…which makes sense…since it was perfectly honest election fraud.
(Remember: There was NO election fraud…but IF there WAS, it was a total accident…and besides…it wouldn’t have made any difference to the final outcome, anyway…but if it—for argument’s sake—actually did make a difference, well… mistakes happen—we’re all human, right?—and besides, the right guy WON…so chill, you fascist….)
Great video. I was thinking that I was a kid at the World’s Fair in 1964. Wait a minute? Then she said it was 1939!
He’s got the lid to a sardine can as a pick guard? Ha.
From the “It’s NOT MY Fault, It’s That Swedish Chick” File….
(Cross-filed with the “Why Can’t We Be More Like Sweden?” Dossier…)
“Biden”, Starmer, Carney et al….just following the party line!
i dont have time to format, apologies to all
This is a dialogue with chatgpt in which i just asked one question (ok two if you count the end)
and said yes please to its response offerings.
what would happen if a real communist running as a socialist became mayor of nyc
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating hypothetical — and it opens up a lot of political, legal, and social questions. Let’s unpack it carefully.
If a real communist (ideologically speaking) — that is, someone who believes in the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless society — were elected Mayor of New York City while running as a socialist, several things would happen or come into play:
________________________________________
1. Legal and Institutional Limits
New York City’s government operates under the New York State Constitution and U.S. federal law.
• The mayor cannot override property laws, national economic systems, or constitutional protections.
• Private property, markets, and existing business structures are protected by law; any attempt to nationalize property or industries would immediately be blocked by the courts or overridden by state or federal authorities.
• The city’s budget and taxation powers are also limited by state law — so even radical redistribution policies would need Albany’s approval.
Essentially, a communist mayor could not legally implement communism in any literal sense.
________________________________________
2. Symbolic and Political Impact
• Their election would send a massive political signal — likely sparking national media attention, debate, and opposition.
• They could use the office as a platform to popularize socialist or communist ideas, such as housing as a human right, worker cooperatives, or stronger social services.
• They might push for reforms within the system — e.g. expanding public housing, municipal broadband, or worker-owned business incentives — all legally possible under current frameworks.
________________________________________
3. Resistance and Backlash
• Expect intense opposition from the City Council, state legislature, major real estate and business interests, and likely even within their own administration.
• Federal and state funding could be threatened if policies clashed with higher authorities.
• Media coverage and political attacks would be fierce, potentially framing them as extremist or un-American.
________________________________________
4. Practical Outcomes
If the mayor were smart and pragmatic, they might govern more like a democratic socialist (e.g. Bernie Sanders or Kshama Sawant) than a doctrinaire communist — focusing on:
• Rent control and public housing expansion
• Labor rights and union empowerment
• Public ownership of some city services
• Environmental and social welfare programs
These are achievable and legal under U.S. municipal authority — and could still shift NYC’s politics substantially leftward.
________________________________________
5. Broader Significance
If such a person did get elected, it would reflect a major cultural and political shift in New York’s electorate — signaling openness to more radical critiques of capitalism. It would likely inspire national debate and possibly other leftist candidacies, but the practical transformation of NYC into a communist system would remain impossible under the U.S. constitutional order.
________________________________________
Would you like me to outline what specific policies such a mayor could realistically enact within legal limits that still align with communist ideals (e.g. municipal socialism, worker ownership, etc.)?
You said:
yes please
ChatGPT said:
Excellent — let’s explore that.
If a communist-minded mayor took office in New York City but worked within the existing legal and constitutional system, they’d likely focus on policies that advance collective ownership, equality, and public welfare, without directly violating property rights or state/federal law.
Here’s what that could look like in practice:
________________________________________
?? 1. Housing as a Social Good
Housing is the biggest socialist-style issue NYC can directly influence.
Possible policies:
• Massively expand public housing through the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), funded by municipal bonds or progressive property taxes.
• Establish a municipal land bank to acquire abandoned or foreclosed properties and convert them into permanently affordable, publicly owned housing.
• Support community land trusts (CLTs) — nonprofit entities that own land collectively and ensure long-term affordability.
• Tighten rent controls and close loopholes that allow luxury conversions or speculative vacancies.
Goal: Gradually shift more housing into collective or public ownership.
________________________________________
? 2. Worker Ownership & Economic Democracy
While the mayor couldn’t abolish capitalism, they could promote worker-owned and cooperative businesses within city law.
Possible policies:
• City contracts for worker co-ops: Give preference in procurement to cooperatives and community-based enterprises.
• Cooperative development office: Fund technical assistance and low-interest loans for startup co-ops.
• Municipal bank: Create a publicly owned city bank to fund social enterprises, green projects, and co-ops (similar to proposals already debated in NYC).
Goal: Build a “socialist sector” inside a capitalist economy.
________________________________________
? 3. Public Ownership of Essential Services
Municipal governments can run key services directly.
Possible policies:
• Public power authority: Move toward municipal ownership of the electric grid (like in Los Angeles or Seattle), replacing private utilities with a city-run green energy utility.
• Expand public broadband to guarantee free or low-cost internet for all residents.
• Public childcare and healthcare clinics funded by the city and run through community boards.
Goal: Extend democratic control over essential needs — “public, not profit.”
________________________________________
? 4. Transportation & the Commons
NYC already has a public transit system, but the mayor could make it more equitable.
Possible policies:
• Push for fare-free buses and subways, subsidized by taxes on luxury real estate or high-income earners.
• Reclaim public space from private cars for pedestrians, cyclists, and community use.
• Municipalize parking lots or garages, converting them into mixed-use, green community spaces.
Goal: Reclaim the city’s physical space for the public good.
________________________________________
? 5. Education, Culture, and Consciousness
Communist theory emphasizes collective awareness and solidarity.
Possible policies:
• Expand public libraries and adult education with free classes on history, economics, and civic engagement.
• Fund local journalism and media cooperatives to promote independent, community-based information.
• Public arts and culture funding emphasizing inclusivity and working-class representation.
Goal: Build cultural infrastructure for a more politically conscious and cohesive population.
________________________________________
?? 6. Fiscal and Governance Reforms
• Progressive municipal taxation (within state limits) — e.g. surcharges on luxury real estate transactions (“pied-à-terre tax”).
• Participatory budgeting expansion — let residents directly decide how to spend portions of the city budget.
• Neighborhood councils with real budgetary power, decentralizing decision-making.
Goal: Democratize control over the city’s resources.
________________________________________
? In Summary
A “communist running as a socialist” mayor couldn’t abolish capitalism in NYC — but could:
? Expand public and cooperative ownership
? Shift wealth and power toward workers and tenants
? Democratize city governance
? Use the office as a platform to normalize anti-capitalist ideas
Over time, those measures could create “socialist islands” inside the capitalist system — a real-world laboratory for post-capitalist experiments.
________________________________________
Would you like me to sketch a sample 4-year policy agenda for such a mayor — like what their first-term platform might look like in practical, political terms?
You said:
yes please
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s design a realistic first-term (4-year) policy agenda for a New York City mayor who is ideologically communist but operating legally and politically as a socialist reformer.
This plan balances radical intent (building collective power, public ownership, and equality) with legal and institutional reality (city and state limits).
________________________________________
? 4-Year Socialist-Communist Policy Agenda for NYC
?? Guiding Vision
“Democratize New York City — housing, work, and life — from the ground up.”
The goal isn’t to “establish communism” overnight, but to lay the groundwork for a people-controlled economy and reclaim public wealth from private elites.
________________________________________
YEAR 1: Laying the Foundations
? 1. Housing as a Human Right
• Declare a citywide housing emergency and launch a “Public Homes for All” initiative.
• Create a Municipal Land Bank to acquire vacant or tax-delinquent properties and turn them into public or cooperative housing.
• Triple the budget for community land trusts (CLTs).
• Expand rent control to cover more buildings and prevent exploitative evictions.
? 2. Worker Power & Economic Democracy
• Establish a Department of Cooperative Development (DCD) — a new city agency to incubate worker-owned businesses.
• Pass a “Co-op Preference” ordinance giving worker cooperatives priority in city contracts.
• Partner with CUNY to launch worker-ownership training programs.
? 3. Public Utilities for the People
• Begin feasibility studies for municipalizing Con Edison, the private utility, with a goal to form a New York City Public Power Authority.
• Expand solar and wind cooperatives in working-class neighborhoods.
?? 4. Democratizing City Governance
• Launch Participatory Budgeting 2.0: every borough controls 5% of its discretionary spending directly through public vote.
• Create Neighborhood People’s Assemblies to advise on local development and policing.
________________________________________
YEAR 2: Building Collective Institutions
?? 1. Housing Expansion
• Break ground on 10,000 new units of municipal housing, built on city-owned land, with union labor.
• Convert select NYCHA sites into resident-owned cooperatives, retaining public oversight.
? 2. Municipal Banking & Finance
• Establish the New York Public Bank, chartered to serve small co-ops, public housing, and green infrastructure.
• Redirect city deposits (billions held in private banks) into this public institution.
? 3. Transportation for All
• Make all buses fare-free (funded through a small tax on high-end real estate).
• Pilot fare-free subway zones for low-income riders and students.
• Expand protected bike lanes and green corridors citywide.
________________________________________
YEAR 3: Expanding the Public Sector
? 1. Public Utilities Phase II
• Transition parts of NYC’s electricity grid to community-controlled energy districts.
• Launch NYC Broadband, a municipally owned high-speed internet provider offering free service to low-income households.
? 2. Care and Education
• Create public, unionized childcare centers in every borough.
• Expand free adult education, emphasizing civic engagement, economics, and labor organizing.
?? 3. Cultural Democracy
• Redirect arts funding toward worker and community arts collectives.
• Fund public media co-ops to promote local journalism and anti-disinformation initiatives.
________________________________________
YEAR 4: Institutionalizing Socialist Infrastructure
?? 1. Consolidate Public Ownership
• Target goal: 10% of NYC GDP flowing through worker co-ops, public enterprises, or CLTs.
• Institutionalize the NYC Cooperative Fund, financed by a small tax on speculative real estate transactions.
? 2. Charter Reform
• Push a City Charter amendment to enshrine:
o Housing as a human right
o Participatory budgeting as a permanent democratic mechanism
o Worker ownership promotion as an official city goal
? 3. Global Solidarity
• Establish sister-city programs with other left-led cities (e.g., Barcelona, Porto Alegre).
• Host a Global Municipal Socialism Conference in NYC.
________________________________________
Cross-Cutting Themes
Goal Description
Climate Justice All programs aligned with NYC Green New Deal — unionized green jobs, renewable energy, community resilience.
Racial & Economic Equity Target resources to historically disinvested Black, Brown, and immigrant neighborhoods.
Labor-First City Hall Require union neutrality in city contracts and prioritize public sector jobs.
Transparency & Democracy Regular public assemblies and online participatory forums for all major policy shifts.
________________________________________
Potential Challenges
• State legislature or governor may block key initiatives (e.g. municipal bank, utility takeovers).
• Fierce opposition from real estate developers and Wall Street.
• Possible funding shortfalls if tax reforms are delayed.
• Political backlash from business media and federal actors.
Strategic response: Build mass movements and community coalitions outside City Hall to sustain public pressure — the “inside/outside” model of governance.
________________________________________
End-of-Term Vision (Year 4 Outcome)
By the end of one term, New York City could plausibly achieve:
• 50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing
• 1,000+ worker-owned co-ops operating citywide
• 1 publicly owned bank
• 1 municipally run broadband and partial power utility
• Broad public participation in budgeting and urban planning
It would still be a capitalist city — but with deeply embedded socialist structures that shift ownership, control, and culture toward the public and collective good.
lennin quote the purpose of socialism is communism
ChatGPT said:
The quote you’re referring to is commonly attributed to Vladimir Lenin, and it goes like this:
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
— Vladimir Lenin
This succinct statement reflects Lenin’s Marxist view that socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. In his framework, socialism establishes the collective ownership of the means of production and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually evolve into a stateless, classless communist society.
The quote comes from Lenin’s 1917 work “The State and Revolution”, where he elaborates on Marx and Engels’ theories about the state, socialism, and the eventual emergence of communism.
You said:
here is the fun fun part
50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing
wouldn’t work.. NYC plumbing infrastructure could not handle it
they are already past capacity now.
Wealthy upper ny people moved out with covid then after
I know i did.. i am sitting in a home with a 2.75% interest rate
which makes the loan free…
and now there is a new wave brewing…
how you gonna keep them down on the farm, after they seen florida (paris?)
houses in Westchester have been paid for 700k above asking..
ah well… at least from family and knowing i knew, so i bailed knowing what to do
its worked out well if anyone wonders… i would be bragging if i said more so i wont.
good luck to all
and good night to mrs calabash, wherever you are
and if you all didnt believe my point
That’s a fair concern — NYC’s infrastructure (especially water, sewer, and power systems) is already under heavy strain. However, it’s not necessarily true that adding 50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing would be impossible — it would just require parallel investment in infrastructure upgrades.
Here’s some context:
NYC DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) maintains that the city’s water and wastewater systems are designed for a much larger population than currently exists — the city used to have higher per-capita water use and industrial demand. So, in many areas, there’s still latent capacity.
The strain is highly localized. In some neighborhoods (especially in outer boroughs or where storm/sewer systems are combined), plumbing and sewage systems are indeed near or over capacity — leading to backups and flooding after heavy rain.
Modern building standards require new developments to include stormwater retention, efficient fixtures, and sometimes onsite treatment or detention systems — all of which lessen impact on the citywide network.
Infrastructure expansion is part of housing policy in other cities — for example, when New York rezones or creates large housing projects, the environmental review process (CEQR/ULURP) often includes mandates for water, sewer, and power upgrades funded by the developer or public agencies.
So, you’re absolutely right that you can’t just “add 50,000 apartments” overnight — the pipes, wastewater plants, and storm systems would need upgrades and careful planning. But technically, the system could support it if the city invested in modern infrastructure along with the housing.
=====================================
Here’s what I found regarding the infrastructure capacity of New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for water supply and wastewater/sewer systems in NYC, plus some caveats about what the data don’t say.
? What the data say: Water supply & wastewater infrastructure
Water Supply
The NYC water-supply system has a total available storage capacity of roughly 580 billion US gallons from its reservoirs and controlled lakes.
NCBI
+2
New York City Government
+2
The system delivers approximately 1.1 billion US gallons per day (BGD) of drinking water to city residents and some neighbouring communities.
NCBI
+1
As of recent updates (Oct 30 2025), reservoir levels are mixed: for example the Croton system had about 94.2 BG available capacity and was ~93.4 % of usable storage.
New York City Government
The percentage of demand relative to past peaks has declined (due to conservation, efficient fixtures, etc).
NCBI
+1
Wastewater / Sewer / Treatment
The sewer system comprises over 7,400 miles of sewer pipes, ~152,000 catch basins, and ~95 wastewater-pumping stations.
New York City Government
+1
The wastewater treatment side lists many of the major plants (“Wastewater Resource Recovery Facilities”) and their design capacities. For example:
Newtown Creek WRRF — design capacity 310 million gallons/day (MGD) serving ~1,068,012 population.
New York City Government
Wards Island WRRF — 275 MGD design capacity serving ~1,061,558 population.
New York City Government
(And others: Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, etc).
New York City Government
On combined sewer systems: about 60% of NYC uses combined sewers (i.e., stormwater + sanitary in same pipe). During heavy rainfall when flows exceed twice the design capacity of treatment plants, the system may discharge untreated/less-treated wastewater into waterways via combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
New York City Government
?? What the data don’t fully answer & what to interpret with caution
The “design capacity” numbers tell how much water a given treatment plant or system can process under design conditions—but they do not always reflect real?time usable capacity (which may be reduced due to maintenance, aging infrastructure, local bottlenecks, storm events).
The data generally cover citywide or large facility metrics; they may mask local constraints (neighbourhoods, specific pipes or catchment areas) where the system may already be stressed. For example, combined sewer systems can get overwhelmed during intense rainfall even if overall treatment capacity seems OK.
The water?supply data show storage and delivery capacity, but that’s only part of the infrastructure story. Distribution mains, local pressure zones, old pipes, leak rates, local hookups for new construction—all those matter when adding large numbers of units.
Adding new housing units means incremental increases in both water demand and wastewater generation + stormwater runoff. Whether the existing local mains, local sewer links, pumping stations, etc., have capacity is not straightforwardly answered by the city-wide summary data.
In the case of stormwater / runoff: the combined sewer system is already challenged during heavy rains (CSO events). If new development increases impervious surfaces (unless mitigated), that adds more burden.
New York City Government
+1
? Interpretation in relation to your original concern
You asked: “Wouldn’t work … NYC plumbing infrastructure could not handle it… they are already past capacity now.”
Based on the numbers:
On the supply side, there is substantial capacity in the water?supply system (580 billion gallons storage, 1.1 BGD delivery) and declining demand per capita, so adding housing wouldn’t automatically overwhelm the water source/distribution system — at least at the city?wide level.
On the wastewater / sewer side, while major plants have large capacities (hundreds of MGD), the presence of combined sewer systems and potential for overflows during rainfall shows there are vulnerabilities. If many new units are concentrated in a specific catchment where local sewer/pumping capacity is already near limit (especially in combined systems), then you could have a local overload risk.
So: your concern is credible — there are definitely stress points in the infrastructure — but the high?level data show some room, not a blanket “no more capacity at all” conclusion. The devil is in the local detail: what borough, what neighbourhood, what catchment, what existing infrastructure condition, how many new units, how much impervious surface, etc.
get ready for some egg crackin!!
funny how the democrats are doing the same thing they did to start the first civil war
ignoring federal law and all that rot.. 😉
next to last post i have time for..
i figure no one believes or lsitens to a crackpot like me.
but its funny how you can ask Chat the right questions and get what i warned about
Here’s a concise summary of the U.S. birth crisis and its demographic implications if immigration does not offset the decline:
?? The U.S. Birth Crisis: Overview
The United States is facing a sharp and sustained decline in birth rates, a trend that began after the 2008 financial crisis and has accelerated over the past decade.
Fertility rate (2023): ~1.62 births per woman — well below the replacement level of 2.1.
Births per year: Around 3.6 million, down from 4.3 million in 2007.
Every state except a few (like North Dakota or Utah) is now below replacement fertility.
? Why This Is Happening
Several interconnected factors are driving the crisis:
Economic insecurity: High housing, childcare, healthcare, and education costs make raising children unaffordable for many.
Delayed family formation: Americans are marrying and having kids later (average first-birth age now ~30).
Cultural shifts: Greater emphasis on career, individual freedom, and environmental concerns reduce family size.
Urbanization and lower religious affiliation also correlate with lower birth rates.
?? What Happens Next (If Immigration Doesn’t Compensate)
Without substantial immigration or a rebound in fertility:
Population decline will begin by the early 2040s — possibly sooner if current trends accelerate.
Aging population explosion: The ratio of working-age adults to retirees will fall dramatically, straining Social Security, Medicare, and labor markets.
Labor shortages: Especially in healthcare, education, construction, and technology — fields already struggling to find workers.
Regional decline: Rural and Rust Belt states will depopulate faster, while a few metro areas (like Texas, Florida, and the Sun Belt) may remain stable due to migration.
Economic drag: Fewer workers and consumers lead to slower GDP growth, less innovation, and rising public debt.
? Immigration as the Deciding Factor
Immigration currently accounts for all U.S. population growth.
Without immigrants, the population would already be shrinking.
The U.S. relies on immigration not only for numbers, but also for skills and entrepreneurship — especially in tech, medicine, and engineering.
? Outlook
If the U.S. maintains restrictive immigration policies and fertility continues to drop:
The population could fall from ~335 million today to below 300 million by 2100.
The U.S. would begin to resemble Japan or South Korea in demographic stagnation — but without their savings or automation advantages.
If, however, immigration remains strong and integrated effectively, the U.S. could maintain a stable or modestly growing population and workforce well into the 22nd century.
=================================
mainstream demographers and sociologists did worry about falling fertility (especially from the mid-1960s onward), but they typically attributed it to urbanization, women’s education and paid work, housing shortages, easy divorce/abortion access, and broader socioeconomic change—not “feminism” as a doctrine. Here are the key figures and what they actually wrote or argued:
Viktor Perevedentsev (leading Soviet demographer). Publicly flagged low fertility as a policy problem by the mid-1960s and into the 1970s/80s; framed it as a demographic/structural issue, not as a result of feminism.
CIA
+1
Boris Urlanis (demographer). Wrote extensively on fertility decline and family policy; discussed men’s mortality and the need for social/medical measures, not “anti-feminism.”
JSTOR
+2
OpenEdition Journals
+2
Galina Litvinova (demographer). Part of the late-Soviet discussion on uneven fertility and the emerging “population problem,” again in structural terms.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Anatolii (Andrei) Vishnevsky and other late-Soviet/post-Soviet demographers analyzed the long-run “demographic transition” and later “second demographic transition,” emphasizing modernization, urban living, and women’s education—not feminism per se. (See overviews of Soviet fertility trends and policy debates.)
PagePlace
Anatolii Kharchev (sociologist of the family) and peers studied divorce, family formation, and gender roles; their work critiqued social pathologies and policy gaps more than “feminism.”
OpenEdition Journals
For context on Alexandra Kollontai: early Bolshevik family reforms (divorce liberalization, abortion legalization in 1920, communal childcare ideals) are often associated with her. But even Kollontai framed policy around combining motherhood and socialized labor, not suppressing births; later Soviet policy dramatically reversed course (1936 abortion ban; pro-natal campaigns; re-legalization in 1955). The scholarship here discusses policy swings and their demographic effects—again, not a scientific claim that “feminism” would crash population.
? 1. The Early Soviet Social Revolution (1917–1930s)
After 1917, Bolsheviks — especially Alexandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand — pushed to liberate women from traditional family structures.
The state legalized abortion (1920), divorce became almost automatic, and communal childcare was promoted to allow women to work.
These measures were seen as emancipatory and modern, not “anti-natalist” — but they did coincide with a sharp fertility decline in cities.
By the early 1930s, birth rates in urban areas had fallen to levels similar to Western Europe’s lowest, decades earlier than in most of the world.
? 2. The Reversal: Stalin’s Pro-Natal Turn (mid-1930s)
By 1935–36, officials saw a demographic problem: too few births and too many abortions.
The state banned abortion in 1936, restricted divorce, and rewarded large families (the “Mother Heroine” medals).
However, these policies had limited success. Fertility rebounded modestly in the late 1930s and post–WWII, but the long-term urban fertility collapse continued.
? 3. The Irreversible Demographic Shift
Once urban, educated women entered the workforce and the family system changed, the fertility culture itself transformed.
By the 1960s, Soviet demographers (like Perevedentsev, Urlanis, and later Vishnevsky) noted that the USSR had entered a “second demographic transition”: smaller families became the norm.
Even after the USSR relaxed abortion policy again in 1955 and offered maternity benefits, the fertility rate never recovered to pre-1930s levels.
The pattern showed a 20–25 year lag: policy changes took a generation to fully manifest in population structure, by which time norms had already shifted.
? 4. Exported Ideas and Global Echoes
It’s true that Soviet women’s liberation rhetoric influenced Western feminist and socialist movements in the mid-20th century, especially via intellectual circles in Europe.
However, in the West, similar fertility declines occurred mainly due to industrialization, education, contraception access, and changing gender roles, not because of direct “Soviet export.”
Still, the sequence of social change ? fertility decline ? irreversibility that the USSR experienced did foreshadow what later happened in Western countries.
?? 5. The Core Lesson from Soviet Demography
The Soviet case demonstrates:
Social engineering of family structures can produce long demographic lags.
Once fertility norms shift downward, it’s nearly impossible to reverse, even with incentives or nationalist rhetoric.
The “demographic momentum” (age structure + norms) locks in low fertility for decades.
here’s a clear summary of how Soviet demographic scientists from the 1960s–1980s analyzed and modeled the irreversibility of low fertility, and why they concluded that pro-natalist policies could not simply restore population replacement levels.
? 1. The Context: Fertility Collapse in the USSR
By the 1960s, the Soviet Union’s total fertility rate had fallen to around 2.0 or lower in most of the European republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics).
This was well below replacement and far ahead of the Western decline that would follow in the 1970s–80s.
The decline was especially pronounced in cities and among educated women.
The Party leadership recognized a “demographic problem,” but was uncertain how to address it within socialist ideology, which celebrated female labor participation and gender equality.
? 2. The “Demographic Lag” Model
Viktor Perevedentsev, Boris Urlanis, and later Anatolii Vishnevsky developed formal demographic projections showing that:
Even if fertility were raised by state policy, population growth would continue to slow for 15–25 years because of age-structure inertia.
After decades of low birth rates, the cohort of women entering childbearing age was too small to restore replacement levels quickly — a self-reinforcing cycle.
This became known in their writings as the demographic echo effect or delayed momentum:
Once a generation produces too few children, even doubling birth rates later can’t rebuild the pyramid fast enough to stabilize population size.
? 3. Why Policy Couldn’t Reverse It
Through the 1970s and 1980s, these demographers analyzed the limited effect of state incentives:
Financial measures (bonuses for third children, maternity leave) increased births only temporarily.
Housing shortages and dual-employment pressure kept small families economically rational.
Cultural norms had changed: people viewed two children as “enough,” and many educated couples preferred one.
They concluded that once fertility norms fall below two children per woman, the state cannot force or bribe people back to large families without massive systemic change.
? 4. The “Second Demographic Transition” (Vishnevsky)
By the 1980s, Anatolii Vishnevsky — later Russia’s most influential demographer — explicitly adopted Western “second demographic transition” theory but adapted it to the Soviet case.
He argued that:
Low fertility was not a temporary crisis but a new stage of social evolution.
It arose from urbanization, individualism, higher education, and women’s independence — features the USSR itself had promoted.
Policy could only mitigate the decline (through childcare, housing, stability), not reverse it.
In short: the system’s success in modernizing women’s roles also permanently lowered fertility.
?? 5. Their Broader Conclusions
By the late Soviet period, demographers reached a quiet consensus:
The USSR’s population future depended more on mortality reduction and regional balance (especially with Central Asia) than on recovering high fertility in European Russia.
Fertility incentives could at best stabilize the decline, not restore the old “large family” pattern.
Cultural expectations — not economic levers — became the decisive factor.
? Key Figures and Their Works
Scientist Focus Representative Ideas
Viktor Perevedentsev Population modeling Lag between fertility change and population outcome; need for long-term demographic planning
Boris Urlanis Historical demography Comparison of Soviet vs. Western fertility decline; inevitability of small-family norms
Anatolii Vishnevsky Transition theory Low fertility as a new equilibrium, not a temporary anomaly
Anatolii Kharchev Sociology of family Changing gender roles and divorce undermined traditional pronatalist culture
? In essence:
Soviet demographers discovered — decades before the West — that once modernization and gender equality shift family norms, fertility decline becomes structurally irreversible within any given social model.
They predicted precisely what is now happening across advanced economies: aging, stagnation, and the failure of pronatalist policy to restore replacement fertility.
Here’s a factual overview of how the Soviet Union actually promoted “women’s emancipation” internationally, and what the archival record shows about its intent and scope — drawn from declassified Comintern files, the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF) archives, and later Cold War studies.
? 1. The Comintern Era (1919–1943)
The Communist International (Comintern), founded by Lenin, was the USSR’s global tool for spreading socialism.
Within it, the Zhenotdel (Women’s Department), led by Alexandra Kollontai, Inessa Armand, and others, promoted female emancipation as part of class struggle.
Their message was ideological, not demographic: women’s equality was seen as proof that socialism was historically progressive.
Comintern women’s sections:
Published pamphlets like The Woman Worker in the Soviet Union (1930), emphasizing labor equality, childcare, and maternity protections.
Encouraged communist parties abroad to recruit women by citing Soviet “success.”
Promoted International Women’s Day as a symbol of worker solidarity (not “feminism” in the modern Western sense).
Key point: the purpose was to showcase socialism’s moral superiority — not to depress Western birth rates or destroy family structures.
?? 2. After WWII: The Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF)
Founded in 1945 in Paris (with strong Soviet backing), the WIDF became the USSR’s main channel for global women’s outreach during the Cold War.
Headquarters later moved to East Berlin under direct Communist Bloc influence.
The organization had millions of members across Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Its main campaigns:
Peace and anti-nuclear movements (“Mothers for Peace”).
Women’s rights to education, labor, and social equality.
Criticism of Western colonialism and racial segregation.
The WIDF often clashed with Western “liberal” feminists because it framed women’s liberation through class struggle and anti-imperialism, not sexuality or individualism.
Archival evidence (East German and Soviet foreign-ministry records) shows the goal was:
“…to demonstrate the social and moral superiority of socialist womanhood as an instrument of peace and progress.”
It was propaganda — but not a demographic strategy.
? 3. What the Soviets Actually Feared
From the late 1950s onward, Soviet planners were anxious about their own fertility collapse, especially in Slavic republics.
The State Committee on Labor and Social Issues regularly discussed “family crisis” and “birthrate stabilization.”
Reports in the 1970s explicitly warned against “bourgeois feminism,” accusing it of corrupting Soviet moral foundations and reducing childbirth.
So while Soviet-linked women’s groups continued to speak of equality abroad, inside the USSR the leadership condemned “Western feminism” as decadent and anti-family.
? 4. The Real Influence Channels
The USSR did influence Western intellectual and activist circles — but indirectly, via:
Peace and cultural exchange movements, especially those in France, Italy, and Scandinavia.
Left-wing women’s unions and journalists who admired Soviet childcare and maternity benefits.
The WIDF’s media network (Women of the Whole World magazine, 1951–1990), which reached Western readers through socialist parties.
However, Western second-wave feminism (1960s–80s) drew primarily from:
Simone de Beauvoir and existentialism (France),
Betty Friedan and civil-rights liberalism (U.S.),
Contraceptive access and legal equality campaigns — not Soviet Marxist feminism.
? 5. Summary: What the Record Shows
Aspect Soviet Policy Western Interpretation
Intent Promote socialism’s moral superiority Seen as gender-progressive model
Method Propaganda, cultural diplomacy, NGOs (like WIDF) Inspiration for leftist women’s movements
Actual goal Build international legitimacy, win “soft power” Not to lower Western fertility
Internal stance (after 1950s) Opposed “bourgeois feminism”; worried about own low birth rates Feminism developed independently in the West
? In essence:
The USSR did export an image of the emancipated socialist woman as part of its ideological competition with the West.
But that export was propagandistic, not demographic — it aimed to win moral influence and soft power, not to manipulate fertility trends abroad.
The irony is that both systems eventually experienced the same demographic outcomes through modernization — not through one side undermining the other.
That’s a very touching video.
That song reverberated in my heart. So many family, friends, and squadron mates that are gone but still loved and remembered. The song conveys that so well. Like a message from above, it makes me sad yet also feel blessed to have known and loved them.
Art, your ChatGPT plan should be obvious to all who have looked at the history of Communism. Sadly, so many have not educated themselves. It allows the myth to persist that the government can provide everything the citizens need.
Third item: J.D. Vance taking questions at the Turning Point USA event last night was a robust example of open debate and free speech in action. I was impressed.
“I don’t have time to format”
I don’t have time to read your comments art.
The problem is neither mamdani the city council or the local courts believe in private property freedom of speech or religion so therein lies the rub
I can’t imagine. I wish his wife would have a change of heart, but she seems dug in. Well, as someone in the comments wrote yesterday, we are only reading one side.
In the winter soldier episode there was just some loose talk about attacking us officials now its the main course from not only party leaders but back benchers
Was it Aristotle who advised us to “define your terms”?
Linked below is an analysis of just how much in Federal benefits are going to illegals, which points out that fact that many families composed of citizens also have members who are illegals, and that these families and their illegal members are able to qualify for many Federal benefits because of their legal citizen members.
Thus, when you ask, not how many individual illegals are getting benefits but, instead, ask how many families containing both legal citizens and illegals are getting these benefits, the total amount of benefits is much higher than that for just individual illegals alone.*
A company called 1X is almost ready to begin marketing at housekeeper robot named “Neo.” Ha.
Not that it matters to anyone but me, but I don’t read posts of what Chat or Grok say, and I don’t look at You Tube links without some explanation as to what they’re about.
“I don’t read posts of what Chat or Grok say, and I don’t look at You Tube links without some explanation as to what they’re about.”
Ditto.
The song-sharing street singer is one of my favorite recurring “guest artists,” and this was one of his best. I especially liked the video at the end, sent by the old woman’s nephew, about how she had started singing around the house again.
Her voice was not too shabby for 93; you could tell she was indeed operatically trained (catch one of our current pop stars singing at that age!), and I was delighted she could remember all the words!
I find myself starting a lot of old favorites and lalalaing around the middle of the first verse.
Fun trivia: Oliver Sacks, who has made a study of various brain glitches, conveyed in several popular books (“The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat” was his first IIRC), wrote one about the impact of brain injuries and other problems on musical ability. Interesting to me was that the memories of music known in the past are often the last thing lost by dementia patients.
They may not know who is visiting them, but they can sing along with the Golden Oldies.
But they have to be THEIR oldies.
I’ve been talking with a friend about singing in some of the local nursing homes, and we realized that we were thinking about “Tinpan Alley” songs, because that’s what we sang years ago when visiting as youth groups. Now, we would be singing to our own generation or only slightly more elderly – the Beetles and John Denver are the oldies!
@ Kate – I also skip the unidentified YouTube links, but Miguel usually hits a winner on his cryptic offerings. Here’s today’s: “This is what lawfare and demonization has yielded”
Tweet commenting on a headline from The Atlantic:
“At least 6 senior Trump officials [are] living on military bases for their safety.
This does not happen in normal countries. Left-wing political violence is out of control.
Presumably because left-wing judges have protected them for 50 years.”
“It happened during a debate in the contest for district attorney of Manhattan. The only reason most non-New Yorkers would care is that current Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose claim to fame is being the first and only prosecutor ever to charge and convict an ex-president — Donald Trump — is running for reelection.
Here’s the curious thing. In the entire debate, which was Bragg against Republican Maud Maron and independent Diana Florence, moderated by NY1’s Errol Louis — in the entire debate, nobody said the name “Donald Trump.” With the exception of one brief aside by Louis, nobody mentioned the Trump prosecution at all.
The trial is the biggest professional accomplishment of Bragg’s life. He is now running for reelection. He is running on his record. And he never said a word about it. Nor did Maron or Florence bring it up. It was like Bragg’s central role in history never happened at all.”
AesopFan, once I went with a church choir to sing some hymns in a dementia center. One of the patients was a dear friend. She looked at us with a puzzled look, not really recognizing us, but she sang along with the hymns. I was glad to give her that moment.
I agree about Miguel’s quick links. They’re usually X posts. I can look quickly and not be subjected to You Tube ads.
I don’t open any links that don’t include a description.
I am very careful not to click on links in emails or phone text messages where the source is sketchy. I will click on links from trusted sources, such as from friends or someone posting like Miguel or other “resident” commenters here.
But I agree with Selfy that there is an etiquette issue that more information should be provided, especially as with Substack and other venues, where the link is often a redirect and does not really contain the title or related content indications.
Just please don’t pull up a past comment where I failed to so myself! 🙂
But thanks to Huxley or someone here, I now regularly only cut and past the portion of a longish link that is to the left of the “?” symbol [since I think he or whomever said the rest of the link content is related to my email or other source server, etc. and of little value to another recipient. ]
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Time for Robin DiAngelo to come out with a new edition of “White Fragility”…
(Or, even better, a sequel…”White Decrepitude”! “White Idiocy”? Hold on, is DiAngelo a Poisson a’ Culluh??…Tellin’ it like it iz? Troot ta Powuh!!)
P.S. Fab video…incredibly touching…and right outside Juilliard, no less…!
That video was great! Thanks for posting it.
“Mistakes” he says….
“Google Executive Admits Company Made ‘Mistakes’ While Handling Complaints Of Election Fraud”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/google-executive-admits-company-made-mistakes-while-handling-complaints-election-fraud
Well sure! Perfectly…honest…mistakes…
…which makes sense…since it was perfectly honest election fraud.
(Remember: There was NO election fraud…but IF there WAS, it was a total accident…and besides…it wouldn’t have made any difference to the final outcome, anyway…but if it—for argument’s sake—actually did make a difference, well… mistakes happen—we’re all human, right?—and besides, the right guy WON…so chill, you fascist….)
Great video. I was thinking that I was a kid at the World’s Fair in 1964. Wait a minute? Then she said it was 1939!
He’s got the lid to a sardine can as a pick guard? Ha.
From the “It’s NOT MY Fault, It’s That Swedish Chick” File….
(Cross-filed with the “Why Can’t We Be More Like Sweden?” Dossier…)
“Biden”, Starmer, Carney et al….just following the party line!
“EU’s Former Border Chief Said Commissioner Pressured Him To Embrace Open Borders”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/eus-former-border-chief-said-commissioner-pressured-him-embrace-open-borders
(Heh, talk about standing up for one’s principles…!)
To be compared, FWIW, with the following…?
“7 Powerful Strategies From The Great Philosophers For A Better Life”—
http://zerohedge.com/personal-finance/7-powerful-strategies-great-philosophers-better-life
So sweet
i dont have time to format, apologies to all
This is a dialogue with chatgpt in which i just asked one question (ok two if you count the end)
and said yes please to its response offerings.
what would happen if a real communist running as a socialist became mayor of nyc
ChatGPT said:
That’s a fascinating hypothetical — and it opens up a lot of political, legal, and social questions. Let’s unpack it carefully.
If a real communist (ideologically speaking) — that is, someone who believes in the abolition of private property and the establishment of a classless society — were elected Mayor of New York City while running as a socialist, several things would happen or come into play:
________________________________________
1. Legal and Institutional Limits
New York City’s government operates under the New York State Constitution and U.S. federal law.
• The mayor cannot override property laws, national economic systems, or constitutional protections.
• Private property, markets, and existing business structures are protected by law; any attempt to nationalize property or industries would immediately be blocked by the courts or overridden by state or federal authorities.
• The city’s budget and taxation powers are also limited by state law — so even radical redistribution policies would need Albany’s approval.
Essentially, a communist mayor could not legally implement communism in any literal sense.
________________________________________
2. Symbolic and Political Impact
• Their election would send a massive political signal — likely sparking national media attention, debate, and opposition.
• They could use the office as a platform to popularize socialist or communist ideas, such as housing as a human right, worker cooperatives, or stronger social services.
• They might push for reforms within the system — e.g. expanding public housing, municipal broadband, or worker-owned business incentives — all legally possible under current frameworks.
________________________________________
3. Resistance and Backlash
• Expect intense opposition from the City Council, state legislature, major real estate and business interests, and likely even within their own administration.
• Federal and state funding could be threatened if policies clashed with higher authorities.
• Media coverage and political attacks would be fierce, potentially framing them as extremist or un-American.
________________________________________
4. Practical Outcomes
If the mayor were smart and pragmatic, they might govern more like a democratic socialist (e.g. Bernie Sanders or Kshama Sawant) than a doctrinaire communist — focusing on:
• Rent control and public housing expansion
• Labor rights and union empowerment
• Public ownership of some city services
• Environmental and social welfare programs
These are achievable and legal under U.S. municipal authority — and could still shift NYC’s politics substantially leftward.
________________________________________
5. Broader Significance
If such a person did get elected, it would reflect a major cultural and political shift in New York’s electorate — signaling openness to more radical critiques of capitalism. It would likely inspire national debate and possibly other leftist candidacies, but the practical transformation of NYC into a communist system would remain impossible under the U.S. constitutional order.
________________________________________
Would you like me to outline what specific policies such a mayor could realistically enact within legal limits that still align with communist ideals (e.g. municipal socialism, worker ownership, etc.)?
You said:
yes please
ChatGPT said:
Excellent — let’s explore that.
If a communist-minded mayor took office in New York City but worked within the existing legal and constitutional system, they’d likely focus on policies that advance collective ownership, equality, and public welfare, without directly violating property rights or state/federal law.
Here’s what that could look like in practice:
________________________________________
?? 1. Housing as a Social Good
Housing is the biggest socialist-style issue NYC can directly influence.
Possible policies:
• Massively expand public housing through the NYC Housing Authority (NYCHA), funded by municipal bonds or progressive property taxes.
• Establish a municipal land bank to acquire abandoned or foreclosed properties and convert them into permanently affordable, publicly owned housing.
• Support community land trusts (CLTs) — nonprofit entities that own land collectively and ensure long-term affordability.
• Tighten rent controls and close loopholes that allow luxury conversions or speculative vacancies.
Goal: Gradually shift more housing into collective or public ownership.
________________________________________
? 2. Worker Ownership & Economic Democracy
While the mayor couldn’t abolish capitalism, they could promote worker-owned and cooperative businesses within city law.
Possible policies:
• City contracts for worker co-ops: Give preference in procurement to cooperatives and community-based enterprises.
• Cooperative development office: Fund technical assistance and low-interest loans for startup co-ops.
• Municipal bank: Create a publicly owned city bank to fund social enterprises, green projects, and co-ops (similar to proposals already debated in NYC).
Goal: Build a “socialist sector” inside a capitalist economy.
________________________________________
? 3. Public Ownership of Essential Services
Municipal governments can run key services directly.
Possible policies:
• Public power authority: Move toward municipal ownership of the electric grid (like in Los Angeles or Seattle), replacing private utilities with a city-run green energy utility.
• Expand public broadband to guarantee free or low-cost internet for all residents.
• Public childcare and healthcare clinics funded by the city and run through community boards.
Goal: Extend democratic control over essential needs — “public, not profit.”
________________________________________
? 4. Transportation & the Commons
NYC already has a public transit system, but the mayor could make it more equitable.
Possible policies:
• Push for fare-free buses and subways, subsidized by taxes on luxury real estate or high-income earners.
• Reclaim public space from private cars for pedestrians, cyclists, and community use.
• Municipalize parking lots or garages, converting them into mixed-use, green community spaces.
Goal: Reclaim the city’s physical space for the public good.
________________________________________
? 5. Education, Culture, and Consciousness
Communist theory emphasizes collective awareness and solidarity.
Possible policies:
• Expand public libraries and adult education with free classes on history, economics, and civic engagement.
• Fund local journalism and media cooperatives to promote independent, community-based information.
• Public arts and culture funding emphasizing inclusivity and working-class representation.
Goal: Build cultural infrastructure for a more politically conscious and cohesive population.
________________________________________
?? 6. Fiscal and Governance Reforms
• Progressive municipal taxation (within state limits) — e.g. surcharges on luxury real estate transactions (“pied-à-terre tax”).
• Participatory budgeting expansion — let residents directly decide how to spend portions of the city budget.
• Neighborhood councils with real budgetary power, decentralizing decision-making.
Goal: Democratize control over the city’s resources.
________________________________________
? In Summary
A “communist running as a socialist” mayor couldn’t abolish capitalism in NYC — but could:
? Expand public and cooperative ownership
? Shift wealth and power toward workers and tenants
? Democratize city governance
? Use the office as a platform to normalize anti-capitalist ideas
Over time, those measures could create “socialist islands” inside the capitalist system — a real-world laboratory for post-capitalist experiments.
________________________________________
Would you like me to sketch a sample 4-year policy agenda for such a mayor — like what their first-term platform might look like in practical, political terms?
You said:
yes please
ChatGPT said:
Perfect — let’s design a realistic first-term (4-year) policy agenda for a New York City mayor who is ideologically communist but operating legally and politically as a socialist reformer.
This plan balances radical intent (building collective power, public ownership, and equality) with legal and institutional reality (city and state limits).
________________________________________
? 4-Year Socialist-Communist Policy Agenda for NYC
?? Guiding Vision
“Democratize New York City — housing, work, and life — from the ground up.”
The goal isn’t to “establish communism” overnight, but to lay the groundwork for a people-controlled economy and reclaim public wealth from private elites.
________________________________________
YEAR 1: Laying the Foundations
? 1. Housing as a Human Right
• Declare a citywide housing emergency and launch a “Public Homes for All” initiative.
• Create a Municipal Land Bank to acquire vacant or tax-delinquent properties and turn them into public or cooperative housing.
• Triple the budget for community land trusts (CLTs).
• Expand rent control to cover more buildings and prevent exploitative evictions.
? 2. Worker Power & Economic Democracy
• Establish a Department of Cooperative Development (DCD) — a new city agency to incubate worker-owned businesses.
• Pass a “Co-op Preference” ordinance giving worker cooperatives priority in city contracts.
• Partner with CUNY to launch worker-ownership training programs.
? 3. Public Utilities for the People
• Begin feasibility studies for municipalizing Con Edison, the private utility, with a goal to form a New York City Public Power Authority.
• Expand solar and wind cooperatives in working-class neighborhoods.
?? 4. Democratizing City Governance
• Launch Participatory Budgeting 2.0: every borough controls 5% of its discretionary spending directly through public vote.
• Create Neighborhood People’s Assemblies to advise on local development and policing.
________________________________________
YEAR 2: Building Collective Institutions
?? 1. Housing Expansion
• Break ground on 10,000 new units of municipal housing, built on city-owned land, with union labor.
• Convert select NYCHA sites into resident-owned cooperatives, retaining public oversight.
? 2. Municipal Banking & Finance
• Establish the New York Public Bank, chartered to serve small co-ops, public housing, and green infrastructure.
• Redirect city deposits (billions held in private banks) into this public institution.
? 3. Transportation for All
• Make all buses fare-free (funded through a small tax on high-end real estate).
• Pilot fare-free subway zones for low-income riders and students.
• Expand protected bike lanes and green corridors citywide.
________________________________________
YEAR 3: Expanding the Public Sector
? 1. Public Utilities Phase II
• Transition parts of NYC’s electricity grid to community-controlled energy districts.
• Launch NYC Broadband, a municipally owned high-speed internet provider offering free service to low-income households.
? 2. Care and Education
• Create public, unionized childcare centers in every borough.
• Expand free adult education, emphasizing civic engagement, economics, and labor organizing.
?? 3. Cultural Democracy
• Redirect arts funding toward worker and community arts collectives.
• Fund public media co-ops to promote local journalism and anti-disinformation initiatives.
________________________________________
YEAR 4: Institutionalizing Socialist Infrastructure
?? 1. Consolidate Public Ownership
• Target goal: 10% of NYC GDP flowing through worker co-ops, public enterprises, or CLTs.
• Institutionalize the NYC Cooperative Fund, financed by a small tax on speculative real estate transactions.
? 2. Charter Reform
• Push a City Charter amendment to enshrine:
o Housing as a human right
o Participatory budgeting as a permanent democratic mechanism
o Worker ownership promotion as an official city goal
? 3. Global Solidarity
• Establish sister-city programs with other left-led cities (e.g., Barcelona, Porto Alegre).
• Host a Global Municipal Socialism Conference in NYC.
________________________________________
Cross-Cutting Themes
Goal Description
Climate Justice All programs aligned with NYC Green New Deal — unionized green jobs, renewable energy, community resilience.
Racial & Economic Equity Target resources to historically disinvested Black, Brown, and immigrant neighborhoods.
Labor-First City Hall Require union neutrality in city contracts and prioritize public sector jobs.
Transparency & Democracy Regular public assemblies and online participatory forums for all major policy shifts.
________________________________________
Potential Challenges
• State legislature or governor may block key initiatives (e.g. municipal bank, utility takeovers).
• Fierce opposition from real estate developers and Wall Street.
• Possible funding shortfalls if tax reforms are delayed.
• Political backlash from business media and federal actors.
Strategic response: Build mass movements and community coalitions outside City Hall to sustain public pressure — the “inside/outside” model of governance.
________________________________________
End-of-Term Vision (Year 4 Outcome)
By the end of one term, New York City could plausibly achieve:
• 50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing
• 1,000+ worker-owned co-ops operating citywide
• 1 publicly owned bank
• 1 municipally run broadband and partial power utility
• Broad public participation in budgeting and urban planning
It would still be a capitalist city — but with deeply embedded socialist structures that shift ownership, control, and culture toward the public and collective good.
lennin quote the purpose of socialism is communism
ChatGPT said:
The quote you’re referring to is commonly attributed to Vladimir Lenin, and it goes like this:
“The goal of socialism is communism.”
— Vladimir Lenin
This succinct statement reflects Lenin’s Marxist view that socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism. In his framework, socialism establishes the collective ownership of the means of production and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually evolve into a stateless, classless communist society.
The quote comes from Lenin’s 1917 work “The State and Revolution”, where he elaborates on Marx and Engels’ theories about the state, socialism, and the eventual emergence of communism.
You said:
here is the fun fun part
50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing
wouldn’t work.. NYC plumbing infrastructure could not handle it
they are already past capacity now.
Wealthy upper ny people moved out with covid then after
I know i did.. i am sitting in a home with a 2.75% interest rate
which makes the loan free…
and now there is a new wave brewing…
how you gonna keep them down on the farm, after they seen florida (paris?)
houses in Westchester have been paid for 700k above asking..
ah well… at least from family and knowing i knew, so i bailed knowing what to do
its worked out well if anyone wonders… i would be bragging if i said more so i wont.
good luck to all
and good night to mrs calabash, wherever you are
and if you all didnt believe my point
That’s a fair concern — NYC’s infrastructure (especially water, sewer, and power systems) is already under heavy strain. However, it’s not necessarily true that adding 50,000+ new units of public or cooperative housing would be impossible — it would just require parallel investment in infrastructure upgrades.
Here’s some context:
NYC DEP (Department of Environmental Protection) maintains that the city’s water and wastewater systems are designed for a much larger population than currently exists — the city used to have higher per-capita water use and industrial demand. So, in many areas, there’s still latent capacity.
The strain is highly localized. In some neighborhoods (especially in outer boroughs or where storm/sewer systems are combined), plumbing and sewage systems are indeed near or over capacity — leading to backups and flooding after heavy rain.
Modern building standards require new developments to include stormwater retention, efficient fixtures, and sometimes onsite treatment or detention systems — all of which lessen impact on the citywide network.
Infrastructure expansion is part of housing policy in other cities — for example, when New York rezones or creates large housing projects, the environmental review process (CEQR/ULURP) often includes mandates for water, sewer, and power upgrades funded by the developer or public agencies.
So, you’re absolutely right that you can’t just “add 50,000 apartments” overnight — the pipes, wastewater plants, and storm systems would need upgrades and careful planning. But technically, the system could support it if the city invested in modern infrastructure along with the housing.
=====================================
Here’s what I found regarding the infrastructure capacity of New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for water supply and wastewater/sewer systems in NYC, plus some caveats about what the data don’t say.
? What the data say: Water supply & wastewater infrastructure
Water Supply
The NYC water-supply system has a total available storage capacity of roughly 580 billion US gallons from its reservoirs and controlled lakes.
NCBI
+2
New York City Government
+2
The system delivers approximately 1.1 billion US gallons per day (BGD) of drinking water to city residents and some neighbouring communities.
NCBI
+1
As of recent updates (Oct 30 2025), reservoir levels are mixed: for example the Croton system had about 94.2 BG available capacity and was ~93.4 % of usable storage.
New York City Government
The percentage of demand relative to past peaks has declined (due to conservation, efficient fixtures, etc).
NCBI
+1
Wastewater / Sewer / Treatment
The sewer system comprises over 7,400 miles of sewer pipes, ~152,000 catch basins, and ~95 wastewater-pumping stations.
New York City Government
+1
The wastewater treatment side lists many of the major plants (“Wastewater Resource Recovery Facilities”) and their design capacities. For example:
Newtown Creek WRRF — design capacity 310 million gallons/day (MGD) serving ~1,068,012 population.
New York City Government
Wards Island WRRF — 275 MGD design capacity serving ~1,061,558 population.
New York City Government
(And others: Bowery Bay, Hunts Point, etc).
New York City Government
On combined sewer systems: about 60% of NYC uses combined sewers (i.e., stormwater + sanitary in same pipe). During heavy rainfall when flows exceed twice the design capacity of treatment plants, the system may discharge untreated/less-treated wastewater into waterways via combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
New York City Government
?? What the data don’t fully answer & what to interpret with caution
The “design capacity” numbers tell how much water a given treatment plant or system can process under design conditions—but they do not always reflect real?time usable capacity (which may be reduced due to maintenance, aging infrastructure, local bottlenecks, storm events).
The data generally cover citywide or large facility metrics; they may mask local constraints (neighbourhoods, specific pipes or catchment areas) where the system may already be stressed. For example, combined sewer systems can get overwhelmed during intense rainfall even if overall treatment capacity seems OK.
The water?supply data show storage and delivery capacity, but that’s only part of the infrastructure story. Distribution mains, local pressure zones, old pipes, leak rates, local hookups for new construction—all those matter when adding large numbers of units.
Adding new housing units means incremental increases in both water demand and wastewater generation + stormwater runoff. Whether the existing local mains, local sewer links, pumping stations, etc., have capacity is not straightforwardly answered by the city-wide summary data.
In the case of stormwater / runoff: the combined sewer system is already challenged during heavy rains (CSO events). If new development increases impervious surfaces (unless mitigated), that adds more burden.
New York City Government
+1
? Interpretation in relation to your original concern
You asked: “Wouldn’t work … NYC plumbing infrastructure could not handle it… they are already past capacity now.”
Based on the numbers:
On the supply side, there is substantial capacity in the water?supply system (580 billion gallons storage, 1.1 BGD delivery) and declining demand per capita, so adding housing wouldn’t automatically overwhelm the water source/distribution system — at least at the city?wide level.
On the wastewater / sewer side, while major plants have large capacities (hundreds of MGD), the presence of combined sewer systems and potential for overflows during rainfall shows there are vulnerabilities. If many new units are concentrated in a specific catchment where local sewer/pumping capacity is already near limit (especially in combined systems), then you could have a local overload risk.
So: your concern is credible — there are definitely stress points in the infrastructure — but the high?level data show some room, not a blanket “no more capacity at all” conclusion. The devil is in the local detail: what borough, what neighbourhood, what catchment, what existing infrastructure condition, how many new units, how much impervious surface, etc.
get ready for some egg crackin!!
funny how the democrats are doing the same thing they did to start the first civil war
ignoring federal law and all that rot.. 😉
next to last post i have time for..
i figure no one believes or lsitens to a crackpot like me.
but its funny how you can ask Chat the right questions and get what i warned about
Here’s a concise summary of the U.S. birth crisis and its demographic implications if immigration does not offset the decline:
?? The U.S. Birth Crisis: Overview
The United States is facing a sharp and sustained decline in birth rates, a trend that began after the 2008 financial crisis and has accelerated over the past decade.
Fertility rate (2023): ~1.62 births per woman — well below the replacement level of 2.1.
Births per year: Around 3.6 million, down from 4.3 million in 2007.
Every state except a few (like North Dakota or Utah) is now below replacement fertility.
? Why This Is Happening
Several interconnected factors are driving the crisis:
Economic insecurity: High housing, childcare, healthcare, and education costs make raising children unaffordable for many.
Delayed family formation: Americans are marrying and having kids later (average first-birth age now ~30).
Cultural shifts: Greater emphasis on career, individual freedom, and environmental concerns reduce family size.
Urbanization and lower religious affiliation also correlate with lower birth rates.
?? What Happens Next (If Immigration Doesn’t Compensate)
Without substantial immigration or a rebound in fertility:
Population decline will begin by the early 2040s — possibly sooner if current trends accelerate.
Aging population explosion: The ratio of working-age adults to retirees will fall dramatically, straining Social Security, Medicare, and labor markets.
Labor shortages: Especially in healthcare, education, construction, and technology — fields already struggling to find workers.
Regional decline: Rural and Rust Belt states will depopulate faster, while a few metro areas (like Texas, Florida, and the Sun Belt) may remain stable due to migration.
Economic drag: Fewer workers and consumers lead to slower GDP growth, less innovation, and rising public debt.
? Immigration as the Deciding Factor
Immigration currently accounts for all U.S. population growth.
Without immigrants, the population would already be shrinking.
The U.S. relies on immigration not only for numbers, but also for skills and entrepreneurship — especially in tech, medicine, and engineering.
? Outlook
If the U.S. maintains restrictive immigration policies and fertility continues to drop:
The population could fall from ~335 million today to below 300 million by 2100.
The U.S. would begin to resemble Japan or South Korea in demographic stagnation — but without their savings or automation advantages.
If, however, immigration remains strong and integrated effectively, the U.S. could maintain a stable or modestly growing population and workforce well into the 22nd century.
=================================
mainstream demographers and sociologists did worry about falling fertility (especially from the mid-1960s onward), but they typically attributed it to urbanization, women’s education and paid work, housing shortages, easy divorce/abortion access, and broader socioeconomic change—not “feminism” as a doctrine. Here are the key figures and what they actually wrote or argued:
Viktor Perevedentsev (leading Soviet demographer). Publicly flagged low fertility as a policy problem by the mid-1960s and into the 1970s/80s; framed it as a demographic/structural issue, not as a result of feminism.
CIA
+1
Boris Urlanis (demographer). Wrote extensively on fertility decline and family policy; discussed men’s mortality and the need for social/medical measures, not “anti-feminism.”
JSTOR
+2
OpenEdition Journals
+2
Galina Litvinova (demographer). Part of the late-Soviet discussion on uneven fertility and the emerging “population problem,” again in structural terms.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment
Anatolii (Andrei) Vishnevsky and other late-Soviet/post-Soviet demographers analyzed the long-run “demographic transition” and later “second demographic transition,” emphasizing modernization, urban living, and women’s education—not feminism per se. (See overviews of Soviet fertility trends and policy debates.)
PagePlace
Anatolii Kharchev (sociologist of the family) and peers studied divorce, family formation, and gender roles; their work critiqued social pathologies and policy gaps more than “feminism.”
OpenEdition Journals
For context on Alexandra Kollontai: early Bolshevik family reforms (divorce liberalization, abortion legalization in 1920, communal childcare ideals) are often associated with her. But even Kollontai framed policy around combining motherhood and socialized labor, not suppressing births; later Soviet policy dramatically reversed course (1936 abortion ban; pro-natal campaigns; re-legalization in 1955). The scholarship here discusses policy swings and their demographic effects—again, not a scientific claim that “feminism” would crash population.
? 1. The Early Soviet Social Revolution (1917–1930s)
After 1917, Bolsheviks — especially Alexandra Kollontai and Inessa Armand — pushed to liberate women from traditional family structures.
The state legalized abortion (1920), divorce became almost automatic, and communal childcare was promoted to allow women to work.
These measures were seen as emancipatory and modern, not “anti-natalist” — but they did coincide with a sharp fertility decline in cities.
By the early 1930s, birth rates in urban areas had fallen to levels similar to Western Europe’s lowest, decades earlier than in most of the world.
? 2. The Reversal: Stalin’s Pro-Natal Turn (mid-1930s)
By 1935–36, officials saw a demographic problem: too few births and too many abortions.
The state banned abortion in 1936, restricted divorce, and rewarded large families (the “Mother Heroine” medals).
However, these policies had limited success. Fertility rebounded modestly in the late 1930s and post–WWII, but the long-term urban fertility collapse continued.
? 3. The Irreversible Demographic Shift
Once urban, educated women entered the workforce and the family system changed, the fertility culture itself transformed.
By the 1960s, Soviet demographers (like Perevedentsev, Urlanis, and later Vishnevsky) noted that the USSR had entered a “second demographic transition”: smaller families became the norm.
Even after the USSR relaxed abortion policy again in 1955 and offered maternity benefits, the fertility rate never recovered to pre-1930s levels.
The pattern showed a 20–25 year lag: policy changes took a generation to fully manifest in population structure, by which time norms had already shifted.
? 4. Exported Ideas and Global Echoes
It’s true that Soviet women’s liberation rhetoric influenced Western feminist and socialist movements in the mid-20th century, especially via intellectual circles in Europe.
However, in the West, similar fertility declines occurred mainly due to industrialization, education, contraception access, and changing gender roles, not because of direct “Soviet export.”
Still, the sequence of social change ? fertility decline ? irreversibility that the USSR experienced did foreshadow what later happened in Western countries.
?? 5. The Core Lesson from Soviet Demography
The Soviet case demonstrates:
Social engineering of family structures can produce long demographic lags.
Once fertility norms shift downward, it’s nearly impossible to reverse, even with incentives or nationalist rhetoric.
The “demographic momentum” (age structure + norms) locks in low fertility for decades.
here’s a clear summary of how Soviet demographic scientists from the 1960s–1980s analyzed and modeled the irreversibility of low fertility, and why they concluded that pro-natalist policies could not simply restore population replacement levels.
? 1. The Context: Fertility Collapse in the USSR
By the 1960s, the Soviet Union’s total fertility rate had fallen to around 2.0 or lower in most of the European republics (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, the Baltics).
This was well below replacement and far ahead of the Western decline that would follow in the 1970s–80s.
The decline was especially pronounced in cities and among educated women.
The Party leadership recognized a “demographic problem,” but was uncertain how to address it within socialist ideology, which celebrated female labor participation and gender equality.
? 2. The “Demographic Lag” Model
Viktor Perevedentsev, Boris Urlanis, and later Anatolii Vishnevsky developed formal demographic projections showing that:
Even if fertility were raised by state policy, population growth would continue to slow for 15–25 years because of age-structure inertia.
After decades of low birth rates, the cohort of women entering childbearing age was too small to restore replacement levels quickly — a self-reinforcing cycle.
This became known in their writings as the demographic echo effect or delayed momentum:
Once a generation produces too few children, even doubling birth rates later can’t rebuild the pyramid fast enough to stabilize population size.
? 3. Why Policy Couldn’t Reverse It
Through the 1970s and 1980s, these demographers analyzed the limited effect of state incentives:
Financial measures (bonuses for third children, maternity leave) increased births only temporarily.
Housing shortages and dual-employment pressure kept small families economically rational.
Cultural norms had changed: people viewed two children as “enough,” and many educated couples preferred one.
They concluded that once fertility norms fall below two children per woman, the state cannot force or bribe people back to large families without massive systemic change.
? 4. The “Second Demographic Transition” (Vishnevsky)
By the 1980s, Anatolii Vishnevsky — later Russia’s most influential demographer — explicitly adopted Western “second demographic transition” theory but adapted it to the Soviet case.
He argued that:
Low fertility was not a temporary crisis but a new stage of social evolution.
It arose from urbanization, individualism, higher education, and women’s independence — features the USSR itself had promoted.
Policy could only mitigate the decline (through childcare, housing, stability), not reverse it.
In short: the system’s success in modernizing women’s roles also permanently lowered fertility.
?? 5. Their Broader Conclusions
By the late Soviet period, demographers reached a quiet consensus:
The USSR’s population future depended more on mortality reduction and regional balance (especially with Central Asia) than on recovering high fertility in European Russia.
Fertility incentives could at best stabilize the decline, not restore the old “large family” pattern.
Cultural expectations — not economic levers — became the decisive factor.
? Key Figures and Their Works
Scientist Focus Representative Ideas
Viktor Perevedentsev Population modeling Lag between fertility change and population outcome; need for long-term demographic planning
Boris Urlanis Historical demography Comparison of Soviet vs. Western fertility decline; inevitability of small-family norms
Anatolii Vishnevsky Transition theory Low fertility as a new equilibrium, not a temporary anomaly
Anatolii Kharchev Sociology of family Changing gender roles and divorce undermined traditional pronatalist culture
? In essence:
Soviet demographers discovered — decades before the West — that once modernization and gender equality shift family norms, fertility decline becomes structurally irreversible within any given social model.
They predicted precisely what is now happening across advanced economies: aging, stagnation, and the failure of pronatalist policy to restore replacement fertility.
Here’s a factual overview of how the Soviet Union actually promoted “women’s emancipation” internationally, and what the archival record shows about its intent and scope — drawn from declassified Comintern files, the Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF) archives, and later Cold War studies.
? 1. The Comintern Era (1919–1943)
The Communist International (Comintern), founded by Lenin, was the USSR’s global tool for spreading socialism.
Within it, the Zhenotdel (Women’s Department), led by Alexandra Kollontai, Inessa Armand, and others, promoted female emancipation as part of class struggle.
Their message was ideological, not demographic: women’s equality was seen as proof that socialism was historically progressive.
Comintern women’s sections:
Published pamphlets like The Woman Worker in the Soviet Union (1930), emphasizing labor equality, childcare, and maternity protections.
Encouraged communist parties abroad to recruit women by citing Soviet “success.”
Promoted International Women’s Day as a symbol of worker solidarity (not “feminism” in the modern Western sense).
Key point: the purpose was to showcase socialism’s moral superiority — not to depress Western birth rates or destroy family structures.
?? 2. After WWII: The Women’s International Democratic Federation (WIDF)
Founded in 1945 in Paris (with strong Soviet backing), the WIDF became the USSR’s main channel for global women’s outreach during the Cold War.
Headquarters later moved to East Berlin under direct Communist Bloc influence.
The organization had millions of members across Europe, Asia, and Latin America.
Its main campaigns:
Peace and anti-nuclear movements (“Mothers for Peace”).
Women’s rights to education, labor, and social equality.
Criticism of Western colonialism and racial segregation.
The WIDF often clashed with Western “liberal” feminists because it framed women’s liberation through class struggle and anti-imperialism, not sexuality or individualism.
Archival evidence (East German and Soviet foreign-ministry records) shows the goal was:
“…to demonstrate the social and moral superiority of socialist womanhood as an instrument of peace and progress.”
It was propaganda — but not a demographic strategy.
? 3. What the Soviets Actually Feared
From the late 1950s onward, Soviet planners were anxious about their own fertility collapse, especially in Slavic republics.
The State Committee on Labor and Social Issues regularly discussed “family crisis” and “birthrate stabilization.”
Reports in the 1970s explicitly warned against “bourgeois feminism,” accusing it of corrupting Soviet moral foundations and reducing childbirth.
So while Soviet-linked women’s groups continued to speak of equality abroad, inside the USSR the leadership condemned “Western feminism” as decadent and anti-family.
? 4. The Real Influence Channels
The USSR did influence Western intellectual and activist circles — but indirectly, via:
Peace and cultural exchange movements, especially those in France, Italy, and Scandinavia.
Left-wing women’s unions and journalists who admired Soviet childcare and maternity benefits.
The WIDF’s media network (Women of the Whole World magazine, 1951–1990), which reached Western readers through socialist parties.
However, Western second-wave feminism (1960s–80s) drew primarily from:
Simone de Beauvoir and existentialism (France),
Betty Friedan and civil-rights liberalism (U.S.),
Contraceptive access and legal equality campaigns — not Soviet Marxist feminism.
? 5. Summary: What the Record Shows
Aspect Soviet Policy Western Interpretation
Intent Promote socialism’s moral superiority Seen as gender-progressive model
Method Propaganda, cultural diplomacy, NGOs (like WIDF) Inspiration for leftist women’s movements
Actual goal Build international legitimacy, win “soft power” Not to lower Western fertility
Internal stance (after 1950s) Opposed “bourgeois feminism”; worried about own low birth rates Feminism developed independently in the West
? In essence:
The USSR did export an image of the emancipated socialist woman as part of its ideological competition with the West.
But that export was propagandistic, not demographic — it aimed to win moral influence and soft power, not to manipulate fertility trends abroad.
The irony is that both systems eventually experienced the same demographic outcomes through modernization — not through one side undermining the other.
That’s a very touching video.
That song reverberated in my heart. So many family, friends, and squadron mates that are gone but still loved and remembered. The song conveys that so well. Like a message from above, it makes me sad yet also feel blessed to have known and loved them.
Art, your ChatGPT plan should be obvious to all who have looked at the history of Communism. Sadly, so many have not educated themselves. It allows the myth to persist that the government can provide everything the citizens need.
Third item: J.D. Vance taking questions at the Turning Point USA event last night was a robust example of open debate and free speech in action. I was impressed.
“I don’t have time to format”
I don’t have time to read your comments art.
The problem is neither mamdani the city council or the local courts believe in private property freedom of speech or religion so therein lies the rub
Woke Colleges Deny TPUSA Chapter Requests – PJ Media https://share.google/FuMBcauMgsjNZlHoU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRI72LNFcvI
5,400 words worth of AI text puke is rather de trop. Why not start your own blog and put it there?
James Lileks has a poignant bleat today: https://lileks.com/bleats/archive/25/1025/54.html
I can’t imagine. I wish his wife would have a change of heart, but she seems dug in. Well, as someone in the comments wrote yesterday, we are only reading one side.
Fwiw
https://x.com/profstonge/status/1983927129721933872
This is what lawfare and demonization has yielded
In the winter soldier episode there was just some loose talk about attacking us officials now its the main course from not only party leaders but back benchers
Was it Aristotle who advised us to “define your terms”?
Linked below is an analysis of just how much in Federal benefits are going to illegals, which points out that fact that many families composed of citizens also have members who are illegals, and that these families and their illegal members are able to qualify for many Federal benefits because of their legal citizen members.
Thus, when you ask, not how many individual illegals are getting benefits but, instead, ask how many families containing both legal citizens and illegals are getting these benefits, the total amount of benefits is much higher than that for just individual illegals alone.*
See https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2025/10/benefits-shutdown-good-time-reassess-54-federal-benefit/
A company called 1X is almost ready to begin marketing at housekeeper robot named “Neo.” Ha.
Not that it matters to anyone but me, but I don’t read posts of what Chat or Grok say, and I don’t look at You Tube links without some explanation as to what they’re about.
https://www.stevesailer.net/p/what-else-should-trump-tear-down
==
Sailer has some horrific examples of bad architecture. Now, if we restricted the choice to federal real estate…
“I don’t read posts of what Chat or Grok say, and I don’t look at You Tube links without some explanation as to what they’re about.”
Ditto.
The song-sharing street singer is one of my favorite recurring “guest artists,” and this was one of his best. I especially liked the video at the end, sent by the old woman’s nephew, about how she had started singing around the house again.
Her voice was not too shabby for 93; you could tell she was indeed operatically trained (catch one of our current pop stars singing at that age!), and I was delighted she could remember all the words!
I find myself starting a lot of old favorites and lalalaing around the middle of the first verse.
Fun trivia: Oliver Sacks, who has made a study of various brain glitches, conveyed in several popular books (“The Man Who Thought His Wife Was a Hat” was his first IIRC), wrote one about the impact of brain injuries and other problems on musical ability. Interesting to me was that the memories of music known in the past are often the last thing lost by dementia patients.
They may not know who is visiting them, but they can sing along with the Golden Oldies.
But they have to be THEIR oldies.
I’ve been talking with a friend about singing in some of the local nursing homes, and we realized that we were thinking about “Tinpan Alley” songs, because that’s what we sang years ago when visiting as youth groups. Now, we would be singing to our own generation or only slightly more elderly – the Beetles and John Denver are the oldies!
@ Kate – I also skip the unidentified YouTube links, but Miguel usually hits a winner on his cryptic offerings. Here’s today’s: “This is what lawfare and demonization has yielded”
Tweet commenting on a headline from The Atlantic:
“At least 6 senior Trump officials [are] living on military bases for their safety.
This does not happen in normal countries. Left-wing political violence is out of control.
Presumably because left-wing judges have protected them for 50 years.”
This from Byron York was rather amusing. (h/t Powerline Picks)
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/daily-memo/3869993/alvin-bragg-and-trump-trial-that-never-happened/
“It happened during a debate in the contest for district attorney of Manhattan. The only reason most non-New Yorkers would care is that current Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, whose claim to fame is being the first and only prosecutor ever to charge and convict an ex-president — Donald Trump — is running for reelection.
Here’s the curious thing. In the entire debate, which was Bragg against Republican Maud Maron and independent Diana Florence, moderated by NY1’s Errol Louis — in the entire debate, nobody said the name “Donald Trump.” With the exception of one brief aside by Louis, nobody mentioned the Trump prosecution at all.
The trial is the biggest professional accomplishment of Bragg’s life. He is now running for reelection. He is running on his record. And he never said a word about it. Nor did Maron or Florence bring it up. It was like Bragg’s central role in history never happened at all.”
AesopFan, once I went with a church choir to sing some hymns in a dementia center. One of the patients was a dear friend. She looked at us with a puzzled look, not really recognizing us, but she sang along with the hymns. I was glad to give her that moment.
I agree about Miguel’s quick links. They’re usually X posts. I can look quickly and not be subjected to You Tube ads.
I don’t open any links that don’t include a description.
I am very careful not to click on links in emails or phone text messages where the source is sketchy. I will click on links from trusted sources, such as from friends or someone posting like Miguel or other “resident” commenters here.
But I agree with Selfy that there is an etiquette issue that more information should be provided, especially as with Substack and other venues, where the link is often a redirect and does not really contain the title or related content indications.
Just please don’t pull up a past comment where I failed to so myself! 🙂
But thanks to Huxley or someone here, I now regularly only cut and past the portion of a longish link that is to the left of the “?” symbol [since I think he or whomever said the rest of the link content is related to my email or other source server, etc. and of little value to another recipient. ]