Is “gentrifications” ultimately a good thing?

[OddBeMe]

There’s downsides, like forcing low income families out. But does it end up ultimately helping those families? Economically?

Yes

No

Dumb*ss answer

[DrPepper12]

In Kelo vs New Haven (2013?) SCOTUS decided that gentrification was a valid reason for municipalities to SEIZE impoverished / blighted housing using EMINENT DOMAIN. Read that again. If you think socialism is terrifying wait til you meet capitalism...

[goaded]

That's terrible! They should have simply paid the increased value of the land for it, until the owners left voluntarily and with enough money to buy something nicer somewhere else.

[Juxtapose]

Karl Marx's ideas killed more than 100 million people and you think capitalism is terrifying?

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Oh, god, are we going to have the same argument again? Name one "communist" state that had free and fair elections; i. e. one where the people had power and it wasn't just an excuse for a dictator.

[Juxtapose]

You can argue whatever way you want but his idea is killed over 100 million people and that is indisputable.

[Juxtapose]

*ideas killed

[Juxtapose]

You're not going to use the no true Scotsman fallacy here and not get called out on it by the way.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Just because you don't understand what communism entails doesn't make you right. You might as well say democracy kills North Koreans because it's in the name of the country.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded your version of Communism has never existed except in your imagination.

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose so your point is that Marxism (which you never explain) is not nearly as fatal as Christianity? Seems right.

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose yes. Capitalism is terrifying. Try it again without the whataboutism.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose Yes, nobody has ever tried communism. Communism requires elections and freedom, otherwise how could there be common ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange? Since nobody has tried communism, you can't say communism killed anyone. People claiming that label did.

Getting rid of money and the state makes no sense, but the world would be a better place without rich people deciding among themselves how much value they will take out of the work of others. CEOs in the US earn hundreds of times what their median employees do, it used to be 20 times as much.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded oh don't give me that bullshit. Communism has been tried and you can't claim it has not been.

"I disagree with how world leaders went about doing it so I'm going to apply the no true Scotsman fallacy and just say it wasn't real Communism."

Psst.. they still do that in Communist countries but they are brutal dictators and it's WAY worse!

[Juxtapose]

@DrPepper12 I'm sorry but does Capitalism produce horrible dictatorships every time it is tried out? No?

Then yeah, I am right.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose In what way were the people in control of the means of production, distribution, and exchange in the USSR, North Korea, Vietnam, China, etc?

[Juxtapose]

Clearly how I am phrasing it is not working so I will have somebody else phrase it for me.

"There are several reasons why it has always historically ended up in a virtual dictatorship, despite having elections.

Single Party Systems Consolidate Power

For a country to remain communist, they almost always have to purposely exclude rival ideas and parties. This means a single party system. Without that, capitalists and even moderate socialists would be able to take power and derail the communist ideals they are trying to promote. Before the second world war, the communists also competed with fascists for power. So granting the Communist Party the exclusive right to organize in the country meant that communist ideas would remain pure.

But there is a fatal flaw in that. Any time you have a single party system, no matter who is in power, it always leads to dictatorships, because in those systems the real power is with the political party, and not with the voters.

Party leaders determine who runs in an election and party leaders dictate what policies these politicians should be supporting. And without any competing parties, there is no one to tell them otherwise.

A country can be democratic on paper, and have all of the elections it wants, but without multiple political parties, the voters only have the choice of voting for more of the same."

[Juxtapose]

"Corrupt and Greedy People are Attracted to Power

In any political system, no matter the type, the greedy will do their best go where the money is and to infiltrate the leadership structure of the country.

In a communist country, the only way to get perks and a higher income is to rise higher and higher in the party.

This, obviously, is a problem is every country in the world, but in communism it is a particular problem, because the only way to get ahead is to get into government.

Once the government is infiltrated with greedy people, and they change the rules to cement their power, it is very hard for the actual public to regain control again. This is even true in capitalist countries.

Which leads to the next problem."

[Juxtapose]

"Lack of Competition Consolidates Power

In capitalist countries, monopolies are considered bad because they can do whatever they want since there is no alternative. They can give crappy service, charge whatever they want, and can treat their employees like crap. The leaders of industry have no incentive to make things better. Now imagine the whole country is like that, except the government owns all the businesses.

Soviet goods had a reputation for being poor quality and uninspiring, at best, because it really didn't matter if they did a good job or not. It was either take it or leave it.

So instead of greedy capitalists owning all the businesses, all they have done is create a monopoly run by greedy corrupt government officials. Except it's worse, because since there is no competition anymore, there is no reason for these industry leaders (who are now government bureaucrats) to do a better job.

All that has been done is to consolidate power into some industry bureaucrats who answer to the Communist Party, who once again hold all the real power."

[Juxtapose]

"Tyranny of the Majority

So far we have mostly looked at large communist systems, but there is also a potential problem in the small scale as well. It's called tyranny by the majority.

Imagine that you have two wolves and one sheep vote for what is for dinner. In a pure democracy, the sheep gets eaten. Majority rules. Not exactly the most ideal situation, at least for the minority.

In communist systems, the majority is the workers, who often have been abused by the capitalists that previously owned everything. They are the base of the Communist Party.

Left unchecked, the majority will dictate policies and laws that benefit them, regardless of how they effect others, like business owners, entrepreneurs, or anyone else that is not a worker.

So what you wind up with is one-sided policies pushed by the majority of the population, at the expense of everyone else.

Even if you could figure out how to prevent corruption within the ranks of the government, you would still have a dictatorship of the majority.

This is why communism always ends up in some kind of tyranny."

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose I never viewed scandanavia as a horrible dictatorship. Good yh?

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose yes communism from the 20th century…which was Stalinism. We see today Europe’s use Marx and capitalism in balance.

[Juxtapose]

Those are generally capitalist countries with some socialism mixed in @DrPepper12

[Juxtapose]

That's not communism @OddBeMe

[goaded]

@Juxtapose So what whoever that was is saying that if 80% of the country decides that a couple of dozen families shouldn't have the same wealth as the rest of them put together, they shouldn't be allowed to do anything about it? Because that would lead to tyranny.

What's worse, the "tyranny of the majority" or a tyranny of a minority?

[Juxtapose]

@goaded communism doesn't work, citizen involvement in keeping public officials more honest does in a capitalist system.

Communism only leads to ruin unless it's a small group where everyone buys in.

[goaded]

@Juxtapose You're simply repeating the same assertions over and over. You can have "citizen involvement in keeping public officials more honest" in any system with fair elections, which is why I've been saying communism can only work with free and fair elections.

You do not need capitalism to have elections, and extreme wealth inequality allows a minority to buy elections. You're conflating a political system with a financial system.

[DrPepper12]

So then your statement was false. All communism / Marxism does not lead to dictatorship.

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose I've got news for you, The USA is also a mixed economy.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose it’s hard to debate you when you make idiotic sweeping generalities. Somehow you feel confident saying all the “good countries” are mostly capitalist.

Just like you think capitalism is Republican and socialism is Democrats. Dumbest fucking debater it’s useless to talk to.

[Juxtapose]

@goaded yeah except you don't have any evidence that communism can work well there's evidence capitalism can work. The burden of proof is on you.

@DrPepper12 yes it does.

@OddBeMe yeah, almost all the good countries that are functional and have modern morals are capitalist. Karl Marx is a fucking moron.

[DrPepper12]

@Juxtapose agree to disagree. I have my reality and you have... Well whatever you have...

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose what does mostly capitalist even mean you dumb fuck.

[Juxtapose]

It means you need to suck my nuts.

[OddBeMe]

@Juxtapose it means stop making generalities about shit you don’t know about.

[OtterMan68]

Yes, it rehabilitates blighted property. Increases property values. Brings in new businesses that provide jobs and expand the tax base, lowers crime, and improves local schools.

The good far outweights the bad.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

How would it help a family to move out of the neighborhood that's getting better?

[goaded]

If the value of your property goes up enough that you can buy something nicer elsewhere, perhaps?

[OddBeMe]

@goaded devils advocate…poor live in track housing that they don’t own.

[Dinklex3]

I’ve never heard of that before 🤔

[Sevenpointfive]

i suppose it is DEI so it makes sense to some. but in reality it's a group of people buying up all of the real estate and driving up housing costs. surprise, surprise who that group is!

[Anonymous]

Never force families out into the street

[DrPepper12]

That's exactly what municipalities did during the pandemic and Great Recession. At gunpoint. 'Murica