3 ms·

> This is the state of affairs in almost every city where “progressives” have a large impact on local politics. Progressives claim to support government spendin

> This is the state of affairs in almost every city where “progressives” have a large impact on local politics. Progressives claim to support government spending programs, but also have an anarchistic, anti-governmental attitude that can be seen in their support for policies like police abolition in 2020. Although progressives want the government to fund public programs, their opposition to centralized state power means they often don’t want the government to run the programs being funded. This article is comingling vastly different political ideologies. Very few anarchists would have any interest in engaging the political system to solve problems, since most anarchists believe the political system is one of the systems originating the problems society faces today. There is an alignment between anarchists, socialists, leftists, progressives, and even some liberals (very few!) in police abolitionism, but only because the police are so wildly out of control in the USA that it's easy to align along the general idea of "starting over." And even then, liberals seem to be performative in this support - as soon as students started protesting genocide against Palestinians, liberals predictably started asking why the police aren't out there brutalizing these "student terrorists." Anti-houseless spikes painted with a rainbow flag. > Although progressives want the government to fund public programs, their opposition to centralized state power means they often don’t want the government to run the programs being funded. In my opinion a total mischaracterization. Leftists and DSA types absolutely support centralized state power and socialization / nationalization - go read their takes on public transit and public housing. This whole article is describing neoliberal politicians allowing capitalists to do capitalism however they please, which is in line with neoliberal ideology. San Francisco is the best example of the failure of neoliberal ideology, and just because it's a city full of dirty anarchists doesn't mean said dirty anarchists have any political power - SF is politically neoliberal through and through. > What is taking place in America’s most performatively socialist urban areas is that taxes are constantly raised in order to fund public services I don't understand where the author gets the idea that American urban areas are "performatively socialist" from a politician standpoint. American politicians in every city are famously, painfully neoliberal. Eric Adams mischaracterizing and verbally attacking peaceful protesters. London Breed called the cops on a homeless guy she saw laying on a bench. Ted Wheeler pathetically tried to co-opt Black Lives Matter protests before being roundly rejected and then sending the cops to brutalize peaceful protesters. American urban politicians are not socialist nor are they performatively so. > where “socialists” privatize government services at every opportunity; I just don't see this happening. I see neoliberal Democrats doing this, but never avowed socialists. Happy to be corrected. So far as I know even SF has only ever had one avowed socialist politician, Chesa Boudin, and as soon as he was elected every politician in the city banded together to tank his career. Never has such as microscope been pointed at a District Attorney, with predictable results. Everyone was happy to take a potshot and cash in on the socialist under whom violent crime was dropping and who was prosecuting an "unusually high" volume of cases. At least the author isn't leaning into the privatization and pointing out the obvious issues this is causing. I would be interested in seeing an analysis on how leftist ideology offering actual solutions is being co-opted by neoliberals serving the same cause as the reactionaries they run against every election.

mediumdeviation 2y ago
> So far as I know even SF has only ever had one avowed socialist politician Surely you’ve heard of Dean Preston, the DSA member of the Board of Supervisors who owns a $2.5m house in the city and is also the least pro-housing member on the Board? While I don’t think housing in SF is socialist, it’s also about as far from neoliberal as is possible, with rent control, zoning and complex environmental review process. These also happen to be the means Dean uses to block development, and has been in place in the city for decades now. Whatever is causing the housing problems in SF at least, it’s not neoliberalism.
- komali2 2y ago
  Dean Preston's time started just as mine in the city ended, so I'm not entirely familiar, though I'm not sure how you say he's "the least pro-housing member" of the board but then again I'm not too familiar with other board members now. Just scrolling through his Wikipedia: > Preston authored San Francisco's 2018 Proposition F, which directs the city to establish a universal right to counsel for tenants facing eviction > Preston and other supervisors rejected the budget cuts and instead approved a $750,000 increase (to the same program which had received 4 million budget cuts from London Breed) > In April 2020, Preston introduced an ordinance to permanently bar eviction of tenants for failure to pay rent because of issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. > Preston again introduced legislation to extend eviction protections in May 2021 as the state-wide eviction moratorium in effect at the time was due to expire. > In April 2020, Preston co-introduced legislation with Supervisors Matt Haney, Hillary Ronen and Shamann Walton to require Mayor Breed to secure 8,250 hotel rooms to house the homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic He does seem to oppose "free-market" "solutions" to homelessness, including unfettered development. He does appear socialist in action: > Preston also introduced two ballot initiatives... Proposition K authorizes the city of San Francisco to build or acquire up to 10,000 units of affordable housing State housing is socialist. > Preston successfully proposed in the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $10 million from the funds raised by Proposition I to fund rent relief and $10 million to fund additional affordable housing. Direct payments in rent relief is a somewhat socialist-aligned thing (would be better to simply cut out the middleman and socialize the property itself) though you're right, whiffs of neoliberal capitalist intervention. > he fought to secure additional affordable housing funding including $40 million for land acquisition That is out and out socialist, to have the government buy land to build housing on. > In October 2021, Preston voted against the construction of a 495-unit apartment complex (one-quarter of which were designated as affordable housing) on a parking lot next to a BART station. Preston said that the construction of the apartment complex on the parking lot was "gentrification." That is, indeed, super odd. This person strikes me as absolutely a virtue-signalling, somewhat shallow politician, though I don't know if they're only a performative socialist, they seem to be adopting readily socialist concepts. They seem to be seeking the creation of a public bank, opposed to public transit fare increases, proposed free public transit, and opposed to increased police funding. Accusations of champagne socialism don't really hold water, there's nothing inherently unsocialist about owning an expensive house (or even being mildly wealthy), especially considering he apparently has owned it since 1999. If he was renting it out, absolutely that would be hypocritical. If there were no billionaires in America, this would be worth more scrutiny. As it stands, it appears it would take several thousand Dean Prestons to make one billionaire, so I'm not really concerned. > Whatever is causing the housing problems in SF at least, it’s not neoliberalism. Dean Preston being a socialist or not doesn't really matter in terms of the greater question of whether SF is a neoliberal or socialist government - it's absolutely not a socialist government or comprised of socialist politicians. If Dean Preston and Chesa Boudin are the "most socialist" politicians the city has to offer, then, no. Whether neoliberalism is the cause of the homeless problem in SF is another issue entirely. I'd say no, because I believe the homeless problem in SF is not just due to neoliberal failures in the city, but also the state being reactionary america's undesirables dumping ground, and the USA in general going through a critical period of late-stage capitalism that's increasing homelessness all over the country. Even an outright communist politician, should they somehow manage to get elected to a board of supervisors or even mayoral position in SF, can't really do much if the entire rest of the local and state government will immediately throw them under the bus (as happened with Chesa Boudin) or if the local, state, and federal government model itself seriously restricts the legal actions the person can take, guardrails at all levels to ensure the politician always serves neoliberal / conservative capitalist interests.

mediumdeviation 2y ago

> So far as I know even SF has only ever had one avowed socialist politician Surely you’ve heard of Dean Preston, the DSA member of the Board of Supervisors who owns a $2.5m house in the city and is also the least pro-housing member on the Board? While I don’t think housing in SF is socialist, it’s also about as far from neoliberal as is possible, with rent control, zoning and complex environmental review process. These also happen to be the means Dean uses to block development, and has been in place in the city for decades now. Whatever is causing the housing problems in SF at least, it’s not neoliberalism.

komali2 2y ago
Dean Preston's time started just as mine in the city ended, so I'm not entirely familiar, though I'm not sure how you say he's "the least pro-housing member" of the board but then again I'm not too familiar with other board members now. Just scrolling through his Wikipedia: > Preston authored San Francisco's 2018 Proposition F, which directs the city to establish a universal right to counsel for tenants facing eviction > Preston and other supervisors rejected the budget cuts and instead approved a $750,000 increase (to the same program which had received 4 million budget cuts from London Breed) > In April 2020, Preston introduced an ordinance to permanently bar eviction of tenants for failure to pay rent because of issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic. > Preston again introduced legislation to extend eviction protections in May 2021 as the state-wide eviction moratorium in effect at the time was due to expire. > In April 2020, Preston co-introduced legislation with Supervisors Matt Haney, Hillary Ronen and Shamann Walton to require Mayor Breed to secure 8,250 hotel rooms to house the homeless during the COVID-19 pandemic He does seem to oppose "free-market" "solutions" to homelessness, including unfettered development. He does appear socialist in action: > Preston also introduced two ballot initiatives... Proposition K authorizes the city of San Francisco to build or acquire up to 10,000 units of affordable housing State housing is socialist. > Preston successfully proposed in the Board of Supervisors to appropriate $10 million from the funds raised by Proposition I to fund rent relief and $10 million to fund additional affordable housing. Direct payments in rent relief is a somewhat socialist-aligned thing (would be better to simply cut out the middleman and socialize the property itself) though you're right, whiffs of neoliberal capitalist intervention. > he fought to secure additional affordable housing funding including $40 million for land acquisition That is out and out socialist, to have the government buy land to build housing on. > In October 2021, Preston voted against the construction of a 495-unit apartment complex (one-quarter of which were designated as affordable housing) on a parking lot next to a BART station. Preston said that the construction of the apartment complex on the parking lot was "gentrification." That is, indeed, super odd. This person strikes me as absolutely a virtue-signalling, somewhat shallow politician, though I don't know if they're only a performative socialist, they seem to be adopting readily socialist concepts. They seem to be seeking the creation of a public bank, opposed to public transit fare increases, proposed free public transit, and opposed to increased police funding. Accusations of champagne socialism don't really hold water, there's nothing inherently unsocialist about owning an expensive house (or even being mildly wealthy), especially considering he apparently has owned it since 1999. If he was renting it out, absolutely that would be hypocritical. If there were no billionaires in America, this would be worth more scrutiny. As it stands, it appears it would take several thousand Dean Prestons to make one billionaire, so I'm not really concerned. > Whatever is causing the housing problems in SF at least, it’s not neoliberalism. Dean Preston being a socialist or not doesn't really matter in terms of the greater question of whether SF is a neoliberal or socialist government - it's absolutely not a socialist government or comprised of socialist politicians. If Dean Preston and Chesa Boudin are the "most socialist" politicians the city has to offer, then, no. Whether neoliberalism is the cause of the homeless problem in SF is another issue entirely. I'd say no, because I believe the homeless problem in SF is not just due to neoliberal failures in the city, but also the state being reactionary america's undesirables dumping ground, and the USA in general going through a critical period of late-stage capitalism that's increasing homelessness all over the country. Even an outright communist politician, should they somehow manage to get elected to a board of supervisors or even mayoral position in SF, can't really do much if the entire rest of the local and state government will immediately throw them under the bus (as happened with Chesa Boudin) or if the local, state, and federal government model itself seriously restricts the legal actions the person can take, guardrails at all levels to ensure the politician always serves neoliberal / conservative capitalist interests.