The myth of "homelessness by choice" is pernicious. Here are the two main reasons that we know it's false:
First, we can ask homeless ppl.
The two studies that've formally done so (afaik):
- Stark 1984 in Phoenix: 93% of 345 ppl wanted to get off the streets.
- Caulk 1983 in Portland: 78% of 125 ppl said the same.
That's ~89% who say their homelessness is not their choice.
Second, we can give homeless people the choice: They overwhelmingly choose housing.
After Finland adopted "Housing First" in 2008, long-term homelessness dropped from ~4,000 to ~500 by 2017. That's a 7/8 reduction in 9 years, and just ~5% of the size of the 11k unhoused in 1987.
The solution for homelessness is building social housing, providing social services, and actually having some basic human compassion. theguardian.com/cities/2019/ju…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
reposting as an OP: Nitzan and Bichler 2009 present a foundational problems with the Marxian labor theory of value:
the metric of labor (socially necessary (SN) abstract (A) labor-time (LT), or SNALT) cannot be directly observed; we can only observe actual, concrete labor-time:
The first conversion of "actual" to "socially necessary" is more feasible.
If competition forces most capitalists to produce efficiently (use no more labor-time than socially necessary), then average actual LT may be close to socially necessary LT.
Shaikh, Cockshott argue this.
The second conversion of "concrete" to "abstract" is much less feasible.
Concrete labor, observable labor-- cutting a log, hammering a nail -- is heterogenous. It is done by different people, in different places, with different skills and education, in different ways, etc.
Political terrorism is a deeply ineffective strategy with a high human cost.
Abrahms 2006: in a dataset of 42 terrorist groups, terrorism was rarely successful (7%, 3/42) or partly successful (17%, 7/42); it is more successful against military targets than civilian and with limited goals than maximalist or other goals: mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.116…
Fortna 2015: relative to civil wars led by nonterrorist rebel groups, terrorist rebel groups were 15x less likely to achieve victory and 2x less likely to reach an agreement with the government: cambridge.org/core/journals/…
my takeaway is that most forms of persuasion are effective.
please gimme more neat/strong studies or contrary studies if you know of them!
watching news changes beliefs
Martin & Yurukoglu 2017: data from channel number randomization suggests that Fox News shifts voting patterns rightward: Without Fox News, .46% fewer people would've voted Republican in 2000, 3.59% in 2004, and 6.35% in 2008:
long talks change beliefs
Broockman 2016: deep canvassing (a ~10 minute convo encouraging person to consider a trans person's perspective) increased tolerance of trans people and support for a gender nondiscrimination law; effects persisted after 3 months nytimes.com/2016/04/10/mag…
Hoping to put out a blogpost on the "point" of socialist theory soon, as a starting point for a theory series. I hold that all socialist theory writing attempts either to answers (some of) these questions or rejects (some of) these questions:
1: Justification: Why is socialism preferable to capitalism?
2: Transition: How do we get from capitalism to socialism?
3: Institutions: What social-political structures / relationships (or lack thereof) should organize economic, political, and social activity in socialism?
These are large topics, and I think they cover virtually all "socialist theory" writing. Does any theory you've read seem to fall outside these three?
I vibe with Rosen 2000's suggestion that Marx rejected contemporary, doctrinal morality (➡why he wrote of materialism "shattering" morality) but accepted moral values (➡why he wrote of capitalist "embezzlement" and communism enabling human flourishing): scholar.harvard.edu/michaelrosen/p…
interesting suggestion from Wolff and Leopold 2021: Marx goes beyond "theoretical necessity" in critiquing morality (and refusing to use it as a justifier) in order to distinguish himself from contemporary reformist socialists and bourgeois do-gooders: plato.stanford.edu/entries/marx/
linking the two ideas is Cohen 1983: Marx clearly implies a non-relativistic justice in his frequent use of "robbery" to describe capitalization, and elsewhere suggests relativistic justice is moonshine: Then, Marx clearly thinks that capitalist exploitation is unjust: