I’m hiding a homeless person in my home, which is risking eviction to keep someone off the streets. Here, most tenancies don’t allow you to “sublet”, the landlord legally gets the final say about who lives in their property.
wait I’m confused how is the top middle picture anti-homeless architecture
Homeless people sleep on the vents for warmth.
The vents are still accessible though? And you have these nifty mannequins to hang your stuff?
Edit: honest question, possibly unnecessary joke.
You can’t put a tent or sprawl out on them anymore.
Let them eat cake. Try sleeping on them and report back to us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture
I feel like we’re talking past each other. I’m wondering how the weird human-shaped things added on top of the vents constitute hostile architecture - how are they meant to to discourage people from sleeping there? This is me trying to learn, I’m very aware that sleeping on vents isn’t exactly comfortable but how do these things make it less so?
I see what you’re digging at, I was confused by them too. Hostile architecture meets just plain terrible design?
Right? It looks like there was an attempt (gold star) at hostility but they still wanted it to look somewhat aesthetically pleasing and mostly forgot about the hostile part? Or maybe I’m just not seeing most of the hostile part, that’s what I’m trying to figure out.
Nah I think you got it. Veiling art as hostile architecture is fairly common so I think the artist lead took over and they forgot the intent of ruining someone’s ability to sleep haha
You’d probably have to lie between them instead of just looking at a photo, to assess if it’s still possible.
Clearly they were put there with the intention of making it difficult/uncomfortable to lie down on the subway vent. If they were installed incompetently that doesn’t make them unhostile though, it just makes them ineffective for their obviously intended purpose.
how do these things make it less [comfortable]?
You already answered your own question:
weird human-shaped things added on top of the vents
It’s hard to believe you’re not trolling.
https://www.azuremagazine.com/article/unpleasant-design-hostile-architecture/
I also came across some inventive designs that I haven’t seen elsewhere, such as metal silhouettes soldered on top of warm ventilation exhausts at a CTrain station (below), a place where you could consider camping for the night.
Metal silhouettes prevent homeless people from sleeping over these CTrain grates in Calgary.
I really doubt they’re trolling, it’s a real question. A person can clearly fit between the gaps and sleep.
It would block things like tents and mattresses, but it’s reasonable [edit: even if ignorant] to ask how it works if it doesn’t obstruct a sleeping person. For what it’s worth, in my city, it’s rare to see tents or even mattresses, usually just blankets and shopping carts.
Try sleeping on them and report back to us.
No need for that kind of talk, it’s as pointless as saying “Go there and prove you can’t sleep on them”.
It’s hard to believe you’re not trolling.
I swear I’m not. It’s entirely possible that I’m being slow, but I’m really just trying to understand so I can identify these things better in the future. Because I seriously don’t get it, there’s still plenty of room to lie down between them?
Part of the hostile architecture is the hostility you receive by asking about how it is hostile.
I immediately wondered the same thing so, it’s not you. The angry replies are because some people are just always looking for something/someone to be mad at.
I think you’re confusing real life homelessness with a cartoon of a drunk who lies down to sleep it off for the night.
Folks lie on those vents in the winter because they’re warm. Putting stuff in the way makes that harder
They look human like, maybe they are meant to cast a shadow or something to make people uncomfortable like somebody is watching?
There’s a literal glowie downvoting every socialist thing 😂
You dropped this sir
Have you considered that, as an admin, I have access to information about votes and user accounts that you don’t?
then why has china got so many homeless people?
What is “so many”? Compared to whom?
It doesn’t, I have no idea where you’re getting that from. China eliminated urban poverty over a decade ago (~2013), and rural poverty is nearly eliminated. Source.
Over the past 40 years, the number of people in China with incomes below $1.90 per day – the International Poverty Line as defined by the World Bank to track global extreme poverty– has fallen by close to 800 million. With this, China has contributed close to three-quarters of the global reduction in the number of people living in extreme poverty. At China’s current national poverty line, the number of poor fell by 770 million over the same period.
Another anti-China western source because we know white supremacists wouldn’t accept any Chinese source about their poverty alleviation campaigns.
If China is socialist then Lipton is tea.
Look into the country on the shallowest level. They have socialist programs but, honestly…
China is socialist. Socialist countries can have market economies and even capitalist economies, as long as the dictatorship of the proletariat ultimately controls all of the economy. Just a reminder China’s killed multiple billionaires.
huh?
However, the people of China can afford to buy these extremely expensive properties. In fact, 90% of families in the country own their home, giving China one of the highest home ownership rates in the world. What’s more is that 80% of these homes are owned outright, without mortgages or any other leans.
Nice, but not related. See that comment
Because China is capitalist, despite being formally led by a communist party. It has private property on means of production, and it is defining Chinese economy just like any other capitalist one. Socialism, by definition, requires social ownership of means of production, which is not the case in China; the term was appropriated and wrongfully used by US and several other countries to define economies with more state control and/or social policies, but this is simply not what socialism is.
Interestingly, China has entire ghost towns full of homes ready to accept people in - but, as in any capitalist economy, homes are seen as an investment, and state subsidies are low, pricing out the homeless. They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.
They have more than enough homes, they just chose to pursue a system that doesn’t make homes and homeless meet.
This is demonstratably false. China has one of the highest home ownership rates in the world, at ~90%. The US is at ~66% for comparison (and most of that isn’t actually full ownership, but a debt to mortgage brokers).
Why do you white supremacists think its okay to spout any unsourced nonsense because it fits your racist biases?
This link does not disprove the point. Home ownership isn’t the same thing, you can have families that rent, they aren’t homeless either.
Using the same source there is twice as many homeless (relative to population) in china than in spain, for example.
I’m not trying to prove that the number is high in China, I don’t know what’s the average for all countries. However, claiming that there isn’t a lot of homeless because 90% of the non homeless own their house is wrong.
The source for that appears to be this article from 2011 : https://web.archive.org/web/20160930015343/http://gbtimes.com/life/homelessness-china
Most of the poverty alleviation campaigns were well underway by 2012, so I’d be interested to see what those numbers are now.
But also, China is responsible for ~3/4ths of the reduction in world poverty via these campaigns.
Not to mention that if you’ve visited any Chinese city in the past few years, you won’t see any of the slums or homeless that you see in the neoliberal countries.
China is demonstrably not capitalist, and people who keep repeating that it is are utterly clueless. If China was capitalist then it would be developing exactly the same way actual capitalist countries are developing. You will not see any of the following happening in a capitalist country ever
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/China’s-Economic-Growth-and-Poverty-Reduction-Angang-Linlin/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b880f54b9c77a4
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2019&%3Blocations=CN&%3Bstart=2008
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
Capitalism is not defined by how the poor are treated, but by the economic relationships and mode of ownership.
Nordic countries have low poverty and generally good social support. Like it or not, this is achieved with private property on means of production, hence they are capitalist.
China has private property on means of production, hence it too is capitalist.
Both of them feature strong state oversight, which allows them to direct more of the capitalist profits to help the poor - which is good! But this doesn’t make them “socialist”.
Love how you respond to a bunch of information from the World Bank, NYT, and the National Bureau of Economic Research with a definition from Wikipedia.
Consider that you could learn more here.
China is not capitalist, its a mixed economy with the state-owned-and-planned sector dominating the heights of the economy.
Is China state capitalist?
- The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
- Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
- Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
- Didn’t China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn’t it liberalize its economy? Is China’s drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
- Is the CPC committed to communism?
- The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
- The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
- Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
- Isn’t China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn’t it fully planned like the USSR was?
- Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
- Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
- What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
- How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev’s market reforms?, 2
- Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
- Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
- Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
- Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
- China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
- Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
- How the State runs business in China.
- 50% of the economy is in the socialist public sector and directly follows the plan (40% if you ignore the agricultural sector). 20 to 30% is inside the state capitalist sector, which is the sector partially or totally owned by domestic capitalists but run by the CPC or by local workers councils. The rest is made up of the small bourgeois ownership like in the NEP.
- China pushing forward Marxist training in colleges, attracts 1M students.
- China tells the US that it has no plans to weaken the role of its State-Owned-Enterprises, one of the US’s main demands in the trade war. “Beijing plans to make the state economy stronger, bigger, and better.”
- Unlike the US, China refuses to bail out over-leveraged property developers, and lets them go bankrupt.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
- A China misinformation Megathread.
🚫 Sorry, this post was removed by Reddit’s filters.
Thx, I’ll update that.
Capitalism is defined by which class holds power in society, and in China it’s demonstrably the working class. The reason the economy works in the interest of the poor is a direct result of that.
All the core economy in China is state owned, and the role of private sector continues to decline https://www.piie.com/research/piie-charts/2024/chinas-private-sector-has-lost-ground-state-sector-has-gained-share-among
You might want to learn a bit about the subject you’re attempting to debate here.
What your data shows is that the share of state in the economy has partially recovered in 2020’s from ~30 to ~50%, after falling from 80% to 30% in the previous decade. Impressive, indeed, and way ahead of most capitalist countries - but China is home to numerous giant private megacorporations, and allows many companies from abroad to build in the country.
“Who holds power” is very abstract and is not part of definition of socialism or capitalism. Even still, we just talked about homelessness - if workers held all the power, would there be homeless? Would there be any poor at all? Would there be overheated markets, including housing, which is one of the craziest in the world? Would there be Tencent, Alibaba, etc.? Would there be billionaires? Etc. etc. What defines “workers holding power” for you?
What is it about some leftists desperately trying to put socialist label on capitalist China - a desperate attempt to demonstrate a mighty socialist economy in the modern world? Socialist countries have lost the Cold War and are mostly not on the map anymore; there are objective reasons to that, including the fact most of the world never moved away from socialism and capitalist forces had greater capital to work with, and this does not mean socialism is bad, but currently, socialism is not represented by any large economy. That’s just the fact.
“Who holds power” is very abstract and is not part of definition of socialism or capitalism.
Power isn’t abstract, and who holds it is definitional to socialism and capitalism, and to feudalism before them.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_bourgeoisie
- https://www.hamptonthink.org/read/bourgeois-democracy-what-do-marxists-mean-by-this-term
if workers held all the power, would there be homeless?
Not for the most part, no. In your imagined “capitalist” China, did you just assume that they have a homelessness crisis, without even checking? Because you’re unintentionally making our case for us.
Would there be any poor at all?
You can’t go from one of the poorest, least developed countries in the world to universal wealth overnight. But they have made unprecedented progress.
- Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says [UN] Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
- China’s Energy Use Per Person Surpasses Europe’s for First Time
- At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low
- China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data
You have an infantile understanding of what capitalism is. I recommend reading this article to get a bit of a perspective https://redsails.org/china-has-billionaires/
Not actually democratic, thus not socialist.
seems like people who actually live in China disagree with you champ
- https://www.newsweek.com/most-china-call-their-nation-democracy-most-us-say-america-isnt-1711176
- https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2021/0218/Vilified-abroad-popular-at-home-China-s-Communist-Party-at-100
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree
- https://web.archive.org/web/20230511041927/https://6389062.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/6389062/Canva images/Democracy Perception Index 2023.pdf
- https://www.tbsnews.net/world/china-more-democratic-america-say-people-98686
- https://web.archive.org/web/20201229132410/https://en.news-front.info/2020/06/27/studies-have-shown-that-china-is-more-democratic-than-the-united-states-russia-is-nearby-and-ukraine-is-at-the-bottom/
Most Americans think that too
They don’t as the links I provided clearly show. Maybe actually look at the sources before replying.
That’s a gish gallop, and the core premise that people believing it’s democratic makes it so is incorrect.
~Edit: added link~
The very first article yogthos showed you, had a poll that showed half of usonians don’t think their country is a democracy (they’re right)
The US congress, its highest governing body, hasn’t gotten over a 20% approval rating for many years.
You’re deliberately avoiding the core premise that people thinking it’s democratic means it’s democratic.
🤡
Good talk
