I've transitioned to working out early mornings this week, so I now have a huge chunk of my days open while waiting for: a) an interim job, b) a production, c) a random adventure. I'm not a huge fan of idle time, so I've started educating myself further with Socialism.
I initially switched from mainstream Democrat to Socialist in college, partly for shock value, but also because I do believe strongly in egalitarianism and cooperative ownership. I also don't have a fear of government when smart, intelligent people who aren't concerned with career advancement are in charge. I think government ownership is a wonderful thing in certain critical industries such as utilities. Problems arise, however, when those in charge of government owned companies forget that they are representatives of the public at large.
Yet despite these beliefs, I often wonder if I'm as "rose" (Socialists are different than Communists, so I don't say "red," which oddly enough suggests Republicans these days) as I believe. So I took a look at the manifesto/platform for New York City's Socialist Party local.
On housing:
"Physically beautiful, ecologically sound affordable housing is absolutely vital to the future of the city – only by constructing such housing can we reduce rents and break the overwhelming political power of the real estate industry."
How true. I love my apartment, but the rent I pay is exorbitant for what it is. Very few New Yorkers outside of rent-controlled apartments would disagree. "Well, you're in New York, no one is forcing you to be there," critics would say. This argument does not hold water with me. I am not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there does seem to be a cabal between the media, the real estate developers, and the government to hype "hot neighbourhoods." I imagine the process works like this: City has land that it wants developed. Developer buys site in a neighbourhood in order to build a towering apartment building. Wanting to insure that the units will be filled with residents paying the maximum, developer goes to the media to generate "buzz." If the hype is successful, the building fills up with people wanting to sample "the glamorous life." The process is repeated over and over, sometimes even in the same neighbourhood, all for the love of greed. The residents and employees are basically cash machines. It does need to stop. I do believe that we have to have a capitalist economy, but it must be kept strongly in check.
On Public Transit:
"Private cars make no sense in a dense city center. The pollution, noise, and danger they bring is only exacerbated by the tremendous cost to the city for the roads, services and infrastructure they require. Cities like Amsterdam have shown that it is possible to remove cars from the city center while allowing delivery trucks and emergency vehicles to operate with far greater efficiency."
Again, I totally agree. I live on the corner of 6th Avenue (aka Avenue of the Americas). Personally, I don't mind the ambient noise of cars going by, but the amount of traffic is insane for a locale in the middle of Manhattan. There are many many private cars being driven here, that really have no place being in New York with the multitude of public transit options at their disposal. This is not Los Angeles. People who work in New York City have a choice of subways, buses, trains, and ferries to get them where they want to go in relative speed--not to mention taxis as well. It does indeed make no sense to have private cars. Every evening, it seems that I am witness to a fire truck creeping slowly up 6th Avenue, horns a-wailing, trying to make it through a sea of cars, the majority of which are not taxis/limousines, nor delivery trucks.
That being said, I think the NYC Socialists are a little bit crazy with this portion:
"Our subways would cost only 60 cents a ride if the state subsidized them at the same rate it subsidizes the commuter railroads that serve the suburbs, but we call for a completely free system, funded by fair subsidies and a return to the commuter tax for non-residents."
Oh, we should tax the commuters without a doubt, but a free system? That is ludicrous. I don't think that a commuter tax would subsidise the transit system. A commuter tax would reduce the amount of commuters coming by car, who would subsequently switch to public transportation. Capacity on public transport would have to be expanded to accommodate them, and that costs money. The fares need to stay in order to allow the system to both expand, improve, and maintain itself. I believe in subsides, but I also believe that subsidies should not be wasted.
On independence:
"New Yorkers send three times as many dollars in taxes to the state and federal governments as we receive in services--the Transit Authority, school budget, housing laws, and social welfare systems are all controlled by bureaucrats in Albany. The Socialist Party advocates complete legislative autonomy for New York City, in effect creating a free city within US territory."
I find this very interesting. On a purely symbolic level, "New York City" being separate from "New York State" is bizarre and anachronistic. The county seat of my home county, Ozaukee County, is Port Washington, which is a holdover from the time when it was part of neighbouring Washington County. (Not that it has made any difference, according to Mike Nichols of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.)
Putting aside any renaming debates, I have a problem with the notion of separation. Call me Pollyanna, but if the money sent from New York City helps others in New York State plus the city itself, then I am perfectly fine with it being so. If I move to Buffalo, I'd like to have the same access and government benefits that I would in New York City. Sheer population ensures that New York City will often contribute more, and the way to fix the disparity is by working in tandem with New York State, not by suddenly creating a new level of bureaucracy.
Nonetheless, it's this statement on the main website of The Socialist Party USA that affirms my socialism:
"THE SOCIALIST PARTY USA stands for the abolition of every form of domination and exploitation, whether based on social class, gender, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, or other characteristics... As we build the socialist movement, we organize around a platform committed to our common and interdependent struggles and aspirations."
And that's what is so often forgotten in the world today, that we are all in this together.
No comments:
Post a Comment