they just slap the highest paying (most wealthy) person into the unit. Not much better if you ask me

    • BlameThePeacock@lemmy.caEnglish
      2·
      4 days ago

      Not necessarily its just the economically most efficient option. Also the government doesn’t necessarily need to provide the housing, it could only socialize the land and rent it out.

      I can’t think of a single place where they didn’t do that option.

      What’s the difference between socializing the land and renting it out, and just charging property taxes? Why make things more complicated than just changing the amount of an existing tax?

      It’s better then disabled people not having a house they can properly live. Also this isn’t something that has to be done and I personally don’t of this happening (if it did, that society likely didn’t have good support for disabled people in general, so disabled people would likely have had trouble affording a house at all regardless of housing system)

      You’re right that it’s better than nothing, but that’s not what we’re comparing it to. And again, nothing HAS to be done a particular way, it’s just what has been shown to happen repeatedly. Buildings for disabled people offering discounted rent and run by the government already existing in my fairly small city. They’re just going to keep doing that if that’s the choice we go with.

      Housing markets without out enough units exist in a non socialised housing market as well and then they just slap the highest paying (most wealthy) person into the unit. Not much better if you ask me.

      It’s still possible to move to other areas though, further out, or different cities. If you look at Vienna for example, which has one of the highest percentage of socialized units available right now, you aren’t even eligible for a unit until you’ve lived in the city for a few years. Then you need to get on a waiting list for a few more years. Then you can’t move once you get a unit unless you wait a few more years.

      Allowing people to still own and sell/move and renovate all without stupid restrictions while still reducing overall housing costs through taxation policy just makes everything easier to implement and more palatable to people.