How Low Density Housing/Suburbs are Anti Capitalistic and Doomed to Fail
Posted Jul 30, 2022, 8:19 AM UTC
109
Anti capitalistic ? If they were they would be great but they aren’t
6
If they were they would be great but they aren’t
Not necessarily true. Even in a socialist economy a process should be in place to keep up with infrastructure. Since money seems to be still in use for the foreseeable future it means that there should be revenue to support keep up. Even in a socialist community this is doomed to fail if a balance between production and consumption is not sought out.
I worded the post title as I did to take the attention of carbrains who are predominantly in favor of capitalism and living a gated suburban life.
1
I understand the intention. Whatever works I guess ;)
1
I don't think "anticapitalistic" is the correct word to describe them.
Yes, they're economically unsustainable. So is infinite growth. Capitalism wants both however. Because capitalism isn't about economic sustainability. It's about short term returns on investment.
Sprawling suburbs are very much capitalist. They lock people into modes of spending with no out. That's the ideal capitalist business model.
2
Because capitalism isn't about economic sustainability. It's about short term returns on investment.
Not really. Capitalism is about preserving and growing capital. It's literally in the name. How can you amass capital as a town/city if you are on a path to bankruptcy?
They are anti-capitalist in the sense that their expenses are subsidized.
1
How can you amass capital as a town/city if you are on a path to bankruptcy?
Because towns and cities aren't capitalists. They're run for capitalists. Capitalists do not care about the sustainability of what they do. They're happy to pillage and run. And cities are happy to subsidise them. Look at cities tripping over themselves to offer Bezos the best slave factory in their city, dumping billions so he can do fuck all for their economy. The entire neoliberal capitalist system working as intended.
It's meant to syphon wealth from the average person. It's meant to hand that wealth upwards. It doesn't care if that's sustainable. That is capitalism.
They are anti-capitalist in the sense that their expenses are subsidized.
That's just neoliberalism. If the neolibs weren't out there subsidising capitalism the entire system would have already collapsed in on itself like it did in the 1930s due to the aforementioned unsustainability that capitalists really don't care about. The most capitalist thing imaginable is to suck at what you do and beg for government handouts. It's how you get ahead. Just look at anything Musk's ever done.
3
I’m all for anti capitalism
These is in response to carbrains repeating the same mantra that high speed rail and other projects are expensive and a waste of money, where as the real wastes of money are these baron landscape without any commercial activity to support revenue for maintenance.
My point is that it does not matter if you choose capitalism or socialism. You cannot choose one and call it a day. In order for the community to be sustainable it has to be obviously financially sustainable too. It's a fools errand to not find this balance.
cartopia is a consequence of capitalism, so socialism necessarily means the construction of communities in a sustainable way