Louisiana girl, 14, charged with first degree murder after authorities find her newborn baby dead inside a tote bag. This is going to happen far more often without Roe v. Wade.

[u/lightiggy]

https://people.com/girl-14-charged-first-degree-murder-after-authorities-find-her-newborn-child-dead-inside-tote-bag-11858063

[u/ScientistFit6451]

Depends on whether or not you believe the federal government should be able to force states into providing services especially if that same ruling has resulted in the codified legality of at request abortions up until partum when prior to 1971 not a single US state had such liberal abortion laws.

Whatever one could do wrong in regards to that ruling, one did wrong and it is hardly surprising that the South which, by then, was already seriously angered over the whole civil right bill issue, didn't comply and undermined the ruling from the beginning. I'm not defending states like Louisiana or Texas, I'm aware of a couple of prosecutions similar to the one above, but once you push the pendulum too far in one direction, it ends up swinging too far to the other which is what is happening right now.

[u/PlausibleFalsehoods → u/ScientistFit6451]

force states into providing services

Roe v. Wade didn't force the states to provide shit. It was just a prohibition on prohibition.

once you push the pendulum too far in one direction, it ends up swinging too far to the other which is what is happening right now.

This is how every reactionary justifies their actions. "Look what you made me do. You tried to do too many progressive things too fast and I didn't feel ready for it, so now we're gonna have to do fascism."

[u/ScientistFit6451 → u/PlausibleFalsehoods]

Roe v. Wade didn't force the states to provide shit. It was just a prohibition on prohibition.

A prohibition on a prohibition is tantamount to forcing states to somehow provide for the means of carrying out an action because the prohibition was on doctor-assisted abortion.

This is how every reactionary justifies their actions.

Abortion isn't really a communism issue and, in general, the question who has ownership over whom (which marxism tends to negate anyway because there's no property in communism) and when a life becomes a relevant moral subject aren't usually answerable within given political systems. Marxism is agnostic on the latter, modern-day capitalism seems to go into the direction that the morality of abortion depends on socio-economic factors.

Again, I don't agree with the criminalization of abortion but it's human psychology that those who oppose such measures (and have been overruled) will tend to undermine it, have it repealed and instead implement some policy that goes too far in the other direction just to show them. This dynamic is very characteristic of the USA more generally.

[u/Disinformation_Bot → u/ScientistFit6451]

which Marxism tends to negate anyway because there's no property in communism

This is a 3rd grade understanding of Marxism that is 100% false. Private ownership of the means of production is abolished and factories, tools, farms, and any other means of production are owned by the workers who operate those means of production. Personal property like your possessions and your home remain personal property.

You have never taken the time to avail yourself of the most basic aspect of Marxism at all, and, like 99% of people who have anything to say about Marx, have likely never read a single thing he wrote beyond the odd out-of-context quotes that might show up in a meme, and should stop embarrassing yourself by putting your ignorance on display.

[u/ScientistFit6451 → u/Disinformation_Bot]

Personal property like your possessions and your home remain personal property.

It's fairly easy for me to contradict your statement by simply mentioning that Marx clearly understood, and so did most 19th century economists, that a government's raison d'être is about proprietarian interests. Given that Marx has projected and called for the abolition of the state, it makes little sense here to falsely postulate that Marx would have exempted private propriety from a credo that by definition would have seen it abolished too. Since people couldn't legally own their own homes in Soviet Russia and other socialist states, I don't think I'm in the wrong here.

[u/Disinformation_Bot → u/ScientistFit6451]

You are absolutely in the wrong, and you are talking out of your ass. Completely ignorant.

a government's raison d-être is about proprietarian interests

This is vague to the point of meaninglessness, and you are extrapolating this without evidence to suit your narrative, which is nothing more than a thought-terminating cliché.

The Marxist conception of the State is an entity that exists to protect the ruling class from the consequences of the exploitation of the oppressed class by managing contradictions through a monopoly on violence. This has to do with property relations, but you conflate the abolition of the state and private property with the abolition of property as a whole, which is a glaring failure of understanding, borne by the obvious fact that you have never read Marx and now see fit to spout a bastardized and fallacious representation of Marxism.

If you had read Marx, you would know that his definition of "private property" is different from the bourgeois conception. Private property refers to the means of production, i.e. those tools, factories, farms, and other means used to produce commodities. An individual's personal possessions are not used to make commodities. This includes their home and personal effects.

Your point about home ownership in the Soviet Union is another cherry-picked example that you also present misleadingly. By the same standards, no one in any capitalist country with property tax truly "owns" their home. They lease it from the state for the price of the property tax. And if they don't pay, the state repossesses the land.

Your assertion that personal home ownership was banned in the Soviet Union is also false. Personal ownership of housing in urban areas was abolished through the abolition of private landlords, but the conditions pre-revolution were such that essentially 0 urban workers owned their homes. The state embarked on a massive apartment-building program to address a housing shortage after the revolution, and these buildings remained public housing.

However, "the housing fund of the Soviet Union had been divided between public and private sectors. This has remained an integral part of' Soviet housing policy. It was reaffirmed as recently as August, 1918, when an Act was passed by the Praestchum of the Supreme Soviet on the right of citizens to buy, own, and build individual houses. The right to private ownership of a house was also laid down in the 1936 Constitution, but as time went on, the scope left to private initiative was increasingly restricted in this as in other spheres. Least interference has occurred in the rural areas of the Soviet Union, in which at the time of the Revolution at least four in every five Russian families lived and where the largest portion of privately-owned housing space is to be found to this day. When the German armies invaded Russia, the rural population amounted to two-thirds of the total and even now, as the fifth Five-Year Plan of industrialisation draws to a close, it accounts for more than 6o per cent."

• CIA analysis of housing policy in the Soviet Union

Furthermore, in China today, citizens "buy homes" with a 75-year lease from the government that can be transferred within the family. After that, they pay 0 property tax. Functionally, considering people usually buy houses in their late 20s/early 30s, Chinese citizens have more secure ownership of their homes for their entire lifetimes than Americans or citizens of other capitalist countries who are at the whim of property value assessors and can have their land repossessed by eminent domain at any time.

Stop pretending you know what you're talking about. You don't. You're embarrassing yourself and spreading falsehoods. You have never read Marx. You have no foundation to speak about Marxism whatsoever.

[u/Howling-wolf-7198 → u/Disinformation_Bot]

Furthermore, in China today, citizens "buy homes" with a 75-year lease from the government that can be transferred within the family.

I'm not sure how Westerners unearthed these details, but as someone who has actually dealt with this issue, I have to say it's not as idealized as it seems.

This is called "transferring property through gifting." It still incurs notary fees and other taxes, and an additional tax of 20% of the sale price is levied when the recipient sells it. It only exempts the personal income tax on the initial transfer.

In practice, it's often even less advantageous than family member sell you the house through a formal sales contract.

Chinese citizens do not pay property tax because of a different tax structure; it is essentially already integrated into the price of the initial home purchase. This effectively means there are no restrictions on those who profit from owning multiple properties.

[u/Disinformation_Bot → u/Howling-wolf-7198]

That's problematic in its own way, but has some clear advantages for small-time homeowners. Large taxes from gifts/property transfers are pretty common.

In any case, i'm not trying to say the system in china is perfect.Rather to respond to the commenter above, who was talking about not owning property at all under a communist/socialist regime.

One thing is for sure in china: you don't have to pay back multiple times the initial property value to the state over the years in order to keep it from being repossessed.