CarmineCatboy2

for some reason this gave me pop team epic vibes

We don't really have enough context to answer this question, besides the fact that you live in an american city. But the thing is that you don't need us to answer your question either. Towns are subject to planning, which is documented and therefore the full context of every decision is available to you and to civil society organizations.

From what I understand the fundamental problem with housing in the imperial core is that the same moneyed interests in charge of rent and real estate speculation are also placed in charge of building housing. Therefore you'll have just enough housing to expand the market in the name of asset managers and landlords, but never to deflate costs for businesses and workers.

Every city in a capitalist context is gonna have a center and a periphery, with a neglected part of town and a well funded part of town. Gentrification is always gonna happen because there's no political segregation between those two. People are always moving and economies are always changing. That is not to say that these are natural processes. Only to go back and put more emphasis on what I said earlier. The city is planned. It is planned to move people and businesses around, to extract money for the moneyed interests, to funnel state funds here and there. That is the context that makes a large, low income housing project 'good' or 'bad'.

we must protect the jewish people by arresting those jews who 'don't know better'

I'm not sure Valencia is big on catalonian separatism but I could be wrong.

unfortunately for all of us future historians won't remember the policies of the truss regime as it collapsed far too quickly

fortunately for all of us, there's a good chance of convincing future historians that liz truss killed the queen

the question everybody wants to know, how many people do they want to kill

Much obliged, watching it right now.

again, i'm sorry that happened to you.

Yeah, that's the thing about Obama. He was a backstabber, someone who'll smile outwardly and then pull off successful OPs everywhere. There's something about the american psyche and self image that makes that kind of warlord very palatable to liberals but disgusting to reactionaries.

As much as Trump successfully positions himself as someone he isn't - an anti-war hawk - the real support comes from the self image of a guy who 'talks tough', a 'madman' that 'makes the world afraid'. When in reality Trump starts as many fires as anyone else, is not any more liable to wind down the Gaza Genocide or the Ukraine War than Kamala, but simply sucked ass when trying to pull off a coup in Venezuela. Trump brags about blocking Nordstream 2 when Biden harvested Europe's financial economy by blowing up NS1, couped countries like Pakistan, got american troops in Perú, and so on and so forth. Biden is a hawk in truth, whereas Trump is the image of a hawk and also a fuck up.

i'm sorry that happened to you, hope things get better for you comrade.

One thing that is at play here is that someone was asked to create a world where there was a fundamentally unjust situation against which the players could rally against. It is only natural for them and anyone really to look around and mimic the injustices they can see.

I wouldn't say that capitalism is the bad guy here. Social stratification, disenfranchisement, government corruption, cooptation of minority leadership - all of these things happened under pre-capitalist conditions. So that first post about how there's no theming raound labour relations, rent, alienation and so on do make sense.

However we are in a capitalist society, and all those injustices do happen in a capitalist context. So I wouldn't fault anyone for saying that capitalism is the bad guy, because the bad guy is a series of systemic issues.

think about it this way:

the stated goal of US hybrid war against Iran, Venezuela, Cuba and so on is to so impoverish and destroy these populations so much that they rise up against their governments. cruelty is not just the point, its the means.

the most basic criticism you can make is really simple. do the impoverished, sick, and starving populations of a country under sanctions have the energy to organize a revolution? no, they are focused on survival. at most you can have engineer societal collapse there, but not an organized revolution.

that is because revolutions are born of contradictions that go all the way up to the ruling classes. the french revolution saw even wealthy members of the third estate in hunger. the russian revolution was borne out of the catastrophe of WW1 and the inability of the tsarist state to deliver even for the lower nobility that did all the administrative work. likewise with an egyptian revolution its not enough for the country to spiral. the military caste that rules the country needs to be spiraling as well. thats where junior officer coups come from.

we could be seeing the final days of a regime that is only as strong as glass. but we could also be seeing business as usual for a political regime that builds itself a versailles in the desert while cairo turns into a mismanaged slum.