I think you and I agree that socialist change is about more and not less production, but your argument here is at the very least incomplete.
1) Why should we believe that houses in the countryside are intrinsically cheaper and more working-class? That hasn't been the experience in America.
2) Who says enjoyment of the countryside is not a working-class pastime? I was just out in Washington state's millions of acres of undevelopable forest and all I saw were working-class and middle-class people enjoying simple pleasures: hiking, fishing, riding motorbikes (mainly on the roads), camping. And this is in forests that are no more than 30 miles from populated areas.
Portland, Oregon has one of the most restrictive development laws of any citiy in America and certainly no shortage of countryside and it is consistently one of the most livable cities in the States.
3) Isn't the problem really landlords? City landlords demand extravagant rents and prices for development but need this be so? Aren't you just suggesting England favor country landlords over city landlords? Where's the progress in that?
boddi
On 10/1/06, James Heartfield <Heartfield at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Me in today's Sunday Times:"Experts from Kingston University's Centre for
> Suburban Studies were dreaming of dotting the countryside with houses,
> creating sprawling megacities and ushering in an era of cheap homes for all.
>
>
>
> "We will have a city 100 miles in diameter taking in Cambridge and Windsor
> and Brighton," declared James Heartfield, author of Let's Build!, a book
> launched at the conference that advocates ending the division between town
> and country and the building of 5m homes in the next decade.
>
> More at:
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-2382553,00.html
>
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>