Issue #1 - April 2017

Here, you can read all of the articles featured in the first issue of Rocky Mountain Revolution. Find a print copy for more features, photos, memes, and more!

 

Homelessness and the need for socialism

By Jeremy Craig

Inevitably, capitalism creates a hierarchy of wealth which allows a few to live in extreme opulence while most of us clamor for the scraps from their collective table. But even among the proletariat, the struggle is not even. While the middle class may have difficulty covering expensive medical procedures, the working poor are often forced to decide between paying necessary bills and purchasing food. However, the furthest marginalized and most imperiled group must be those among us without work and especially those without homes.

Never mind the fact that there are approximately 1,300 homeless in Colorado Springs, compared with 2,500 empty apartment units. This doesn’t even take into account the number of vacant single-family and multi-family dwellings which do not fall under the “apartment” label. Of course, any solution to homelessness under the bourgeois state must benefit the capitalist class, and as such, the solutions sought by the City of Colorado Springs are not burdened by anything resembling compassion or human empathy.

The drive for decades has been less about alleviating the difficulty of living

without a home or providing safe living spaces and more about criminalizing the state of homelessness itself. We have seen this in the city-wide ban on sitting or sleeping on sidewalks, euphemistically referred to as the Pedestrian Access Act. Before that there was the law prohibiting panhandling downtown. After both of these laws were struck down in court, the city council took another stab at harming the helpless via prohibited use of medians by pedestrians. Although this was framed as a public safety issue, it was clearly meant to discourage individuals from asking for change from passing motorists. The fine? $500. It seems unlikely that anyone forced to humble themselves enough to beg for alms could cover such an expense. If one is unable to pay their fine, it eventually becomes an issue of incarceration. 

Of course there are no easy paths, nor a single solution to this issue. As 46% of homeless adults suffer from serious mental illness and/or struggle with substance abuse, those are factors which must be addressed. However, the immediate need to provide not just shelter but secure, private, permanent housing is paramount. Capitalism offers no answers to any of this. The only major shelter in Colorado Springs has a measly 250 beds. And charity is sadly just a bandaid. Homelessness is systemic and necessitates systemic change. When homes outnumber the homeless, it is time to consider the idea that housing is a human right. 

Book review: 'This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs the Climate' doesn't live up to it's name

By Nora Charles

Is capitalism sustainable? In her best-selling 2014 book “This child. She draws heavily on the parallels between the Earth’s Changes Everything: Capitalism vs The Climate,” journalist Naomi current strains to harbor life and her own. Of course, the natural Klein sets out to answer this question. It’s an ambitious desire to survive and reproduce is why people care about climate undertaking, and her research is both broad and deep. change in the first place, but I still found myself admiring her Klein makes difficult concepts such as the “cap and trade” courage to include what could be written off as a sentimental

Throughout “This Changes Everything,” she argues that climate change offers a golden opportunity for the left to take power. Either humans will die off and the earth will spin on without us, or we must upend the existing economic order that perpetuates continued destruction across the globe. If the inherent contradictions, crises, and violence of capitalism don’t make us question its legitimacy, maybe this book will.

She begins by identifying the different manifestations of climate change denial across the US political spectrum, from right wing think tanks funding climate change denial campaigns to politicians like Al Gore promoting individual lifestyle changes and “Big Green” companies making money off their new “green” products which contribute to the crisis. She depicts how the real estate and insurance industries are set to actually profit off climate change-induced extreme weather and how racism permits plunder. If the powerful remain so, more devastation is on the way. The statistics are frightening. We are slated for 4 to 6 degrees Celsius of warming, which could release huge amounts of methane from the Arctic permafrost. She compares this reality with the threat of nuclear war felt during the Cold War. And since this was published three years ago, so the problems have only become worse. We can only put 565 gigatons of CO2 into the atmosphere if we want to keep warming at 2 degrees Celsius, and at the current emissions rate, we will reach that in 16 years.

Klein links the origin of the Western extractivist mindset to 17th century philosophers like Francis Bacon, who saw the world as an entity humans should endlessly exploit for their material benefit. She is absolutely right to deconstruct the damaging values that dominate Western cultures, but more glaring to me is the addiction to money and exploitation that is exacerbated by the capitalist system to a shameful degree. Instead of capitalism, she seems to see just its latest stage, neoliberalism, as the real evil to defeat. She doesn’t see neoliberalism as a natural crisis resulting from the continuation of an exploitative economic system, but the unfortunate way that the system was managed.

Towards the end of the book, Klein’s description of the climate crisis takes a more personal turn. While writing this book, Klein struggled to get pregnant and eventually gave birth to her first child. She draws heavily on the parallels between the Earth’s current strains to harbor life and her own. Of course, the natural desire to survive and reproduce is why people care about climate change in the first place, but I still found myself admiring her courage to include what could be written off as a sentimental woman’s concern. 

Desperate for hope, she focuses on positive changes underway around the world, from Germany voting to have state control over its energy industry, to residents in the city of Boulder fighting for renewable energy options, as well as indigenous groups blocking pipeline construction across North America. The world is not made up of Germanys and Boulders, though. Daily exploitation stunts class consciousness in the US (a primary actor in climate destruction) and developing countries have been stripped of their wealth and stability. Klein advocates for a “polluter pays” model, where the countries and companies that create pollution are responsible for paying to manage the resulting environmental damage. But this seems unlikely without a socialist revolution, especially given that under the World Trade Organization, corporations have basic rights just as individuals do, making regulating them crazy difficult.

From the anti-Iraq war protests and the Occupy Wall Street movement to the Women’s March on Washington this past January, large scale protests are repeatedly dismissed as fringe movements or ignored completely by those in power. We can’t hedge our bets on physical protests, such as the blocking of extractive projects in the wake of austerity in Greece, which Klein celebrates as a way forward.

For a trustworthy journalist who clearly sees the world as it is and is unafraid to tell the public, her various solutions are frustratingly limited. She rightly ridicules the geoengineering solutions as “magical solutions”, but her visions are inadequate and devoid of a theoretical basis. She briefly writes about the ecological destruction in some socialist states the USSR, and writes off all of Marxist theory along with it. After proving again and again that capitalism cannot be compatible with a future for humans going forward, the book fails to provide an alternative to capitalism on a large scale, apart from worker- run co-ops. While these kinds of reforms can improve and even save lives, they should not be the end goal;, a planned economy is. If Klein gets her way, capitalism will be reformed with New Deal type legislation instead of destroyed. 

Fighting Fascism in 2017

By Sam Neely

'Fascism is capitalism in decay' - Vladimir Lenin

I wish that I could say that the current rise of neo-fascism and the alt-right is unprecedented. I wish I could say that it’s shocking, but it’s not. We have seen this before, and we know how it plays out. This time however, we are prepared to stop it.

Before we explore the reasons behind the current rise of neo-fascism, both in the US and across the globe, we first have to understand what fascism is. This can be tricky, however, as fascism can take many different shapes and forms depending on the conditions in which it takes place. Generally speaking, fascism is a violent, reactionary and nationalist political movement that seeks to destroy liberal democracy and leftist ideas, instead imposing its own totalitarian form of control. Often this is done by identifying a group within society as being alien, and then blaming this group for the downfall of society. Now, this is not a perfect definition of fascism, but hopefully it will provide a framework for the rest of this article.

We saw fascism first come to prominence in early 20th century Europe, with the rise of dictators like Benito Mussolini in Italy, and Adolf Hitler in Germany. These fascists believed the First World War represented a complete change in how society was functioning, and they sought to bring an end to liberal democracy. In its place, they wanted a totalitarian nationalist state, led by a single, strong leader to unify the country and stabilise its people. In reality, this saw the beginning of ethnic cleansing, severe repression of political opponents, massive outbreaks of violence and, eventually, the Second World War.

Since WW2, traditional fascist ideology has somewhat died out, and as a result, many on the far-right now turn to neo-fascism and the alt-right. These two ideologies contain significant amounts of traditional fascist ideology, but with even more of an emphasis on anti-immigration, extreme nationalism and populism. We can see many of these elements of neo-fascism becoming normalised today

In America today, many outspoken fascist organisations such as the American Nazi Party and the KKK are brutally condemned, as they should be. But now, we also have a much more cunning, and potentially more dangerous brand of neo-fascists: the alt-right. The alt-right are a loose group of people on the far right that are attempting to re-brand white supremacy and nationalism 

Instead of swastikas, they’re using memes, instead of praising Hitler, they’re praising Trump, and instead of burning crosses, they’re trolling on Twitter.

“Alt-right” is a term coined in 2010 by outspoken white nationalist Richard Spencer, although it didn’t gain much attention until 2016 and Donald Trump’s campaign. Through their irreverent social media campaigns and the rhetoric behind Trump and his campaign, many people who were once mainstream conservatives are now turning to this form of neo-fascism.

Today, everyday working class people are struggling as much as ever. Income inequality is growing, machines are replacing people’s jobs, wages are remaining stagnant despite the increasing cost of living, and personal liberties are being curbed in the name of national security. It is clear that establishment politics is not working, and that radical change is needed.

However, to those on the far right, the reason that the system isn’t working is not because of systematic exploitation of the working class by the wealthy elite, it’s not the fact that 8 people own the same wealth as over 3 billion people, and it’s not the fact the rich will do anything that they can to increase their own profits—even at the expense of millions of others. No, instead the far-right have made up some kind of white-male victim mentality, and think that racism, nationalism, anti-semitism, and other forms of oppression are the answer to their problems. They believe that the white-male identity is under attack by multiculturalism and political correctness. Now, this is not to say that working class white-men aren’t struggling - all members of the working class are. But it is to say that white-men remain the most privileged members of society, and don’t face the same challenges as many others. It is also ludicrous to say that the reason that any member of the working class is struggling is because of any group of minorities. The reason that the working class is struggling is because of capitalism, and the oppression of the working class that comes with it.

It is easy to see, however, that the people that are struggling under the burden of capitalism want something to blame. And it’s a lot easier to scapegoat marginalised groups, be it Muslims, Mexicans, or Jews, than it is to examine the whole economic believe that neo-fascism and the alt-right are growing. When you have members of the ruling class (see Donald Trump) pushing anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric on a daily basis, it’s easy to become persuaded by it, especially when people like Trump refuse to bow down to the pressures of political correctness that the white-male victim mentality so desperately hates. As capitalism grows ever worse, and we begin to see more frequent economic crises, the potential for fascism to grow becomes greater. And with the president of the United States himself scapegoating marginalised people on a daily basis, its risks increase. We know, however, that the problem isn’t multiculturalism, political correctness or immigration. The problem is capitalism, and the solution is an economy that is run by the working class for the working class. It is essential to show the people that are struggling under capitalism, the people that could be fooled by the ruling class into thinking that white power is the answer, that the problem is capitalism, and that there is a solution: a solution that can only be reached through class struggle. And with that, it is time for the workers of the world to unite, for we have nothing to lose but our chains! 

Laying the groundwork for Trump's deportations

By Lillian House

Donald Trump’s hardcore deportation policies should not come as a shock. While his crude and overtly racist rhetoric casts him as something of a rogue, a long American tradition of pro-business, anti-worker, and anti-poor policy paved the way for his assault on undocumented immigrants. The immigration policies of the last quarter-century in particular have followed a clear trend of escalating militarization and disregard for human rights. Such policy, though cast as protecting U.S.-born workers, favors business interests and corrodes the rights and wages of all workers.

The signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993 ushered in the neoliberal era of unrestrained free-market ideology and anti-poor policy. Bill Clinton’s ramping up of the War on Drugs initiated by Reagan in the eighties included a crackdown on unauthorized immigration at the Southern border. In October of 1994, Clinton launched Operation Gatekeeper, announcing plans for his own border wall of sorts in the form of a heavily patrolled massive fence intended to stem the flow of immigrants from Tijuana to San Diego. The operation was a mixed success, managing chiefly to channel migrants to more hazardous areas of the border, leading to a steady increase in deaths related to starvation, dehydration, and exhaustion.

George W. Bush, in a rash of broad post-9/11 anti-terrorist crackdowns, similarly erected his own 700-mile stretch of fence along the Southern border with the Secure Borders Act of 2006. Over Bush’s two terms, more than 1.5 million people were deported, and his administration set the stage for Obama’s record of over 2.5 million deportations. The Secure Communities Act, initiated in Bush’s final year in office, mandated that local police forces forward fingerprint data collected from arrests to the Department of Homeland Security--a move which greatly assisted the Obama administration in their massive deportation effort.

According to official U.S. Border Patrol statistics, the number of USBP agents ballooned from 4,139 agents in 1992 to 17,499 agents in 2008 under Bush, peaking in 2011 under Obama at 21,444 agents, 86 percent of whom were deployed on the US-Mexico border. Hillary Clinton demonstrated that she too, if elected, would have acted in the same tradition. On the 2016 campaign trail she explicitly voiced support for such policy, saying, “Look, I voted numerous times ... to spend money to build a barrier to try to prevent illegal immigrants from coming in. And I do think you have to control your borders.”

The current real unemployment rate as calculated by the Department of Labor is 9.2 percent. The lowest point in the last two decades was 6.8 percent in 2000. The prosperity in America relative to the global economy also ensures a constant influx of immigrant workers. This sustained surplus of laborers allows politicians to consistently attack undocumented immigrants without seriously risking the depletion of this extremely profitable segment of workers.

Politicians attack immigrants because they are an easy scapegoat for crises from drug and crime waves to terrorism to job shortages. Donald Trump makes a big show of ramping up deportations while more quietly dismantling the safety nets on which his voters rely. Stoking anti-immigrant sentiment is an effective tool for shifting anger over job shortages and economic insecurity away from responsible policymakers and onto fellow workers. The success Trump has had in fueling anti-immigrant sentiment indicates an urgent need for a renewed labor movement.

Donald Trump’s ambitions, laid out in documents released by the Department of Homeland Security in February of this year, are to increase the number and swiftness of deportations by broadening the definition of “criminal alien”. The documents detail plans to enlist local police forces alongside Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in the deportation effort and to publicize crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. While Trump breaks with liberal tradition by overtly appealing to racist and xenophobic currents, presidents on both sides of the aisle laid the political groundwork for his policies with decades of assaults on immigrants.

Stoking anti-immigrant sentiment is an effective tool for shifting anger over job shortages and economic insecurity away from responsible policymakers and onto fellow workers.

Paradoxically, eliminating the immigrant workforce would actually hurt Donald Trump and the business interests he represents. Undocumented workers make up a tier of laborers who can be paid less for harsher work than arguably any other group of workers. Because undocumented workers lack basic measures of security or access to even minimal government assistance, employers have increased leverage to impose maximal labor exploitation. In several industries, immigrant work conditions are indistinguishable from slave labor. Immigrant workers--women in particular--are also disproportionately vulnerable to abusive labor practices because they don’t have the same avenues for reporting crimes or abuse. Employers—Trump included—doubtlessly recognize the service that undocumented workers provide for them. Indeed Trump came under fire during his presidential campaign for employing and underpaying hundreds of undocumented Polish construction workers in 1980 to build his famous Trump Tower. His initial pick for labor secretary Andrew Puzder similarly attacked worker protections while having an undocumented worker employed in his household. Politicians manage to sustain this contradictory position on immigration because the United States has a reliable surplus of laborers. The current real unemployment rate as calculated by the Department of Labor is 9.2 percent. The lowest point in the last two decades was 6.8 percent in 2000. The prosperity in America relative to the global economy also ensures a constant influx of immigrant workers. This sustained surplus of laborers allows politicians to consistently attack undocumented immigrants without seriously risking the depletion of this extremely profitable segment of workers.

Politicians attack immigrants because they are an easy scapegoat for crises from drug and crime waves to terrorism to job shortages. Donald Trump makes a big show of ramping up deportations while more quietly dismantling the safety nets on which his voters rely. Stoking anti-immigrant sentiment is an effective tool for shifting anger over job shortages and economic insecurity away from responsible policymakers and onto fellow workers. The success Trump has had in fueling anti-immigrant sentiment indicates an urgent need for a renewed labor movement that empowers workers through solidarity instead of fostering divisions. Workers must understand that even if all undocumented workers were eliminated from this country, employers and politicians would continue pitting workers against each other so long as hierarchies of any sort persist among laborers. Worker empowerment begins with recognition of this truth and rejection of exploitation of all sorts. 

The grim legacy of Colorado's labour wars

By Justin Craig

You and I generally associate April with tax season: the last weeks we have to file papers in order to give up a percentage of what little we are paid for what we produce or exert. This tax season is even more significant as hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, will take to the streets to protest the “President” of the United States and the fact that he likely hasn't paid taxes in at least several instances over the past two decades. There was another tax season, though, that arguably holds much more import in the history of our nation. It happened in Colorado 103 years ago, only a few hours from here.

Colorado Fuel and Iron (CF&I) was a major player in the US coal business. In the early 1900s it was not only the largest employer in Colorado, it was also the largest private land owner. It became a hub of diversity as the company sent recruiters around to world to get workers who spoke different languages, as they felt it would decrease miners’ ability to organize unions.

This would prove difficult for the company, however. Forced overtime, explosions, black lung, and rock falls were just a handful of the dangers. In 1910 alone, more than 400 miners died on the job in Colorado. Instead of being pad for the time they worked, miners were paid based on how much coal they brought back. It would be weighed by the company, and if any rocks at all were found in the coal, the miner would not be paid. but CF&I would still keep the coal. The miners had to dynamite tunnels and build rails and ceilings to get to the coal. They were not paid for this labor, despite the fact that they had to sometimes spend a week’s worth of ten-hour days to build this infrastructure. Miners had to buy their own blasting powder and explosives. Couple this with the fact that they were forced to live in company towns in order to work the company mines as well as pay rent to live in company homes and shop at company stores, and you find that most of what little they were paid ended up back in the hands of CF&I.

There was a moment of calm, however. On April 19th, 1914, the miners celebrated Pascha (Greek Orthodox Easter) with a feast, music, and baseball. They even invited some of the National Guard and company militia to join in as a token of good will. They didn’t get much reassurance, however, as one of the militiamen warned, “Have your fun today; we will have ours tomorrow.” 

On the morning of April 20th, the miners and families were feeling the anxiety of those words hang palpably over their heads and asked Louis Tikas to negotiate a truce with CF&I. He was greeted by the National Guard stationed at the company offices who delivered a beating so severe that one man broke his rifle butt on the back of his head. As he attempted to walk away, an officer pulled his revolver and shot Tikas in the back, killing him. The Guard and militia set upon the camps in earnest, firing shots into the tents. The miners fired back and made an attempt to move away from the camp, so as to draw fire away from their wives and children. The Guard mounted a machine gun on a nearby hill and began to spray into the camp.

The direct action of the miners and their families began to severely impact the profits and production of CF&I, which the company would not tolerate. Directed by the company, the state called in the National Guard to help put an end to the strike. They ran through the miners’ camps yelling, “Get out, foreigners!” and harassing the families of the miners. CF&I hired some of these National Guard members, a perfect marriage of the business and state. Private detectives manufactured an armored car that they mounted a machine gun on and called “The Death Special.” To terrorize the workers and their families, they would drive this car through the camps, firing over the heads of the men and women and children there. The National Guard set up spotlights in the hills around the camps, shining them at the tents in the middle of the night to disrupt the sleep of everyone there. As a result of the terror campaign, many of the miners began to carry and stockpile firearms out of fear. They dug shelters under some of the tents to hold ammunition, but also for the women and children to hide in, in the event that they were actually fired upon.

There was a moment of calm, however. On April 19th, 1914, the miners celebrated Pascha (Greek Orthodox Easter) with a feast, music, and baseball. They even invited some of the National Guard and company militia to join in as a token of good will. They didn’t get much reassurance, however, as one of the militiamen warned, “Have your fun today; we will have ours tomorrow.”

On the morning of April 20th, the miners and families were feeling the anxiety of those words hang palpably over their heads and asked Louis Tikas to negotiate a truce with CF&I. He was greeted by the National Guard stationed at the company offices who delivered a beating so severe that one man broke his rifle butt on the back of his head. As he attempted to walk away, an officer pulled his revolver and shot Tikas in the back, killing him. The Guard and militia set upon the camps in earnest, firing shots into the tents. The miners fired back and made an attempt to move away from the camp, so as to draw fire away from their wives and children. The Guard mounted a machine gun on a nearby hill and began to spray into the camp.

There was a lull in action as a train passed between the two factions. The miners used this opportunity to flee with their families, while the Guard closed the gap and moved into the tent city, setting fires everywhere that they could, destroying the structures the strikers had built. Not everyone had made it out when the train passed by, however. Ten miners were killed as well as eleven children and three women that were hiding in a shelter under a burning tent that collapsed, suffocating them to death.

The strikers were stunned and furious. Seeking retaliation, they launched a ten day war against CF&I and its lackeys. They attacked company towns and mines, driving scabs and National Guard out. They threw dynamite their mines. They killed supervisors and National Guard and strike breakers. Deciding that CF&I didn’t have a monopoly on violence, they saw it as self-defense as well as retribution. It was the bloodiest insurrection in United States since the Civil War. Still, President Woodrow Wilson did nothing.

It wasn’t until the miners began seizing the mines and running them cooperatively that Wilson had had enough. The prospect of the mass realization of worker empowerment was likely more than he would tolerate. He sent the United States Army in to shut it down. It succeeded and returned all of the property to CF&I. Few concessions were granted to the workers that returned to their jobs, but “Remember Ludlow” became a rallying cry for labor uprisings around the United States for years to come. 

Ask the reds!

By Various Contributors

On your header, you say you’re anti-racist and anti-misogynist. What does socialism have to do with that, and why should women and people of color be interested?” - J. Doe via our website

Hi J. Doe,
To answer your question, let’s first talk briefly about capitalism

and socialism. Capitalism is an economic system that focuses on profit versus actual human need. Production is mainly privately owned, giving control of profit to the few wealthy owners versus the actual workers themselves. This creates a society where huge gaps in standards of living exist between the rich “owners” and the poor “workers”. In contrast, a socialist system puts the means of production, and therefore profit, directly into the hands of the workers. A socialist economy seeks to even the playing field between the rich and poor, and allows for even, fair distribution of profit, wealth, and income.

Since the founding of this country, POC and women have been exploited by a capitalistic society. Examples can be seen throughout history; here are just a couple.

Following the overthrow of the plantation system of the south, many former slaves were unable to migrate north, forcing them to continue laboring for the very same plantation owners who had been responsible for their enslavement. Laborers were often forced to sign unjust labor contracts known as "black codes". White southern lawmakers passed these codes in an effort to ensure the successful transition from a plantation system to a capitalist economy. POC who refused to sign, were subject to fines, imprisonment, and forced unpaid labor. Many were also victims of the KKK, who became the unofficial, violent enforcers of these unjust laws. In modern times, one has to only look at the corrupt prison system, where once again, millions of POC are exploited as a cheap labor source and the prison industrial complex continues to profit from one of the most exploited working classes.

In a similar though not equal manner, women have also been exploited by a capitalist economy. For decades women were often forced to remain at home, caring for the family and household, while receiving zero compensation. However, during times of extreme labor needs, such as times of war, women were encouraged to join the workforce to fill the gaps left by males sent to fight. Once they returned however, the women were quickly ushered back into their housewife roles, where they continued and still continue to receive zero compensation for the necessary labor they perform. In today’s capitalist economy, while women are somewhat encouraged to join the workforce, exploitation continues to occur. Statistics consistently show that women are compensated at a lesser rate than their male counterparts.

Capitalism is an economic system, which places the majority of wealth and power in the hands of the privileged few. The system continues to flourish by encouraging the marginalization of POC and women as illustrated in the above examples. In contrast, socialism seeks to dismantle the marginalization of these vulnerable populations, while creating a society devoid of economic inequalities. 

“What would a communist/socialist solution to a housing crisis similar to what we see developing in Colorado? Specifically where those who work downtown can’t afford to live downtown? Is there even a way to fix this within the capitalist system?” - Justa Memelord via our website

In the immediate downtown area specifically there is so much unused space that could easily be re-appropriated for affordable housing. In a socialist system this is easy to approach—Is there a need for more affordable housing in a specific area? Build it. Unfortunately, under the current system incentives and subsidies would have to be given out to developers to promote the construction of such housing by the private sector. Even then it is often more profitable to build luxury homes than to take subsidies. Many of the areas surrounding downtown have plenty of vacant and foreclosed homes that are doing nothing and could easily be made livable but might not be profitable. Seizing and using said homes could provide low-income residents with a centrally located and inexpensive place to live. The wealth that has gathered to the point where it is then used for luxury condos or new high end businesses is not amassed alone. It is built on the backs of the working class that help create and maintain the infrastructure of downtown while being unable to live there.

A secondary issue that is intrinsically tied to affordable housing and the continued development of the downtown core is public transit. On top of the vital need to create housing downtown there are already plenty of usable homes that are inaccessible only because our city lacks proper public transportation. The socialist solution is ultimately this: Build up a city that is for the people that work within it, with both affordable AND accessible housing for the sake of the working class.