Solarpunk Urbanism

1789 readers

1 users here now

A community to discuss solarpunk and other new and alternative urbanisms that seek to break away from our currently ecologically destructive urbanisms.

Henri Lefebvre, The Right to the City — In brief, the right to the city is the right to the production of a city. The labor of a worker is the source of most of the value of a commodity that is expropriated by the owner. The worker, therefore, has a right to benefit from that value denied to them. In the same way, the urban citizen produces and reproduces the city through their own daily actions. However, the the city is expropriated from the urbanite by the rich and the state. The right to the city is therefore the right to appropriate the city by and for those who make and remake it.

Checkout these related communities:

!15minutecity@slrpnk.net

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

The Homeless are not Alone | Grants Pass v. Johnson affects people without housing most of all, but the rest of us will suffer too (open.substack.com)

submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by stabby_cicada to c/urbanism

9 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Please read the whole thing (and if capitalists and conservatives were consistent, they'd be livid, too, at the idea homeless people's property can be stolen and thrown away under the euphemism of "cleaning" - aren't property rights sacred to them?), but here is the conclusion:

This is what we give up — always so much more than we think — in agreeing to scapegoat, to sacrifice the homeless everyone else gives up public space. An ordinance that says no camping or sleeping in public quickly becomes no loitering in public. Stories are already emerging in the wake of the Grants Pass ruling of random people being told that they cannot sit, cannot eat, cannot exist in public space. Often these people aren’t homeless, but how can they prove that? This ruling furthers the trend, one which is not new, of the privatization of public space and the need to be a consumer to exist out in the world. And this is just one way that abandoning the unhoused hurts us all. Equally significant is that in abandoning those who cannot afford housing we agree to frame shelter as something you must earn, rather than a basic need that we all must be granted in this world. That cannot stand.

What we need, now more than ever, is solidarity across all forms of division. We cannot allow the dehuamnization or that criminalization of homelessness, of poverty, of those struggling to get by in this system, both because it is unjust and because it hurts each and every one of us. Anything that targets struggling individuals instead of the system they struggle under reinforces the oppressive mechanisms of the system and takes us a step further from liberation, from freedom, and from the world we need.

top 9 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] vulgarcynic@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I had a friend say (nearly 25 years ago) that homelessness is a necessity of capitalism. There will always be a portion of the population kept in that position so the rest of us wage slaves have something to motivate us to keep eating shit from our ruling class.

If we were shown a path to safety and security without sacrificing our bodies and minds to a paycheck, we just might rebel.

[–] stabby_cicada 8 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Preach. I rant about the same thing all the time.

Capitalism is decentralized tyranny. If a dictator said "if you refuse to work where I send you I will starve you to death on the streets" most Americans would recoil. But capitalism says "if you do not provide enough value for the upper class, they will not give you enough tokens to exchange for food and housing, and you will starve to death on the streets". And we just shrug and say it's the workers' fault for not working hard enough - because "no one is forcing you" - there's no specific individual we can blame for starving the unwanted population to death, it's the insensate grinding of the gears of a machine, and don't be silly, we can't turn off the machine, what are you, traitor?

And even with the open dictator model, many Americans would say "that just makes sense, if you don't work you don't eat" and cheer the dictator for putting lazy useless people to work. Just look how many people support slave labor in private, for profit prisons, and how many people want unhoused people to be enslaved in those exact same prisons. Hell, at the height of the Qanon craze something like 20% of Americans believed that Donald Trump would enact martial law and put millions of liberals in concentration camps and wanted it to happen. We're addicted to the taste of boot.

[–] Nemo@midwest.social -5 points 3 months ago (4 children)

There's no need to attack conservatives here. I'm just as concerned about the safety and prosperity of my unhoused neighbors as you are.

This is a bad and anticonservative law. Everyone who loves liberty should be fighting it.

[–] stabby_cicada 17 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I agree, everyone who loves liberty should oppose this law.

Unfortunately, if you are conservative and you oppose this law, in my experience you are damn near a unicorn. I'm in California and these kind of brutal crackdowns are wildly popular among conservatives - and moderates, and even wealthy white liberals. Like the article says, blaming the victims of homelessness for the homeless crisis has been incredibly effective. And most people don't understand how corrupt the homeless industrial complex is, how little government funding actually gets to the homeless to help them, and how incompetent, abusive, and poorly run those aid programs actually are, so it's easy to look at all the money and programs that exist on paper and blame homeless people for "refusing help".

[–] noride@lemm.ee 11 points 3 months ago

You can call this 'anticonservative' all you want, but the hard truth is the ruling was only made possible because of who conservatives voted for in the first place.

[–] xionzui@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 months ago (1 children)

The current Republican Party is anti conservative in a lot of ways, but those terms have become roughly synonymous

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 4 points 3 months ago

I wholeheartedly agree with the first part and must reluctantly concede the second.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Conservatism isn't what you think it is. Conservatives not only are, in fact, the enemies of liberty, they always have been.

[–] Nemo@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago

Anything worth saying is worth saying in plaintext.