• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

What Happens to Downtown?

The grocery store question is interesting.

In recent times, there were widely published shortages in Australia of fruit and vegetables.

I didn't notice them.

The reason is simple. Big supermarkets rely on centralised warehouses and all product is shipped into a warehouse, and then shipped back out again.

This process wastes resources, for example, you can buy produce at Woolworths in South Australia, that was grown here, driven to Queensland, and then driven back to the local store. That's a lot of diesel fuel consumed for no reason (except enabling the supermarkets to force farmers to sell at the supermarket's price). The time it takes to do that pointless trip also reduces quality, and there is some spoilage that is written off.

Local greengrocers rely on local markets, which rely on local producers.

Some local greengrocers rely on a scheme where back-yard growers sell their produce to the local store.

Somehow the local system is more resilient, than the centralised system, and we didn't see any of the national shortages in our local (non supermarket) stores.

Some of the supermarkets were starkly under-provisioned though.

My state does have a lot of 'market garden' producers, but I would have thought we were very small in terms of the national market.

Edited to add:

Sorry, I forgot to mention that I shop at a local greengrocer, that may not be clear from the above.

That's an interesting observation - though I would suggest that the scale is capable of tipping both ways. Greengrocers have smaller customer bases, and that means they have to stock less, which could theoretically be the deciding factor or at least a very important one in how sustainable they are. If a substantial number of supermarket customers attempted to switch to shopping from local greengrocers, the latter might easily begin to have their own supply issues.
 
To be fair, most of them collapse or evaporate after a generation or two.
That's probably because children brought up together tend to develop a sibling type relationship even if they're not biologically related, and so rarely marry each other. So unless they can find outside partners who can be persuaded to join the commune they don't often stay in it past maturity.
 
To be fair, most of them collapse or evaporate after a generation or two. I'm curious how many kipputzes still exist and how many there used to be.


Nowadays, there are very convenient ways of satisfying your curiosity: Kibbutz (Wikipedia).

I'm not not necessarily an anti communist, but the problem is definitely about how to get from here to there and so far, its mostly been through rather brutal totalitarian regimes that haven't actually gotten there. In the post scarcity future, maybe and in my opinion that seems to be what Marx was getting at.


It wasn't what Marx was getting at. Why does it seem to be so in your opinion?

Capitalism would reduce scarcity and eventually result in communism.


And yet Marx analyzed capitalism and concluded that workers needed to make a revolution and get rid of capitalism in order to improve their lot. How did you get the impression that Das Kapital encouraged them to hang on to capitalism because it "would reduce scarcity and eventually result in communism"?

His followers have generally tried to hasten that process to rather bad results.


His followers have fought against the impoverishment caused by capitalism, which is a sure way to upset capitalists and their representatives.
May I recommend a weekly show about how capitalism exacerbates scarcity instead of reducing it?

And may I recommend moving this discussion to another thread since it has very little to do with what is happening to downtown?
(Except, of course, that the homeless downtown and elsewhere are a very good example of how capitalism doesn't reduce scarcity?)
 
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bo...al,In this sense they seek to abolish capital.

My understanding is based on the whole dialectic aspect of Marx. In that he seems to believe that capitalism was a necessary stage in devolopement to bring about the means by which socialism and eventually communism could exist. There is a not uncommon critique of Leninism/Maoism et al that they failed primarily due the revolutions happening in essentially feudal societies rather than capitalist societies.
 
That's the flaw in the "thinking" right there. In reality, the people who have all the capital keep going out of their way to maximize scarcity for everybody else.

That does explain the relative scarcity of so many things compared to the pre capitalist societies.
 
https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bo...al,In this sense they seek to abolish capital.

My understanding is based on the whole dialectic aspect of Marx. In that he seems to believe that capitalism was a necessary stage in devolopement to bring about the means by which socialism and eventually communism could exist. There is a not uncommon critique of Leninism/Maoism et al that they failed primarily due the revolutions happening in essentially feudal societies rather than capitalist societies.


No, your understanding is based on your idea that capitalism will reduce scarcity, which you then attribute to Marx: "Capitalism would reduce scarcity and eventually result in communism."

However, Marx never said anything remotely similar to that. He was no determinist. He had (sometimes too) high hopes that capitalism would bring about the means to overcome it, but he never claimed that capitalism would do so by itself and on its own. He was a revolutionary. He knew that the working classes had to make the right choice and carry it out.

You have probably already noticed that the abundance of wealth produced nowadays isn't 'trickling down' to the homeless downtown or anywhere else. Even Brainster seems to be aware of the fact.

But some people don't think homelessness is a problem. They think the homeless are the problem, and their solution is barbarism:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France)

Marx wrote about the choice between Kommunismus oder Barbarei.
 
Last edited:
That does explain the relative scarcity of so many things compared to the pre capitalist societies.

Ah yes, because capitalism is clearly geared towards making things so common that they flood the market and aren't worth what it takes to make them. Capitalists all want to lose money by making less profit, doncha know.
 
That does explain the relative scarcity of so many things compared to the pre capitalist societies.

Which pre capitalist societies did you have in mind, and what things became more scarce once they became capitalist?
 
Which pre capitalist societies did you have in mind, and what things became more scarce once they became capitalist?

Relative scarcity.

Ice cubes, for example. Ice cubes are way less scarce now than they were in hunter-gatherer times, across all economic classes. But rich people are still more likely to have lots and lots of ice cubes whenever they want, than poor people are.
 
Relative scarcity.

Ice cubes, for example. Ice cubes are way less scarce now than they were in hunter-gatherer times, across all economic classes. But rich people are still more likely to have lots and lots of ice cubes whenever they want, than poor people are.

I think a lot of people on the left trip over their own feet on the wealth disparity issue because it's hard to argue that things are materially worse across the board than they were in the past just because rich people keep the cheese. There are some circumstances where it is true, but on the whole notsomuch.

The main problem with wealth disparity isn't so much about fairness as it is a sign that a society is in collapse. Once there is such a huge difference in material circumstances then there becomes huge differences in life experience and eventually parts of the society stop seeing the point of acting in a way to benefit the whole. Once that develops things do go to hell and everyone loses.
 
That's the flaw in the "thinking" right there. In reality, the people who have all the capital keep going out of their way to maximize scarcity for everybody else.


It's not the purpose of what they are doing, but it is the result. In order to stay ahead of the competition, their goal is to pay fewer workers to produce more goods, which means that the people they made redundant can't afford to buy those goods even though they have become cheaper.

That does explain the relative scarcity of so many things compared to the pre capitalist societies.


The 'things' as such aren't scarce. But the 'things' come with a price tag, which means that only people with money can buy them. That is why you can have an abundance of food on one side of the fence, and on the other side you have people who are starving. The purpose of producing 'things' in capitalism isn't to feed people. It's to sell 'things' to people. And people without money can't buy them.
That is the perversion of scarcity in capitalism.

For the same reason, you have vacant buildings on one side of the street downtown and homeless people on the other. Brainster is upset by both of those things without seeing the connection. Instead, he blames the homeless for making the vacant buildings unattractive for businessmen.
 
Money. Most of it was/is owned by just a few people.


So money as such isn't scarce. On the contrary, there's an abundance of that ****, too. In fact, sometimes there is so much of it that capitalists run out of opportunities to invest it profitably. That is usually the point when they begin to offer loans to people who will never be able to pay them back. Remember Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac?
So even when the capitalists have the problem of having too much money, it never really 'trickles down' to the homeless downtown. It's not the point of money as capital to do so.
 
My latest reply to Norman Alexander is a better fit for this thread.

Agreed. Off their faces on fentanyl, or coming down, they aren't going to make rational decisions. Habits kick in, I guess. (I've never done addictive drugs, so I can't speak from knowledge.)



So they try to turn water into fentanyl? : boggled :
They try to turn free funds from the government into fentanyl, by using the government funds to buy bottled water, and then turning in the bottles for the recycling credit, which is paid in cash.

Couldn't they try the usual money-laundering method: Buy something at one store, then return it for a cash refund at another?
Dunno how it is in Australia, but in the States these days it's pretty typical for a store to want to see the receipt, and issue a refund in the same form as the original payment.

Even if you used a stolen credit card to make the purchase, the refund would just go back on the credit card.

Besides, it's easier to walk into the grocery store, buy a flat of bottled water with food stamps, step outside, empty the bottles, step back inside, and turn the bottles in at the convenient in-store bottle drop station for cash. Then head a couple blocks over to the tent camp under the freeway overpass to find someone with pills or powders for sale.

I actually live on the block between the grocery store and the camp. I've seen the first half of the process - addicts on the sidewalk outside the grocery store dumping out bottles of water. I cannot confirm the second half for you, though, as I'm not really interested in personally witnessing a drug deal in a homeless camp. I do sometimes have to step over little piles of water bottle lids, though. Maybe I should take a picture the next time I see one, post it here for your edification. If I'm a little bit lucky, I might even be able to make a good composition with a nearby turd. Probably left by the same person that left the bottle caps.
 
Make America Beautiful Again - The Endlösung

In the real world, people in downtown Phoenix are not worried about covid, they are busier dodging bullets from the homeless encampment.


You have probably already noticed that the abundance of wealth produced nowadays isn't 'trickling down' to the homeless downtown or anywhere else. Even Brainster seems to be aware of the fact.

But some people don't think homelessness is a problem. They think the homeless are the problem, and their solution is barbarism:
"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France)


It's not the purpose of what they are doing, but it is the result. In order to stay ahead of the competition, their goal is to pay fewer workers to produce more goods, which means that the people they made redundant can't afford to buy those goods even though they have become cheaper.

The 'things' as such aren't scarce. But the 'things' come with a price tag, which means that only people with money can buy them. That is why you can have an abundance of food on one side of the fence, and on the other side you have people who are starving. The purpose of producing 'things' in capitalism isn't to feed people. It's to sell 'things' to people. And people without money can't buy them.
That is the perversion of scarcity in capitalism.

For the same reason, you have vacant buildings on one side of the street downtown and homeless people on the other. Brainster is upset by both of those things without seeing the connection. Instead, he blames the homeless for making the vacant buildings unattractive for businessmen.


MABA:
Donald Trump recently announced his plan to outlaw homelessness by arresting and relocating homeless individuals to “tent cities.” Max Burns breaks it down.

Trump: "Our once great cities have become unlivable, unsanitary nightmares surrendered to the homeless, the drug-addicted and the violent and dangerously deranged. We're making many suffer for the whims of a deeply unwell few. And they are unwell, indeed. The homeless have no right to turn every park and sidewalk into a place for them to squat and do drugs."

- Now, if some of that language sounds familiar to you, that's because it is. That talk about the homeless making cities unsanitary and unsafe, that's pulled almost directly from Trump's remarks about illegal immigrants in 2016. Now Trump is using the same language to try and dehumanize America's homeless, too.
At this point, you may be asking, 'Hey, where is Donald Trump going to get all the money for this?' And, as it turns out, he has thought of that. He's decided to take all the money our government currently spends housing the homeless and reroute it into imprisoning them. Watch this:

Trump: "The strategy will be far better and also far less expensive than spending vast sums of taxpayer money to house the homeless in luxury hotels without addressing their underlying issues. And they have so many of these underlying issues and needs. This is how I will end the scourge of homelessness and make our cities clean and safe and beautiful once again."

- According to data gathered by the National Alliance to End Homelessness, over 580,000 experienced homelessness for at least part of last year. Nearly a quarter of those were children.
Without federal programs that Trump now wants to cut, many of them wouldn't even have access to shelters. But Donald Trump isn't concerned about them, as he makes clear again and again and again. His worry is that the homeless are making American cities look too ugly.
And, listen, it's easy to point out the truly nightmarish ways Republicans want to dehumanize homeless Americans.
But there's another problem here, and it's one Democrats don't want to talk about, and that's the fact that many of the Demorcatic Party's own state leaders are also turning their backs on the homeless.
Here's New York State senator Jabari Brisport calling out Democratic governor Kathy Hochul for choosing to finance a half-billion-dollar football stadium while over 60,000 New Yorkers live on the street
Donald Trump Announces Disturbing Plan To Concentrate On Camps (Rebel HQ on YouTube, April 19, 2023 - 5:05 min.)

Also here:
-- Failed former President Donald Trump promises mandatory homeless camps in a bizarre new video
Trump promises mandatory homeless camps in disoriented orange video (David Pakman Show on YouTube, April 19, 2023 - 7:52 min.)

Isn't it amazing how it all comes together? And how this thread, in spite of the title, was never really about 'What Happens to Downtown'?
 
Last edited:
Not the only purpose.

The old Swedish Covid thread was stagnating a bit, so this was a good opportunity to kick-start the Covid arguments again.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom