The idea behind deconcentrating poverty was never that it would teach the poor the values and culture of the rich. That is silly. The poor have always been quite thoroughly instructed in the values and culture of the rich, regardless of where they live.

One idea behind deconcentrating poverty was that all of society must more equally share the burden of the problems caused by poverty.

But the better idea was that deconcentration would give poor people access to resources that the neither the market nor the government provided nearby, like supermarkets and hospitals and good public schools.

Why, then, does the leftist radical oppose poverty deconcentration?

Once posed, the question almost answers itself: the academic leftist radical wants the poor to rise up and overthrow The System (and then hand society over to the academic leftist elite to rule). For this to happen, the poor must be kept miserable, and kept concentrated. Otherwise the revolutionary spark might not catch.

That is Charles Mudede's objection: the leftist radical believes that the revolution can only be started if the poor are kept in their place. Charles Mudede wants to keep the poor where he and other leftist vanguardists need them: crammed together in squalid firetraps far, far away from the counterrevolutionary influences of fresh produce and AP classes.

Charles, you should do some reporting about the current state of pre-gentrified Venezuela.