currently yes.

housing under capitalism = work for poverty wages in order to pay your mortgage or rent or qualify for a woefully underfunded housing program

housing under socialism = dont have to worry about the threat of eviction, government will provide housing where necessary, since you know, there are such a thing as homeless people

most people who are homeless would fall into the unable to work category.... so YOUR point of being against what we were saying in the other thread was moot.

Here you are confusing "unable to work" with "unable to find employment"

1/3 homeless people are mentally ill. which i would say they are unable to work lmao.

currently yes but as the population grows would those people who are looking for a house have to buy a home? because that would go against the "housing is a human right"

Yeah you would say that because you have no clue how mental illness works or manifests itself. Even you say 1/3, well gee what about the other 2/3?

there are studies that indeed show that employment among homeless people could be anywhere as high as 50%

first of all, youre assuming that the population would grow. second, you can't buy something that isn't a commodity.

And in fact, why are we limiting it to the strictly homeless? what about victims of things like domestic violence who have to stay in a situation where they otherwise wouldn't due to lack of housing? or people who have to stay with a relative, or a bunch of other situations such as those?

Well maybe we don't see eye to eye on that I suppose.

I believe it should be provided but if you don't help provide for others, you shouldn't be helped as much as the workers. Like Lenin believed, he who does not work, neither shall he eat.

Although, when developed enough I see no reason even non-workers (who are capable of working) shouldn't be provided at least minimum shelter and of course food

idiots like him think socialism is just implemented one day

nope I know it will take. a revolution which would take years.

fact of the matter is, people have homes, they don't need to be given homes. people who dont have homes can indeed have homes built for them in the form of socialized housing.

"youre assuming that the population would grow"

"second, you can't buy something that isn't a commodity"
there are so many flaws in you thinking lmao. so are people not allowed to own a home or leave where they are born unless you swap houses💀💀?

i dont think you know what a commodity is?

something that can be bought and sold....

do you know what it is?

yes, so having a home doesn't make it a commodity.

so if i want to move somewhere else or get a bigger home is that just not possible unless someone wants to trade?

idk, youll just have to ask when the time comes.

how come every argument this dude goes with is “what if i wanna live in a mansion” or “what if i want a sports car”

like how much shallow and meaningless materialism do you have to have in your life

not allowing homesteading = stupid

😉

Its strange people are against people owning land and homesteading. Its more environmentally friendly than you city dwellers.

i dont think anyone cares about your homesteading

It's not discouraged.

In socialist China individual farmers worked
for a few years.

Individual farming was pretty inefficient, so they switched to communal farming. This just entails there is a big plot of land you all work. People still had their private lot to grow their own food on.