Housing issues and programmatic approaches

[Die Neue Zeit]

"This is the revolutionary leadership of the Bolshevik party, and the revolutionary leadership of the Bolshevik party adopts this precisely because it's clear in the section of the franchise... that old-age pensioners, people who are disabled by illness, and homemakers... are part of the working class. And therefore, the implication of that is that a pure workplace system of representation would be disenfranchising. Now, actually, they also had factory committees, elected factory committees, and Gd knows what else, elected block - tenants had the elected block committee for their housing block or street committee, or something like that. Masses of these organizational forms running in parallel..." (Mike Macnair)



It's really funny that what the Bolsheviks achieved shortly after taking power was exactly what Kautsky suggested in his more level-headed take on "the state and revolution" in 1904 (http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/pdf/2006confpapers/abstracts/Lih%20Abstract.pdf). The soviets were exactly the kind of "parliamentarism" that was suggested in the 1900s, since executive-administrative power rested with executive-administrative organs responsible to the main soviets.

In regards to one Massimo Salvadori's remark (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AiUXfw0LIsC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#PPT214,M1) that Kautsky "had maintained that socialism would be unable to dispense not only with parliament but also with an efficient centralized bureaucracy, although this bureaucracy should be subjected to popular control and flanked by autonomous local bodies subject to direct popular will" (notwithstanding his cheap cover for parliamentary cretinism flanked by relatively toothless local bodies), the Soviet system was, as described above, flanked by factory committees, tenant block committees, and so on.



Programmatically speaking, how do we address housing issues and the need to expand resident association "rights" beyond the privilege of homeowners (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeowners%27_association) and towards including tenants?

[Bright Banana Beard]

I thought this should be the concern of community/ region council that will notify the central authority for it needs on building material. We also need to ensure the town design to be pleased to the local AND central authority as a central authority must send a delegate to work together. When I mean central authority, I meant the central planning will understand this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I take it this is in the context of a maximum program and not a minimum program, right? I was talking about a radicalized form of the latter.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I take it this is in the context of a maximum program and not a minimum program, right? I was talking about a radicalized form of the latter.

yes, but what you have in mind on minimum program about the housing complex?

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I said above, I have in mind this (with emphasis on the latter):

Programmatically speaking, how do we address housing issues and the need to expand resident association "rights" beyond the privilege of homeowners and towards including tenants?

[MarxSchmarx]

Programmatically speaking, how do we address housing issues and the need to expand resident association "rights" beyond the privilege of homeowners and towards including tenants?

Isn't this just a matter of including everybody that happens to live in an area (homeowner or renter) in the decision making process? Institutions like neighborhood councils usually are open to anybody who has a permanent residence in the specified postal code for example.

The distinction arises out of the idea that with ownership comes responsibilities, but by making such commitments part of everybody's concern you gradually erode the rationale for absentee landlordism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't this just a matter of including everybody that happens to live in an area (homeowner or renter) in the decision making process? Institutions like neighborhood councils usually are open to anybody who has a permanent residence in the specified postal code for example.

The distinction arises out of the idea that with ownership comes responsibilities, but by making such commitments part of everybody's concern you gradually erode the rationale for absentee landlordism.

I should probably start a Learning thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/anarchists-and-residents-t112172/index.html) for those most familiar with residents associations and the theory behind them, most likely anarchists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Some concerns I have regarding potential demands for "the right to the city and the abolition of absentee landlordism":

http://www.righttothecity.org/even-renters-who-are-paid-up-are-getting-kicked-out.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/votepsl-frances-villar-t110191/index.html?p=1460806&highlight=foreclosures
http://socialistparty-usa.org/platform/humanneeds.html

1) The second link illustrates the disconnection between the absence of foreclosures and the issuance of writs of possession and eviction.
2) Abolishing writs of possession and eviction: Couldn't the transitional society be an absentee landlord of sorts, being able to do something similar for developmental purposes? Would "the abolition of writs of possession and eviction for the benefit of private parties" be a good compromise?
3) The third link mentions non-profit land trusts. Isn't that still absentee landlordism?