You write repeatedly that this is simple, John, but I’m not so sure about that. In my little beach town in S. California we have a large number of homeless, the vast majority of whom have migrated here from other areas. As is the case everywhere else, about two thirds are mentally ill and two thirds are serious substance abusers. Almost none ever work and a large number don’t even desire housing. It’s not as if most or even a majority of these people are just temporarily “down and out” and it is even questionable how many can be rehabilitated to such a state. Many, if not most, will remain wards of the society, dependent upon others for their very survival. If they move into free housing, they and “their” housing would need to be maintained, at others’ expense. That all can be done; it’s just that there isn’t a blueprint for doing so and how it would be done would need to be determined by the local egalitarian assembly, I assume, in your model? I have a question as well. This is a pretty affluent area. There are no janitors on my street, for example, though everybody who lives either works, or has worked, for a living. Are we thieves?
The word simple no doubt refers mainly to this fact: Things would be much better if the egalitarian (vast majority) of the population had the real power compared to today when the anti-egalitarian (tiny minority) has the real power.
I don't know exactly how egalitarians in a genuine democracy would handle all problems; I am confident, however, it would be much better than the way they are handled today.
If all the unhoused people were able to live in homes or be hospitalized as I briefly suggested in today's post, and if some (it would be relatively few, especially in an egalitarian rather than class inequality society) individuals nevertheless refused to live in a home or hospital and insisted on doing anti-social things (like camping in unsuitable public spaces and defecating there, etc.) THEN laws could--with justice--make this illegal and such individuals be made to conform to reasonable laws whether they wished to or not.
I agree with your explanation, John, and thanks for making it. In Durruti, the point was made, repeatedly, that Buenaventura Durruti was constantly trying to direct the bureaucratically minded among the revolutionaries back to the premise that in order to be successful the revolutionaries had to be of the working class and that the working class, through its revolutionary organizations, would in fact make the policies, from the bottom to the top. Despite my leftist background and history this was a new way of looking at things. In the 60’s in the SDS-WSA we mouthed this, repeatedly, but I’m not sure how many people actually believed it. Durruti lived it, and meant it, and that’s why he had such full respect of the Spanish revolutionary workers. As far as the present homeless, I know there could be solutions. We even had partial solutions in our own society not so very long ago. My mother suffered unfortunately from mental illness and fortunately at that time the county helped her with housing. Today she would be relegated to living under a tarp under a freeway overpass.
Thank you for this elaboration of an important point. I loved reading the biography of Durruti by Abel Paz. It sounds like you've read it. He was a wonderful person!
Though in the SDS-WSA (and later PLP) in the early 70s, I didn't gain an appreciation of how ordinary people have the values that ought to shape society until I learned it from my late friend Dave Stratman, who in turn learned it from working class people in Dorchester, MA who gently corrected his Marxist wrongheaded views. I write about Stratman at https://www.pdrboston.org/in-memory-of-dave-stratman .
Thanks for your interesting note Tom. I wonder how many of these homeless and drug abusers have been driven to this by an unfair system. John always has his heart in the right place and I am always leaning towards his conclusions if possible. In the UK in the 19th century the poor were assisted by many charitable organisations until the government intervened and took over the supervisory role to the detriment of this charitable alyernative funded by rich donors and also by contributions from the poor.
Unquestionably so!
You write repeatedly that this is simple, John, but I’m not so sure about that. In my little beach town in S. California we have a large number of homeless, the vast majority of whom have migrated here from other areas. As is the case everywhere else, about two thirds are mentally ill and two thirds are serious substance abusers. Almost none ever work and a large number don’t even desire housing. It’s not as if most or even a majority of these people are just temporarily “down and out” and it is even questionable how many can be rehabilitated to such a state. Many, if not most, will remain wards of the society, dependent upon others for their very survival. If they move into free housing, they and “their” housing would need to be maintained, at others’ expense. That all can be done; it’s just that there isn’t a blueprint for doing so and how it would be done would need to be determined by the local egalitarian assembly, I assume, in your model? I have a question as well. This is a pretty affluent area. There are no janitors on my street, for example, though everybody who lives either works, or has worked, for a living. Are we thieves?
The word simple no doubt refers mainly to this fact: Things would be much better if the egalitarian (vast majority) of the population had the real power compared to today when the anti-egalitarian (tiny minority) has the real power.
I don't know exactly how egalitarians in a genuine democracy would handle all problems; I am confident, however, it would be much better than the way they are handled today.
If all the unhoused people were able to live in homes or be hospitalized as I briefly suggested in today's post, and if some (it would be relatively few, especially in an egalitarian rather than class inequality society) individuals nevertheless refused to live in a home or hospital and insisted on doing anti-social things (like camping in unsuitable public spaces and defecating there, etc.) THEN laws could--with justice--make this illegal and such individuals be made to conform to reasonable laws whether they wished to or not.
Egalitarianism, as I write at https://www.pdrboston.org/it-s-not-utopia , is NOT utopia; just much better.
What do you think?
I agree with your explanation, John, and thanks for making it. In Durruti, the point was made, repeatedly, that Buenaventura Durruti was constantly trying to direct the bureaucratically minded among the revolutionaries back to the premise that in order to be successful the revolutionaries had to be of the working class and that the working class, through its revolutionary organizations, would in fact make the policies, from the bottom to the top. Despite my leftist background and history this was a new way of looking at things. In the 60’s in the SDS-WSA we mouthed this, repeatedly, but I’m not sure how many people actually believed it. Durruti lived it, and meant it, and that’s why he had such full respect of the Spanish revolutionary workers. As far as the present homeless, I know there could be solutions. We even had partial solutions in our own society not so very long ago. My mother suffered unfortunately from mental illness and fortunately at that time the county helped her with housing. Today she would be relegated to living under a tarp under a freeway overpass.
Thank you for this elaboration of an important point. I loved reading the biography of Durruti by Abel Paz. It sounds like you've read it. He was a wonderful person!
Though in the SDS-WSA (and later PLP) in the early 70s, I didn't gain an appreciation of how ordinary people have the values that ought to shape society until I learned it from my late friend Dave Stratman, who in turn learned it from working class people in Dorchester, MA who gently corrected his Marxist wrongheaded views. I write about Stratman at https://www.pdrboston.org/in-memory-of-dave-stratman .
Thanks for your interesting note Tom. I wonder how many of these homeless and drug abusers have been driven to this by an unfair system. John always has his heart in the right place and I am always leaning towards his conclusions if possible. In the UK in the 19th century the poor were assisted by many charitable organisations until the government intervened and took over the supervisory role to the detriment of this charitable alyernative funded by rich donors and also by contributions from the poor.
See my answer to John.