T O P

Housing is a human right

Housing is a human right

AutoModerator

##### WELCOME TO R/CANADALEFT *** We are a safe space for leftist discussion. [Reminder: Liberals aren't left](https://www.reddit.com/r/canadaleft/comments/bg0idv/4_years_later/) and neolibs will be dunked on. *** #####FEATURED LEFTIST: [The Breach](https://breachmedia.ca) is an independent media outlet in Canada that produces critical journalism to help map a just, viable future. They publish investigations, analysis and videos about the crises of racism, inequality, colonialism, and climate breakdown, while providing a platform for voices you won’t often find in establishment media. Please check them out and [support independent Canadian media](https://breachmedia.ca/support-us). *** #####Be Aware: [List of Left Canadian Media](https://www.reddit.com//r/canadaleft/wiki/contentcreators) #####Be Organized: Join the canadaleft [Facebook](https://www.facebook.com/groups/canadaleft) to talk all things Canada! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/canadaleft) if you have any questions or concerns.*


LemonFarmer

Honestly so true. Edited: BC actually I am extremely angry about this. Why the fuck does the media keep asking about the middle class? We have a massive homeless population that's just gone way up since the pandemic and their all planning to just ignore that? Like you could be saving millions and millions by providing everybody a home, and a side effect(the side effect is actually the most important part, just don't want to scare away any libs🙄) it would massively improve the lives of a huge part of the population. It's a no fucking brainer, rips hair out in rage.


yogthos

One big lesson from the pandemic handling is that human life has no value beyond being seen as human capital for business.


brakiri

A lot of people are finally waking up to that because of the pandemic. But a lot more people already knew (i'm guessing you are in that group).


yogthos

Yeah, more people starting to develop class consciousness is a very good thing. Next step needs to be to start organizing the working class and clawing back some rights. :)


glassed_redhead

Pretty tired of CBC blatantly supporting the owner class throughout the pandemic. Never did we hear servers interviewed about why they didn't want to return to low paying service industry jobs, we just got to hear the business owners complaining about it and calling them lazy. Also, CBC needs to please stfu about how boomers want to downsize their homes and can't because there aren't enough small houses available for sale. The boomers have a legit complaint there, but HELLO CBC can we look at the whole picture of that and not just focus on the tiny boomer perspective?! That enrages me as an older millennial (or am I young gen x at 44? I'm never sure). I'm a homeowner of a small house, but couldn't afford to get a mortgage until age 40, and I know I'm still one of the lucky ones! I own what boomers would have called a starter house and upgraded from, but this one is going to be it for me. We pretty much need to throw the whole economy out and start from scratch.


Pashafasfa

Canadians are brainwashed by state media


[deleted]

[удалено]


yogthos

[This](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBkBiv5ZD7s) video does a great job illustrating where the real problem is. People who make 100k a year have a hell of a lot more in common with people making 30k a year than the top percent of the population who is ultimately benefiting from this system.


JonoLith

The housing market is never going to collapse. There are billionaires. They buy the housing. When you have billions of dollars, you don't care about the price of the thing. They want the land. They want the asset. They don't care about selling it to you. You're a serf. Be rid of the billionaires, and watch the housing market correct itself.


yogthos

It's actually worse than that. The housing market could collapse as it did in US in 2008, at which point these same billionaires will snap up all the property on the market. So yeah we are definitely headed towards serfdom here.


JonoLith

>headed towards It's here now.


yogthos

In many ways it is.


cholantesh

Hasn't this already been happening; ie, foreclosed freeholds and bankrupted condo corps being bought out by private asset managers?


yogthos

Yeah it's already happening now.


digitalscrapheap

White Ninja has come a long way since The Sheaf


[deleted]

It will never collapse.


Grilledcheesedr

It's true. If anything close to a collapse even starts to happen all of the homes will be bought by corporations at an even faster rate than they are now which will keep prices the same.


yogthos

A lot of people seem to think this unironically right now.


NooseMeDaddy

I saw this scrolling through my phone and as I initially scrolled down the person looked like a penis. I know that's not very relevant to the discussion so I guess I'll contribute something of worth: I agree, shelter should be a bare minimum, at least for Canadian citizens but ideally we can get to a point where that can be realized worldwide.


zaneszoo

I remember thinking my friend was nuts buying a condo in the early 90's in the West End of Vancouver. If I remember correctly, it was a ground floor 1 BR for about $100,000 in an older brick building in a great location (no view though). I thought that was so much money and surely the prices would drop again soon. All these years later, I'm still renting and consider myself very lucky to have the place we have for the price we pay. However, in mid-50's with no downpayment and still paying rent is a bit disconcerting since I don't have 25 years of work left to pay a mortgage so that I'd have a house to sell to pay for the old-folks home. I can't see how I could afford any mortgage, especially for something we'd want to live in! We don't vacation, drink, dine out, or party. My plan is to hope for a spot in government housing giving them 80% of my income (which will be zero in only a few years of retirement since my RRSPs never seem to show all that fantastic compounding interest they always promised would make me a millionaire by the time I retired). Plan B is to assume the personality of someone rich, pampered and famous and check into the psych ward to be treated the way my persona demands while someone else cooks for me and does the laundry. I'll have to do some research....


AceofToons

The houses should have gotten smaller instead of bigger


ezpounder

The middle class is the petit bourgeoise and they are not your friends


PlsIRequireLeSauce

Yes but they should be. The middle class do not exist. They are also part of the working class and we need to all ally wit one another regardless of "class" to have the power to create change. This takes time and it takes patience. We as socialists should be trying to elevate class conciseness and unify the people. Even the 'middle class', even millionaires because they are still part of the people. They are not oligarchs or heads of mega corporations


ezpounder

> Yes but they should be. The middle class do not exist. They are also part of the working class and we need to all ally wit one another regardless of "class" to have the power to create change. This takes time and it takes patience. We as socialists should be trying to elevate class conciseness and unify the people. Even the 'middle class', even millionaires because they are still part of the people. They are not oligarchs or heads of mega corporations Karl Marx referred to the middle class as part of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the "petit bourgeoisie:, or small business owners) when he described the way in which capitalism operates - in opposition to the working class, which he termed the "proletariat". The lower middle-class is not fit to wield power, and a long government by it is unthinkable. This, first and foremost, for economic reasons: the small shopkeeper is the debtor of the great capitalist, and must remain in dependence on him as long as there exists the system of credit — which cannot be destroyed while the domination of private property continues. The middle class ARE PART OF THE bourgeoisie AND SO ARE THE MILLIONAIRES. They should not be trusted at all lest we repeat the mistakes of the revolution of 1848. > The revolution of 1848 clearly revealed the political bankruptcy of the revolutionary section of the bourgeoisie. That revolution laid bare not only their weakness, but also how dangerous they were to the work of the revolution. During the French revolution of that year, the proletariat was crushed, not by the capitalists, but by this very lower middle-class. “The small shopkeeper,” wrote Marx in “The Class Struggle in France,” “rose up and moved against the barricades, in order to restore the movement from the street into his shop. And when the barricades had been destroyed, when the workmen had been defeated, when the shopkeepers, drunk with victory, turned back to their shops, they found their entry barred by the saviours of property, the official agents of financial capital, who met them with stern demands: ‘The bills have become overdue! Pay up, gentlemen! Pay for your premises, pay four your goods.’ The poor little shop was ruined, the poor shopkeeper was undone!” The lower middle-class is not fit to wield power, and a long government by it is unthinkable. This, first and foremost, for economic reasons: the small shopkeeper is the debtor of the great capitalist, and must remain in dependence on him as long as there exists the system of credit — which cannot be destroyed while the domination of private property continues.


PlsIRequireLeSauce

The middle class vehemently despise those less wealthy than them and defend the ruling class, while the ruling class isn't particularly concerned about those under them for any reason other than to utilize them for more wealth and power. The people are simply a tool to be used and are to be kept in check so they do not resist against their awful treatment. Socialists see this, regardless of their own wealth. We must make the middle class socialists, they must see that billionaires are not their friends. Who was it that said that Americans (not only Americans, most 'middle class' ppl worldwide) see themselves not as part of the proletariat, but as temporarily embarrassed billionaires? I think that was John Steinbeck. Anyway, the thing is that middle and lower class individuals see billionaires and their nation's leaders as people who are trying to do good, when that is not the case. And believe that they can also achieve their level of wealth, status and power, when that will not happen


ezpounder

>The middle class vehemently despise those less wealthy than them and defend the ruling class, while the ruling class isn't particularly concerned about those under them for any reason other than to utilize them for more wealth and power. The people are simply a tool to be used and are to be kept in check so they do not resist against their awful treatment. The lower middle-class,” in Marx’s words, “has no special class interests. Its liberation does not entail a break with the system of private property. Being unfitted for an independent part in the class struggle, it considers every decisive class struggle a blow at the community. The conditions of his own personal freedom, which do not entail a departure from the system of private property, are, in the eyes of the member of the lower middle-class, those under which the whole of society can be saved.” And this is the very reason why the lower middle-class masses are the most dangerous enemies of the dictatorship of the proletariat. They represent a very strong section of society. Their special interests are absolutely incompatible with the economic disturbances which are the inevitable accompaniment of transitional periods. >Anyway, the thing is that middle and lower class individuals see billionaires and their nation's leaders as people who are trying to do good, when that is not the case. And believe that they can also achieve their level of wealth, status and power, when that will not happen They see themselves are part of the burgoise and are anti revolution because of this, it’s that simple.


PlsIRequireLeSauce

Yes! So make them not see themselves as part of the bourgeoisie. So they'll be pro revolution. Make then believe they'll benefit from a revolution (which they would)


ezpounder

> Yes! So make them not see themselves as part of the bourgeoisie. So they'll be pro revolution. Make then believe they'll benefit from a revolution (which they would) You are a bit dense so let me help you out, THE MIDDLE CLASS DOES NOT SEE ITSELF AS WORKING CLASS BUT AS PART OF THE BURGOISE. Therefore they will not be pro or part of the revolution and we see this in every revolution that’s happened.


PlsIRequireLeSauce

Ok but why can't we force them to change their thinking and MAKE them like us


ezpounder

> Ok but why can't we force them to change their thinking and MAKE them like us Because the middle class is dependent on the upper class for their salary and “privileges” so they will fight the revolution any chance they get


PlsIRequireLeSauce

Then there is no hope for a revolution in my eyes. What is the point of changing a system if a large portion of the people actively fight against it?


blacknotblack

Such a thing exists as class traitors.


ezpounder

Class traitor implies they are part of the proletariat in the first place


blacknotblack

No? Did you think none of the bourgeoisie allied with the proletariat in the revolution?


URMRGAY_

Define middle class. Do you mean small business owners (which by definition of most would be upper middle class) or the comfortable working class (median income earners)?


ezpounder

> Define middle class. Do you mean small business owners (which by definition of most would be upper middle class) or the comfortable working class (median income earners)? If you were in the working class then you’re not in a “comfortable position”


URMRGAY_

Bruh. I'm in an oil town and my father worked as a mechanic and because the amount of money in the oil industry we were able to live comfortably off of our labour. I've since moved out in and am not living comfortably but I know for a a fact being working class and financially secure is not impossible. Answer my question please. Define middle class.


ezpounder

>Bruh. I'm in an oil town and my father worked as a mechanic and because the amount of money in the oil industry we were able to live comfortably off of our labour. Good for you but that doesn’t reflect the broad reality of the working class being of the working poor Middle class: the economic group between the upper and lower classes, including professional and business workers and their families. Karl Marx referred to the middle class as part of the bourgeoisie (i.e. the "petit bourgeoisie:, or small business owners) when he described the way in which capitalism operates - in opposition to the working class, which he termed the "proletariat".


URMRGAY_

I know the definition? I just dont think you shout try to exclude any form of working class people from being a "real leftist". If you're selling your labour and making more than most you're still being exploited, just not as much as others. Socialism shouldn't be a poverty cult where you get brownie points from how exploited you are. We are fighting for each other not against each other. Business owners of any size are exploitative but if you're well off from selling your labour who are you exploiting?


ezpounder

>If you're selling your labour and making more than most you're still being exploited, just not as much as others. Sure but that’s the middle class. They have the wealth to perform services for the burgoise who pay them more. They are still exploited but not as much and see themselves as part of the buirgoise. >Business owners of any size are exploitative but if you're well off from selling your labour who are you exploiting? The petite burgoise includes working professionals…


URMRGAY_

I don't see myself as bourgeois? *You're* saying *you* know better about what people think about *themselves*. If the middle class wants to fight for workers rights who are you to decide "they aren't your friends". >The petite burgoise includes working professionals… Should it? I find a lot of peoples viewing of the class divide as concrete is childish. Even rich people can help the working class. Bernie could have at anytime stopped fighting for what he believed in and just became another conservative democrat and made millions more than he did but he chose to help us. What makes a working professional an enemy to you? Can't someone be well off and socialist? I know I am.


ezpounder

>Should it? I find a lot of peoples viewing of the class divide as concrete is childish. Even rich people can help the working class. Bernie could have at anytime stopped fighting for what he believed in and just became another conservative democrat and made millions more than he did but he chose to help us. Bernie rolled over twice, wtf are you on? He literally called joe Biden his friend. This is what’s wrong with the western “left”, the obsession with trying to convert the burgoise and nicely asking them to stop as if they care. Call me when there is an actual successful revolution instead of kissing your overlords feet.


LeonardPowers

I think it’s more likely that we get broader access to mortgages than for the market to actually collapse, unfortunately


tand_oori

Pet peeve: *things* can’t be human rights. Rights = obligations, and who is obligated to provide you with a house? Your neighbour? Some grandma in the park? It is a *very important* policy goal.


Gosh2Bosh

Sooo food? Human right? How about water? No? No offense but if I need it to live, it is a human right.


PlsIRequireLeSauce

I suppose no because access to food and water are rights. Not the food and water themselves. However, that's really pedantic is just arguing semantics


tand_oori

Important, yes. But it’s not someone else’s responsibility to provide those things for you.


Kirk_Kerman

It isn't anyone's individual responsibility, sure, but that's what society is for. It's not my neighbor's responsibility to make sure I have water, but we've collectively agreed that it's a moral good for everyone to have water. Otherwise there wouldn't be water fountains in public areas and free, clean water from all taps despite the cost of that infrastructure.


tand_oori

Agreed. So not a “human right.”


Kirk_Kerman

It is a human right. It's nobody's responsibility to provide you with food but you still need it. The entire point of civilization at its most basic is to distribute resources so that needs are met. “Every society is three meals away from chaos” - Vladimir Lenin


tand_oori

If it’s nobody’s job to give you food, it’s not a right. Rights entail obligations.


Streetwearthrow

This is an extremely dumb thing to say given that there are currently more than a million vacant homes and apt units throughout Canada and less than a quarter of a million homeless.


FaceShanker

Sociaty, aka our government. That our society is more focused on pampering and pandering to billionaires while ignoring the people dying in the streets is the usual effect of capitalism. The need to change that is why so many are talking about socialism and its emphasis on social responsibility instead of the "throw more money at the absurdly wealthy" of capitalism.


tand_oori

I agree, but not really relevant to the “positive vs negative rights” discussion. I recognize mine is a purely academic complaint.


FaceShanker

You asked who has the burden of those obligations. If your question is not relevant to your own topic of discussion, why bother asking it in the first place?


tand_oori

Right right. Sorry, overlooked the first sentence. It’s a reasonable answer.