Here Comes The Left

[laughing dog]

Thank for the lesson in pedantry.

Pedantry is about making fine distinctions that do not make a difference in practice. "Universal healthcare" is a term that is so broad that distinctions between different forms of it most definitely make a big difference in practice, and are thus far from being pedantic.

A pedantic apologia for pedantry! Bravo!

The thread is about a number of things and my point is they haven’t taken over any county, state or the country which strongly suggests they are not a real threat.

Even if they hadn't taken over any county for example (I doubt that), that does not mean that they aren't a threat.

Your doubts are evidence of your psychology and nothing else.

No. They are a product of knowing the political leanings

Or paranoia.

BTW NYC rent freezes go back to 1943. Hardly a communistic plot.

It was a bad idea then, and it's a bad idea now. Freezing rents means that landlord revenues will go down in real terms, while their expenses are likely to go up.

Bad ideas are not unique to any ideology. So bring a bad idea, in and of itself, does not indicate communism.

Maybe - only time will tell.

We can make educated predictions about effects of different developments.

Of course. Doesn’t make them less paranoid in this instance.

 

[Derec]

Of course not. Derec didn't either and he is more involved in following politics than the average voter.

I understood it far better than you.

The irony is the flyover / rust belt country voter is very class conscious. They see their economic potential has shriveled. And they aren't happy about it.

Your assessment of flyover voters does not change the fact that "class consciousness" is a Marxist term.
The problem with terms of art is that they use regular words as building blocks, but have a specific meaning that goes beyond just the meaning of these words.
It's similar to how "antifascism" doesn't mean just generally being against fascism, but is part of far left system of thought. Hence the Antifaschistischer Schutzwall (or "Antifascist Protection Rampart" in English) that bisected Berlin between 1961 and 1989 and protected the German Democratic Republic from those "fascists" in West Berlin ...

 

[Derec]

I don't know much at all about Mamdani. I know he is definitely well to the left and is a member of the SDP.

He is a member of DSA, a party that opposes private profits and supports "popular control of resources and production" and "economic planning". I don't know this SDP.

I also do know historically, socialists elected to power in the US, from the very late 1800s to now, have not resulted in much radicalness coming forth. So it doesn't scare me.

Well, it does scare me. Especially when modern, DSA-type socialism is also allied to political Islam and rabid hatred of Israel that veers into rank antisemitism. It's not so-called "sewer socialism" of yesteryear, which was mostly social democracy, and not socialism at all.

 

[Derec]

Not whataboutism. The actual thing that is threatening to destroy our democracy.

It's whataboutism in this thread, as it is about strengthening of far left in the US, and especially in Democratic primaries.

They aren't taking over. This is about exaggerating risks to our country. The far left is no where near the imminent risk to the US as the the MAGA movement has ACTUALLY BEEN.

They certainly are in the process of taking over the Democratic Party. That will only increase the polarization in our politics and society and make it more likely that a MAGA candidate will also win in 2028.

Over half of the US House GOP voted to overthrow the General Election results. How in the heck is that not stage 3?

Because the US does not have lymph nodes.

Again, what do you think is going to stop the massive corporations from putting their thumb on the scale to stop what they would consider very risky to their bottom lines?

There is only so much corporations can do against the full power of government.
On a smaller scale, what can private landlords in NYC do against Mamdani prohibiting them from raising rents to match increase in their expenses? Nothing really.

 

[Derec]

When did Mamdani seize the means of production?

He didn't, but he advocated for it. In that same video, he explained his strategy of electing more socialists in order to achieve that end goal. This is precisely what he is doing now by helping his fellow DSA socialists replace mainstream Democrats in Congress.

Did you even watch the video?

 

[Tigers!]

All of them sound so wonderful. Has to be funded somehow though.

Make the payroll tax a flat tax on all earnings and all those problems go away.

I have never understood why taxing more those who employ others is such a good idea. A way to raise money, yes. But a reason for some business to not bother hiring more staff.

Your statement doesn't seem to address anything I said.

You are the other who talked about a payroll tax. My understanding is that a payroll tax is a tax levied on employers based upon the number of staff they have.
That is not necessarily a way to encourage employers to take on more staff.

 

[ZiprHead]

All of them sound so wonderful. Has to be funded somehow though.

Make the payroll tax a flat tax on all earnings and all those problems go away.

I have never understood why taxing more those who employ others is such a good idea. A way to raise money, yes. But a reason for some business to not bother hiring more staff.

Your statement doesn't seem to address anything I said.

You are the other who talked about a payroll tax. My understanding is that a payroll tax is a tax levied on employers based upon the number of staff they have.
That is not necessarily a way to encourage employers to take on more staff.

That's not what it is here. The payroll tax is the tax taken from everyone's paychecks to pay for Medicare and Social Security. Once your income reaches $176 thousand anything more is excluded from the tax.

 

[Tigers!]

All of them sound so wonderful. Has to be funded somehow though.

Make the payroll tax a flat tax on all earnings and all those problems go away.

I have never understood why taxing more those who employ others is such a good idea. A way to raise money, yes. But a reason for some business to not bother hiring more staff.

Your statement doesn't seem to address anything I said.

You are the other who talked about a payroll tax. My understanding is that a payroll tax is a tax levied on employers based upon the number of staff they have.
That is not necessarily a way to encourage employers to take on more staff.

That's not what it is here. The payroll tax is the tax taken from everyone's paychecks to pay for Medicare and Social Security. Once your income reaches $176 thousand anything more is excluded from the tax.

Thank you for noting that distinction.

 

[laughing dog]

When did Mamdani seize the means of production?

He didn't, but he advocated for it. In that same video, he explained his strategy of electing more socialists in order to achieve that end goal. This is precisely what he is doing now by helping his fellow DSA socialists replace mainstream Democrats in Congress.

Did you even watch the video?

Yes. He said

"But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel), right, or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.

"And what I want to say is that it is critical that the way that we organize, the way that we set up our you know, set up our work and our priorities, that we do not leave any one issue for the other, that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem, because it is critical for us to both meet people where they're at and to also organize and organize for what is correct and for what is right and to ensure over time we can bring people to that issue."

And the phrase "seizing the means of production" evokes communism.


But it is not clear if he meant communism.

Experts in political parties and movements said Mamdani’s passing remark is associated with communism, but it’s hard to say much more about Mamdani’s views because he did not elaborate.

Ted Henken, a Baruch College sociology and Cuban culture professor, said whether "seizing the means of production" qualified as communist would depend on policy depth. "Many capitalist countries seize control of strategic areas of production or service; oil and minerals is a good example in Mexico and Brazil," Henken said.

Mamdani also said that there was disagreement over the goal, Henken noted.

"A tweet or soundbite from a few years ago is different from the policies he has outlined in his mayoral platform and nowhere does he advocate ‘seizing the means of production’ there," Henken said. "His policies rather seek to implement socialist style regulation of key public needs and services in areas like housing, food, education and transportation via higher taxes on the very rich."

Anna Grzymala-Busse, a Stanford University international studies professor, said that seizing the means of production is a socialist and communist goal. "The difference is that with communism, there is also one ruling party that brooks no opposition and no pluralist civil society," she said.

Harvey Klehr, an Emory University emeritus professor of politics and history, told us that communists "issued calls to seize the means of production. (Karl) Marx had identified these as the mines, mills and factories that produced the raw materials and goods of industrial civilization."

Democratic socialists "have long eschewed rhetoric about seizing the means of production," Klehr said. "In the 20th century it became a defining difference between communists and socialists. When socialist governments came to power in England in 1945 and France in the 1980s, they did not seize the means of production but nationalized some industries and compensated owners." Later, he said, they walked it back.

As for Mamdani, he said, "there is no way of telling exactly what Mamdani means by using that phrase, but it is redolent of authoritarian communists’ language."

Geoffrey Kurtz, an associate political science professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, said listening to the video clip and watching Mamdani, "I had the impression that Mamdani intended that phrase as lighthearted hyperbole. I see no reason to assume that the phrase conveys anything precise about what he thinks."

source: In Context: Zohran Mamdani’s use of phrase ‘seizing the means of production.’ What’s it mean?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

When did Mamdani seize the means of production?

He didn't, but he advocated for it. In that same video, he explained his strategy of electing more socialists in order to achieve that end goal. This is precisely what he is doing now by helping his fellow DSA socialists replace mainstream Democrats in Congress.

Did you even watch the video?

Yes. He said

"But then there are also other issues that we firmly believe in, whether it's BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions of Israel), right, or whether it's the end goal of seizing the means of production, where we do not have the same level of support at this very moment.

"And what I want to say is that it is critical that the way that we organize, the way that we set up our you know, set up our work and our priorities, that we do not leave any one issue for the other, that we do not meet a moment and only look at what people are ready for, but that we are doing both of these things in tandem, because it is critical for us to both meet people where they're at and to also organize and organize for what is correct and for what is right and to ensure over time we can bring people to that issue."

And the phrase "seizing the means of production" evokes communism.


But it is not clear if he meant communism.

Experts in political parties and movements said Mamdani’s passing remark is associated with communism, but it’s hard to say much more about Mamdani’s views because he did not elaborate.

Ted Henken, a Baruch College sociology and Cuban culture professor, said whether "seizing the means of production" qualified as communist would depend on policy depth. "Many capitalist countries seize control of strategic areas of production or service; oil and minerals is a good example in Mexico and Brazil," Henken said.

Mamdani also said that there was disagreement over the goal, Henken noted.

"A tweet or soundbite from a few years ago is different from the policies he has outlined in his mayoral platform and nowhere does he advocate ‘seizing the means of production’ there," Henken said. "His policies rather seek to implement socialist style regulation of key public needs and services in areas like housing, food, education and transportation via higher taxes on the very rich."

Anna Grzymala-Busse, a Stanford University international studies professor, said that seizing the means of production is a socialist and communist goal. "The difference is that with communism, there is also one ruling party that brooks no opposition and no pluralist civil society," she said.

Harvey Klehr, an Emory University emeritus professor of politics and history, told us that communists "issued calls to seize the means of production. (Karl) Marx had identified these as the mines, mills and factories that produced the raw materials and goods of industrial civilization."

Democratic socialists "have long eschewed rhetoric about seizing the means of production," Klehr said. "In the 20th century it became a defining difference between communists and socialists. When socialist governments came to power in England in 1945 and France in the 1980s, they did not seize the means of production but nationalized some industries and compensated owners." Later, he said, they walked it back.

As for Mamdani, he said, "there is no way of telling exactly what Mamdani means by using that phrase, but it is redolent of authoritarian communists’ language."

Geoffrey Kurtz, an associate political science professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, said listening to the video clip and watching Mamdani, "I had the impression that Mamdani intended that phrase as lighthearted hyperbole. I see no reason to assume that the phrase conveys anything precise about what he thinks."

source: In Context: Zohran Mamdani’s use of phrase ‘seizing the means of production.’ What’s it mean?

Experts in political parties and movements said Mamdani’s passing remark is associated with communism, but it’s hard to say much more about Mamdani’s views because he did not elaborate.

Wait, you mean it's that simple?!?! We can just not assume something because the person didn't elaborate further?!?!? That's fucking incredible!!!

 

[Derec]

And the phrase "seizing the means of production" evokes communism.

Right. It's at the core of Marxist ideology.

But it is not clear if he meant communism.

Without belaboring the difference between socialism and communism, he certainly meant it in the Marxist sense of the word.

Experts in political parties and movements said Mamdani’s passing remark is associated with communism, but it’s hard to say much more about Mamdani’s views because he did not elaborate.

This article is just blatant apologetics that would make Young Earth Creationists blush.

Ted Henken, a Baruch College sociology and Cuban culture professor, said whether "seizing the means of production" qualified as communist would depend on policy depth. "Many capitalist countries seize control of strategic areas of production or service; oil and minerals is a good example in Mexico and Brazil," Henken said.

There is a difference in phrasing of "seizing the means of production" rather than "nationalize strategic industries". The former is specifically Marxist language. And note that Mamdani called it an "end goal" that comes as part of "winning socialism". He also stated that he wants to "continue to elect more socialists". I do not see how anyone can honestly argue that Mamdani did not mean that phrase in the Marxist sense.

"A tweet or soundbite from a few years ago is different from the policies he has outlined in his mayoral platform and nowhere does he advocate ‘seizing the means of production’ there," Henken said.

More apologetics. He did state that "seizing the means of production" was an end goal for which he admits they do not have full support "at the moment". That he is downplaying his Marxist end goals when running for mayor of NYC does not mean he abandoned or repudiated that end goal.

"His policies rather seek to implement socialist style regulation of key public needs and services in areas like housing, food, education and transportation via higher taxes on the very rich."

Is this guy a professor or a Mamdani campaign spokesman?

Anna Grzymala-Busse, a Stanford University international studies professor, said that seizing the means of production is a socialist and communist goal. "The difference is that with communism, there is also one ruling party that brooks no opposition and no pluralist civil society," she said.

No, that is not the difference between socialism and communism. Did she get her PhD from a box of crackerjacks? This is a basic thing.

Democratic socialists "have long eschewed rhetoric about seizing the means of production," [Harvey] Klehr[,an emeritus professor at Emory] said.

That is demonstrably wrong. Goal of seizing the means of production is explicitly stated in the DSA constitution. I posted the relevant excerpt upthread.

"In the 20th century it became a defining difference between communists and socialists. When socialist governments came to power in England in 1945 and France in the 1980s, they did not seize the means of production but nationalized some industries and compensated owners." Later, he said, they walked it back.

Those governments were not socialist though. Socialism as a system has public ownership and control over means of production as a fundamental trait. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia were socialist. UK and France were not.

As for Mamdani, he said, "there is no way of telling exactly what Mamdani means by using that phrase, but it is redolent of authoritarian communists’ language."

It is pretty clear what he meant. If something is redolent of smoke, there almost certainly is fire.

Geoffrey Kurtz, an associate political science professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, said listening to the video clip and watching Mamdani, "I had the impression that Mamdani intended that phrase as lighthearted hyperbole. I see no reason to assume that the phrase conveys anything precise about what he thinks."

Ah, if all other apologetics fail, whip out the ol' reliable.

 

[laughing dog]

And the phrase "seizing the means of production" evokes communism.

Right. It's at the core of Marxist ideology.

But it is not clear if he meant communism.

Without belaboring the difference between socialism and communism, he certainly meant it in the Marxist sense of the word.

Experts in political parties and movements said Mamdani’s passing remark is associated with communism, but it’s hard to say much more about Mamdani’s views because he did not elaborate.

This article is just blatant apologetics that would make Young Earth Creationists blush.

Ted Henken, a Baruch College sociology and Cuban culture professor, said whether "seizing the means of production" qualified as communist would depend on policy depth. "Many capitalist countries seize control of strategic areas of production or service; oil and minerals is a good example in Mexico and Brazil," Henken said.

There is a difference in phrasing of "seizing the means of production" rather than "nationalize strategic industries". The former is specifically Marxist language. And note that Mamdani called it an "end goal" that comes as part of "winning socialism". He also stated that he wants to "continue to elect more socialists". I do not see how anyone can honestly argue that Mamdani did not mean that phrase in the Marxist sense.

"A tweet or soundbite from a few years ago is different from the policies he has outlined in his mayoral platform and nowhere does he advocate ‘seizing the means of production’ there," Henken said.

More apologetics. He did state that "seizing the means of production" was an end goal for which he admits they do not have full support "at the moment". That he is downplaying his Marxist end goals when running for mayor of NYC does not mean he abandoned or repudiated that end goal.

"His policies rather seek to implement socialist style regulation of key public needs and services in areas like housing, food, education and transportation via higher taxes on the very rich."

Is this guy a professor or a Mamdani campaign spokesman?

Anna Grzymala-Busse, a Stanford University international studies professor, said that seizing the means of production is a socialist and communist goal. "The difference is that with communism, there is also one ruling party that brooks no opposition and no pluralist civil society," she said.

No, that is not the difference between socialism and communism. Did she get her PhD from a box of crackerjacks? This is a basic thing.

Democratic socialists "have long eschewed rhetoric about seizing the means of production," [Harvey] Klehr[,an emeritus professor at Emory] said.

That is demonstrably wrong. Goal of seizing the means of production is explicitly stated in the DSA constitution. I posted the relevant excerpt upthread.

"In the 20th century it became a defining difference between communists and socialists. When socialist governments came to power in England in 1945 and France in the 1980s, they did not seize the means of production but nationalized some industries and compensated owners." Later, he said, they walked it back.

Those governments were not socialist though. Socialism as a system has public ownership and control over means of production as a fundamental trait. Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia were socialist. UK and France were not.

As for Mamdani, he said, "there is no way of telling exactly what Mamdani means by using that phrase, but it is redolent of authoritarian communists’ language."

It is pretty clear what he meant. If something is redolent of smoke, there almost certainly is fire.

Geoffrey Kurtz, an associate political science professor at Borough of Manhattan Community College, said listening to the video clip and watching Mamdani, "I had the impression that Mamdani intended that phrase as lighthearted hyperbole. I see no reason to assume that the phrase conveys anything precise about what he thinks."

Ah, if all other apologetics fail, whip out the ol' reliable.
View attachment 54651

Cool unpersuasive nitpicking. Bonus points for Monty Python.

 

[Bronzeage]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.
"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight. A country where 40% of adults can't cover a $400 emergency without borrowing money. A country where insulin costs more than a car payment and people are rationing it to survive. A country where medical debt is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy. A country where women are dying in hospital car parks because doctors are too scared of abortion laws to treat a miscarriage.
You lock up more of your own citizens than any nation on earth. More than China. More than Russia. More than North Korea. The land of the free has 2 million people in cages, and a quarter of them haven't even been convicted of anything. They're just too poor to make bail.
Your life expectancy is going backwards. You're the only developed nation where that's happening. Your infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba's. Your kids do active shooter drills between maths and English while you sell the gunmaker's stock to your mates.
Your minimum wage hasn't moved in 15 years. You've got teachers working 2 jobs and veterans sleeping under bridges and you just spent a trillion dollars flattening a country that didn't attack you.
And you’ve got a convicted felon, adjudicating raping, paedophile protecting, porn star shagging insurrectionist running the biggest dumpster fire war campaign since the Taliban thanked you very much for losing again.
And you're calling Greenland poorly run?
Greenland has universal healthcare. Free education. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. Nobody goes bankrupt there because they got sick. Nobody dies in a waiting room because their insurance said no.
'NATO wasn't there when we needed them." When exactly was that, champ? September 11? Because NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in history FOR YOU. Soldiers from dozens of countries deployed, fought, bled, and died in Afghanistan FOR YOU. Australia wasn't even in NATO and we still showed up. For 20 years.
And you pulled out at 2am without telling anyone and left them to deal with the mess.
So maybe before you start calling other countries poorly run, have a look at your own backyard, you spray-tanned aluminium siding salesman. The only thing poorly run in this picture is your f----- mouth."

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.
"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight.

"CAN YOU GIVE ME A SOURCE FOR THAT 600K FIGURE? SEEMS AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS!"

"THAT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON HOW YOU DEFINE 'HOMELESSNESS'!!!11"

 

[ZiprHead]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.
"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight. A country where 40% of adults can't cover a $400 emergency without borrowing money. A country where insulin costs more than a car payment and people are rationing it to survive. A country where medical debt is the number 1 cause of bankruptcy. A country where women are dying in hospital car parks because doctors are too scared of abortion laws to treat a miscarriage.
You lock up more of your own citizens than any nation on earth. More than China. More than Russia. More than North Korea. The land of the free has 2 million people in cages, and a quarter of them haven't even been convicted of anything. They're just too poor to make bail.
Your life expectancy is going backwards. You're the only developed nation where that's happening. Your infant mortality rate is worse than Cuba's. Your kids do active shooter drills between maths and English while you sell the gunmaker's stock to your mates.
Your minimum wage hasn't moved in 15 years. You've got teachers working 2 jobs and veterans sleeping under bridges and you just spent a trillion dollars flattening a country that didn't attack you.
And you’ve got a convicted felon, adjudicating raping, paedophile protecting, porn star shagging insurrectionist running the biggest dumpster fire war campaign since the Taliban thanked you very much for losing again.
And you're calling Greenland poorly run?
Greenland has universal healthcare. Free education. One of the lowest incarceration rates in the world. Nobody goes bankrupt there because they got sick. Nobody dies in a waiting room because their insurance said no.
'NATO wasn't there when we needed them." When exactly was that, champ? September 11? Because NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in history FOR YOU. Soldiers from dozens of countries deployed, fought, bled, and died in Afghanistan FOR YOU. Australia wasn't even in NATO and we still showed up. For 20 years.
And you pulled out at 2am without telling anyone and left them to deal with the mess.
So maybe before you start calling other countries poorly run, have a look at your own backyard, you spray-tanned aluminium siding salesman. The only thing poorly run in this picture is your f----- mouth."

 

[Bronzeage]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.
"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight.

"CAN YOU GIVE ME A SOURCE FOR THAT 600K FIGURE? SEEMS AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS!"

"THAT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON HOW YOU DEFINE 'HOMELESSNESS'!!!11"

Everything depends on the definition, Does someone who sleeps in their car count? According to this site https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/ which says they got the number from HUD, there are 745,652 homeless people.

It took me about 10 seconds to find this source. I'm sure there are others.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

This Australian's reply to Trump's rant about “NATO not being there for America” is perfect.
"Mate. You run a country with 600,000 homeless people sleeping on the street tonight.

"CAN YOU GIVE ME A SOURCE FOR THAT 600K FIGURE? SEEMS AWFULLY SUSPICIOUS!"

"THAT DEPENDS ENTIRELY ON HOW YOU DEFINE 'HOMELESSNESS'!!!11"

Everything depends on the definition, Does someone who sleeps in their car count? According to this site https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/ which says they got the number from HUD, there are 745,652 homeless people.

It took me about 10 seconds to find this source. I'm sure there are others.

Yup, there are certain people who ask those kinds of super simple questions to answer when it takes just 10 seconds to find the answers. Certain people who will not be specifically named.

 

[Derec]

I found this comment by an Australian named David Abbruzzese to be a very eloquent.

Not the American drummer? Also, where link?

 

[Derec]

Cool unpersuasive nitpicking. Bonus points for Monty Python.

I found the apologetics in that article quite unpersuasive. Mamdani used clear Marxist language, and he certainly did not look like he was joking.

And now he endorsed people like Avila Chevalier who, while at Columbia, cofounded the pro-Hamas group CUAD.
DSA House primary winner led radical anti-Israel group, took part in Columbia campus takeover
Anti-Israel Columbia students call for 'total eradication of Western civilization'
Pro-Palestinian Group at Columbia Now Backs ‘Armed Resistance’ by Hamas

If DNC had any guts, they'd expel her from the party.

 

[Derec]

Everything depends on the definition, Does someone who sleeps in their car count? According to this site https://usafacts.org/articles/which-cities-in-the-us-have-the-most-homelessness/ which says they got the number from HUD, there are 745,652 homeless people.

It took me about 10 seconds to find this source. I'm sure there are others.

And according to this, there are about ~122k homeless in Australia. That translates to 217 per 100,000 for the US and 436 per 100,000 for Australia. So either the Australian definition is far more expansive than the US one, or Australia has a much bigger homelessness problem.