I Have A Question About The Dialectic of History According to Marxists

[red_elk]

As soon as a person's material needs are met, other fundamental needs arise and drive one's life. "A car in every garage and a chicken in every pot" is only the beginning. See Maslow

The society cannot guarantee you fullfillment of higher-order needs, only the conditions to fullfull them.
To get good education you need access to university, but you also have to study. You can expect the former to be given by society for free, but the latter depends also on your talent and effort.
Similarly, things like finding satisfactory job or good spouse cannot be guaranteed for everybody.

 

[El_Machinae]

The idea of 'conquering' being evil is also going to run into a real-world criticism when it comes to these economic structures. We have to watch for economic systems that grow through voluntary buy-in rather than conquest. When a communist movement sends troops outside of its borders in order to conquer more territory, it effectively becomes an empire for all practical purposes. Unless, I guess, a 'know it when I see it' exception occurs.

There are very few successful socialist movements, I think. But even fewer that could sustain themselves without imperial adventures. And while we have to avoid the tu quoque fallacy, all successful societies in the modern era are going to be able to tie their success to historical evil. There's just no way around that, because there's always going to be a transition of government and previous governments had to be evil to make it to the modern era. Depending on how strict you are, obviously. People can white-wash anything.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Um, this is precisely older Marx's concern: To give people space to fulfill their higher needs without having to worry about the basics.
If you recall in Alpha Centauri, the workers faction's characteristic is labelled as "eudaimonic". I was always amazed at how appropriate it was. The person who wrote that must really know their stuff.

The society cannot guarantee you fullfillment of higher-order needs, only the conditions to fullfull them.
To get good education you need access to university, but you also have to study. You can expect the former to be given by society for free, but the latter depends also on your talent and effort.
Similarly, things like finding satisfactory job or good spouse cannot be guaranteed for everybody.

It is often the higher order needs of people that typically wreck the efforts of meeting basic needs of the population. In addition, meeting one's higher order needs can easily run in conflict with social norms, politics, cultural norms, etc. Not all criminals are underfed, underhoused, uneducated people.

Certainly food and shelter for the world's poorest is within our grasp. Education may be next. Maybe even justice is possible. Atm, in the US we cannot even solve the problem of public homelessness. Do you know how to do that? A thousand city mayors would love to know.

 

[red_elk]

It is often the higher order needs of people that typically wreck the efforts of meeting basic needs of the population. In addition, meeting one's higher order needs can easily run in conflict with social norms, politics, cultural norms, etc. Not all criminals are underfed, underhoused, uneducated people.

Yes, providing food, housing and healthcare to the poors won't solve all their problems - it's a common knowledge. At least it's a good place to start.

Certainly food and shelter for the world's poorest is within our grasp. Education may be next. Maybe even justice is possible. Atm, in the US we cannot even solve the problem of public homelessness. Do you know how to do that? A thousand city mayors would love to know.

Did they try to rent them apartments for free?

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yes, providing food, housing and healthcare to the poors won't solve all their problems - it's a common knowledge. At least it's a good place to start.


Did they try to rent them apartments for free?

In most places there are no apartments to rent; local governments do not build or own apartments. For some homeless, there is no interest. For other homeless they are unable to manage that. Homelessness is not a one size fits all problem. Among the homeless the problems/solutions are varied. Among the politically empowered the problems/solutions are varied. Among those not affected by homelessness the problems/solutions are varied or may not seem to exist.

EDIT: the best approach I know is to isolate elements/populations within the homeless community and address those. For instance: in Albuquerque, identify the ~700 single moms with kids who are homeless and build a multi step, multi dimensional, program to move them from crisis (or wherever they start) all the way through to being able to take care of themselves and their children. then choose another group and do the same.

 

[El_Machinae]

We ran into this problem over and over in politics, especially because different government levels have different revenues and different legal authorities. Some of the desperately poo just need money. Some need help. Some need a mix.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Interagency and inter charity group cooperation is often non existent and absolutely necessary.

 

[red_elk]

If I was looking for a solution to this problem, I'd start with studying approaches and experience of the countries which were more successful in solving it.

 

[Birdjaguar]

If I was looking for a solution to this problem, I'd start with studying approaches and experience of the countries which were more successful in solving it.

Yes, but...
The countries with the smallest homelessness problems are the smallest countries (generally by area and population) often with less diversity. Fewer homeless people is a much easier problem to solve. In the US we have not only have a high population, a big space, but also 3000+ different county/city jurisdictions and very diverse populations. Albuquerque may make an effort one way to solve it's problem, but Santa Fe may choose a different path. US politics is also a huge barrier to finding solutions. In general homelessness is a city/county problem and not a state/governor problem in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homeless_population

https://www.therichest.com/poorest-list/the-15-most-homeless-cities-in-the-world/

 

[Zardnaar]

If I was looking for a solution to this problem, I'd start with studying approaches and experience of the countries which were more successful in solving it.

Soviet Union solved it. They made homelessness illegal.

If you ended up in the streets regardless they would provide accommodation for you In the nearest gulag.

NZ also solved it until the 80's and the started privatizing the social housing.
Basically requires political will, money.

The money requires taxes and there's your problem.

 

[bernie14]

And why would anyone respect your opinion on this?

Because most people aren't bitter, frustrated, self loathing extremists?

 

[Kaushad]

Similarly, things like finding satisfactory job or good spouse cannot be guaranteed for everybody.

I can't imagine how everybody could be guaranteed a good spouse, but what's really stopping society from distributing satisfactory work for everybody? Is some essential work innately less than satisfactory or is there not enough satisfactory work worth doing?

 

[Zardnaar]

I can't imagine how everybody could be guaranteed a good spouse, but what's really stopping society from distributing satisfactory work for everybody? Is some essential work innately less than satisfactory or is there not enough satisfactory work worth doing?

Someone has to do the crap jobs.

You either need to pay them more or use people that struggle to get employment elsewhere.

Farmungs not the worst job in the world.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I can't imagine how everybody could be guaranteed a good spouse, but what's really stopping society from distributing satisfactory work for everybody? Is some essential work innately less than satisfactory or is there not enough satisfactory work worth doing?

Hello and welcome to Off topic!

People are the problem. Many/most are not satisfied with their jobs now. They do them because they need to but would quit quickly if they didn't have to work. What if the job that would make work for me satisfactory was the one held by my boss? What if I, as a boss, have no interest in making your work life satisfactory and being that way makes mine perfect?

 

[red_elk]

I can't imagine how everybody could be guaranteed a good spouse, but what's really stopping society from distributing satisfactory work for everybody? Is some essential work innately less than satisfactory or is there not enough satisfactory work worth doing?

You are right, may be job example was not really good.
Remember reading the novels of my favorite sci-fi authors back in university. They had pretty vague description of future society (communist one, of course!), and some details were interesting. There was special profession of Teacher, whose job was upbringing of students and one of their main goals was revealing person's "main talent" and favorite job which (s)he would enjoy the most. In rare cases they failed, for example if person's talent was too exotic and favorite job was completely unneeded by society. But generally, providing a good job probably can be a task which society can do reasonably well.

 

[Angst]

Certainly food and shelter for the world's poorest is within our grasp. Education may be next. Maybe even justice is possible. Atm, in the US we cannot even solve the problem of public homelessness. Do you know how to do that? A thousand city mayors would love to know.

I know this sounds crazy, but just giving the homeless debt relief and free housing usually removes the problem one day to the next, including not having much trouble with unemployment after. The housing bubble may speak against why this is bad, but that's a created problem that would be solved if, you know, you didn't actively do pro bubble policy.

I know you noted later that "some homeless X", "other homeless Y", but basically every time debt relief and free housing were attempted, it both solved the homelessness problem and usually made the budget better than if you let them stay on the street. It's statistically much better just to do this, and then do work for "some" and "others" if it doesn't work for them.

-

Also a note on Mazlow's and access to everything. More of a reminder, since BJ isn't arguing that Marx wanted all of Mazlow to everyone, and that BJ noted how this is a problem of stability. I just wanted to point it out.

So. Marx wasn't an egalitarian that wanted literally equal everything for everyone. Marx did understand that people had different skill sets, and even with the same skill sets, some had more of those than others. Some people also have different needs which Marx did try to solve. Like, I'm on meds (Angsty Crazypantsy) and it would both be nonsensical and hurtful if you guys took the stuff that alleviates my insanity.

 

[red_elk]

Right, I believe significant part of homeless will stop being homeless as soon as they get free place to live.

 

[Samson]

Right, I believe significant part of homeless will stop being homeless as soon as they get free place to live.

Quite. This is not to say that all their problems will be solved, but they will have a safe and secure location from which to solve their problems, and that tends to make everything else easier. In particular the security and stability can make a big difference to other mental problems they may have.

 

[Angst]

Like, to be very blunt, it's hard to keep most jobs if you don't have a place to sleep and shower.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Right, I believe significant part of homeless will stop being homeless as soon as they get free place to live.

Appears to be working in Finland.
They provide them a home first and then look at what assistance they might need with finding a job, substance abuse etc.
Homelessness causes substance abuse, difficulties with holding down a job etc.
Ridiculous to expect to deal with a homeless persons other problems if you don't deal with what is for most the root cause.