Thread by @TristamPratori1

Lets talk about socialism and abundance.

Part of the reason why socialist / YIMBY housing discourse is so spicy is because socialist thinking is oriented around the injustices and contradictions that result from modernity and abundance rather than pre-capitalist scarcity.

Socialist movements and theory emerged in the 19th century, an era of growing industrial production, technological progress and productivity growth.

Thus, socialists were concerned with the irrationality of social hierarchies and recessions in the midst of incredible abundance.

The premise of the socialist argument was that replacing feudal rentiers with industrial capitalists didn't go far enough.

Replacing monarchy with democracy wasn't enough.

Replacing rents with market prices wasn't enough.

Replacing aristocracy with formal rights wasn't enough.

So in housing discourses, when some on the left say that we have enough houses but we need to redistribute them to the homeless, that that is an artefact of where socialism originates from.

Similarly, when liberals focus on rent-seeking and zoning that is an artefact of liberalism's origin as a rebellion against feudal landlords and aristocrats.

Liberalism advocates formal equality and an ''equal playing field,'' rather than fully substantive guarantees.

In this case, zoning reform is the formal equality and equal competition that liberalism traditionally aligns with.

Public housing and de-commodification are the substantive state guarantees favored by socialists.

These are not mutually exclusive, and both should be advocated.

So I don't really blame anyone for talking past each other on housing, you're both making the arguments your ideologies have been making for centuries.

In short, liberalism is an ideology that opposed the aristocracy and rent-seeking.

Socialism opposed the bourgeoisie.

Therefore, how liberalism and socialism perceive equality and reform is deeply rooted in the history of which ruling classes these ideologies battled against.

The political economy of also matches the industrial revolution.

Liberals aligned with the industrial bourgeoisie (producers), conservatives with the landlords (hoarders).

Developers (producers) favor the liberal anti-zoning position and many landlords (hoarders) the NIMBY one.

So what should socialists do?

The correct thing is supporting the bourgeoisie over the aristocrats. This was the opinion of 19th c. socialists.

So 21st-century socialists should support bourgeois developers over conservative landlords, even if both are selfish upper-classes.

The one who pursues selfish ends through rapid production and abundance is better than the one who pursues selfish ends through scarcity and rent-seeking.

I am a socialist, and I also support YIMBY ideas because housing is one of the few remaining areas where the political economy does not resemble an industrialized and globalized economy, but the bitter feud between bourgeois and aristocratic forces in a pre-industrial economy.

@ChadNotChud @TheOmniZaddy @LittleKeegs0 @FDRLiberal34 @IDoTheThinking @besttrousers

@vanillaopinions @artisanrocky @kidairbag