Communist Comrades - how would the housing system work?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

This is something that's confused me for a while. At the moment, there are some council houses, some rented properties, and some private properties. There are always locations which are seen as more 'desirable' than others and there are always houses which are nicer/prettier/more expensive. Then there's the issue of land ownership and inheritance. In a communist society how would the ideas of classlessness and egalitarianism be applied to the housing system?

I feel as though I should know this already and I hope what I've said makes some sort of sense.

[Bright Banana Beard]

In order to have egalitarian society, all house must have basic quality (high quality if it is able to mass-produce it)and the public system will be efficiency. There will be massive planning design because some society are "car society" and it wasteful that could put better use. The most important thing about planning is: efficiency, mass-produce quality, emphasize for bike and pedestrian, anti-gate community.

For ownership, if you are using it, then your children will also use it. It is that simple. It is more of using the house rather than inheritance. We have no issue with using the house.

The expensive house need to be destroy because 1)They basically served individualism mood 2) It can caused tension between the house-user. 3) All the efforts on the mansion could be used to build 3 good quality house.

You really never need that big house, but the council community will best handle the plan with the central planning (who only need to be concern with the trading section roads)

[Nwoye]

everyone would probably be given or could choose the land they wanted to live on, and they could have their house built there according to their own demands. or they could just inhabit already built houses i guess. it's not a really big concern in my opinion.

[Kyrite]

The expensive house need to be destroy because 1)They basically served individualism mood 2) It can caused tension between the house-user. 3) All the efforts on the mansion could be used to build 3 good quality house.

What about sights of historical significance that people are living in? Would those be destroyed too? Or would they just be deemed un-inhabitable?

[F9]

Destroying things is stupid.Why would we start throwing down houses, when we need more?If there is a huge house where there could easily accommodate 4 different families, there going to be some architecture new plans to build some walls etc to separate the one huge unnecessary house to 4.No one is going to be in need of a huge house.Whos gonna clean it?They arent gonna be 20 housemaids to help you clean it, so even those rich people will consent to give some of their place to house some others who have no place.
On the "popular space" on housing VLR this is based on capitalist system and its attractions.Some houses are more disared that others currently because the A neighbourhood has better things around, it has bigger prestige etc.Those things would be reduced to minimum so there isnt going to be that huge need of a better place, beside those who didnt had a home before wont come and tell you, i want a huge house near the beach etc.They only need a house and they will be happy of that.Those huge housses etc are results of the spoiled nature capitalism cultivates to the people to spend more.
Nicer and prettier is something that its based on each persons opinion so we cant take that as an argument.What someone finds beautiful may be grose for another.
Anw no one says that there are going to be the best things just after the revolution, some people may be have to get in a place that dont fulfills their needs, but in some time, they will be given what they need.We wont do magics and appear huge houses for all, but you should understand that those who had nothing to eat, wont complain because they eat soup twice a week..
Most of the "reactions" will probably come from the spoil people which capitalism have made them get used to anything that others people offer them.But still, those problems are problems during and short time after revolution, stadically, if they want to be spoiled they can, if they want to build a huge house, they just need to build them on their own..No one is gonna object them to.But if someone has a family which leaves in a house that its too small, community will take care of it, and build them a house that can help them.

Fuserg9:star:

[Wakizashi the Bolshevik]

There need to be built as much social housing blocs as possible, and we can transform the capitalist mansions into houses for more families.

[JammyDodger]

Housing will be based on needs of the individual will be my best answer.

Second homes will be out I guess, It will largely be organised within your local commune (though since we are Brits im going to start calling a commune a parish), with requests from the parish to government for material resources where housing shortfall occurs.

Its also worthy of note that in this capitalist system a lot houses are infact empty.

Well thats how id do it anyway.

[Bright Banana Beard]

@Kyrite and Fuserg9: Destroying is served for efficiently of the community. Historical house will be considered by community council. We can redesign the mansions into 4 families housing. Land usage will be ignore unless it hurting the community.

[jake williams]

Obviously capitalism does not solve the "Who gets to live where?" question very well at all, but I do think it is a question. It's been a nagging question for me personally for at least a couple years. I'm particularly interested in sort of the political economy and the geography of cities, and so these types of questions come up naturally. I asked an anarchist friend before and she did suggest that a lot of the reasons some land is extremely highly valued compared to others is not because it is inherently more valuable but because of a distorted system of values within capitalism - that everyone would want to live in certain very highly regarded places.

I don't think she's totally wrong, but I don't think it totally solves the situation either. Especially if we're not engaging in mass demolitions of suburbs (which I don't think we should either), there are going to be a whole lot of houses that are not very fun to live in, compared to, say, the centres of downtowns of exciting cities. Of course not everyone would want to live there, but more would I think than would or could be presently accommodated (or accommodated at all). Moreover, the reasons people want to live in the suburbs are also likely part of the strange consciousness (individualism etc.) that grows up under capitalism too. Hence I really think this is a difficult issue and I'm not sure how it should be dealt with. Maybe the technocrats can save us with some trickery?

[*Viva La Revolucion*]

Thanks for the replies. :)

I have to say though, I don't agree with demolition of existing houses. I think buildings that are already there might as well be used and on a more superficial level, I'd hate to see beautiful buildings bulldozed. I think it's a good idea to split massive houses into a few smaller ones.

Part of the reason why some areas are desirable is reputation. OK, so there are some lovely houses in Hampstead or Kensington, but at the moment people also pay for the name. It's like a designer label. I think this is a problem and I hope that in the future there will be no good districts and bad districts - there will just be districts.

Another problem in English society (I can't speak for the U.S. or anywhere else), is people's obsession with property. Turn on the TV and there are about five programs every day to do with people buying and selling houses. I'd be worried about property developers who buy houses, make them look nicer, sell them for a profit and then move on like that, going up the 'property ladder'.

I also agree that people who have previously been homeless or living in poor conditions will be thankful to have anywhere, but over time their aspirations might change and they'll start wanting even more. Maybe that's a cynical view...

And who will regulate who gets what? Will it be a democratic decision within the community or will there been some sort of government who will oversee it?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In order to have egalitarian society, all house must have basic quality (high quality if it is able to mass-produce it)and the public system will be efficiency. There will be massive planning design because some society are "car society" and it wasteful that could put better use. The most important thing about planning is: efficiency, mass-produce quality, emphasize for bike and pedestrian, anti-gate community.

For ownership, if you are using it, then your children will also use it. It is that simple. It is more of using the house rather than inheritance. We have no issue with using the house.

The expensive house need to be destroy because 1)They basically served individualism mood 2) It can caused tension between the house-user. 3) All the efforts on the mansion could be used to build 3 good quality house.

You really never need that big house, but the council community will best handle the plan with the central planning (who only need to be concern with the trading section roads)

What a nightmare. Bold is extravagant reasons why I wouldn't be a "communist." Quotations noted.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

It's remarkable how decisively some users here doctor communism to be an authoritarian statue of limitations. Outside of subjugating the means of production to worker control and eliminating the price system, questions pertaining to the individual character of a communist society can't be answered without high levels of ambiguity. Most of the notions put forward thus far have a requirement of extensive outside intervention via the state - something I'm quite opposed to, given that it puts "communism" right beside all other forms of authoritarianism. At some extent, egalitarianism and meritocracy become unenforceable. Land use is such an area. We can't all live in Hollywood. Or, reversely, we can't all have Hollywood live with us.

The best remark I've read was made by JammyDodger: turn over empty houses (owned by the banks) to those that need it. If talking about a form of socialism that exists within the parameters of a state, it's not unreasonable to sweep aside rent via mortgage. But unless the circumstances allow for a complete overhaul (ie an economic depression), moving so quickly would be devastating to any existing market. While some might rejoice at the idea of a failed market, keep in mind if the people perceive it to be the fault of "communists," our movement is once again fucked.


Second homes will be out I guess, It will largely be organised within your local commune (though since we are Brits im going to start calling a commune a parish), with requests from the parish to government for material resources where housing shortfall occurs.

Who is going to dictate that second homes are "out?" And what constitutes a second home?

[mel]

Outside of subjugating the means of production to worker control and eliminating the price system, questions pertaining to the individual character of a communist society can't be answered without high levels of ambiguity.

But unless the circumstances allow for a complete overhaul (ie an economic depression), moving so quickly would be devastating to any existing market.

No prices, no markets.

[jake williams]

It's remarkable how decisively some users here doctor communism to be an authoritarian statue of limitations. Outside of subjugating the means of production to worker control and eliminating the price system, questions pertaining to the individual character of a communist society can't be answered without high levels of ambiguity. Most of the notions put forward thus far have a requirement of extensive outside intervention via the state - something I'm quite opposed to, given that it puts "communism" right beside all other forms of authoritarianism. At some extent, egalitarianism and meritocracy become unenforceable. Land use is such an area. We can't all live in Hollywood. Or, reversely, we can't all have Hollywood live with us.

The best remark I've read was made by JammyDodger: turn over empty houses (owned by the banks) to those that need it. If talking about a form of socialism that exists within the parameters of a state, it's not unreasonable to sweep aside rent via mortgage. But unless the circumstances allow for a complete overhaul (ie an economic depression), moving so quickly would be devastating to any existing market. While some might rejoice at the idea of a failed market, keep in mind if the people perceive it to be the fault of "communists," our movement is once again fucked.

I know where you're coming from, but I very much doubt many people would suggest this all happen at once. Yes, that probably would be devastating. At least personally, I'm coming from the perspective of "where are we trying to go" or "how would it look 'eventually'". It's hard to figure out that, and it's hard to figure out how to get there.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

No prices, no markets.

No individualism, no functional society.

[revolution inaction]

No individualism, no functional society.

Markets ≠ individualism

[mel]

No individualism, no functional society.

I don't see how this is at all relevent. Markets do not exist without a price system. You cannot be for abolishing the price system but keeping the markets. The two go hand in hand, your entire position is based on two mutually exclusive options:

1) no price system
2) functioning markets

You have to choose one or the other.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I don't see how this is at all relevent. Markets do not exist without a price system. You cannot be for abolishing the price system but keeping the markets. The two go hand in hand, your entire position is based on two mutually exclusive options:

1) no price system
2) functioning markets

You have to choose one or the other.

Whether purposeful or not, you have clearly misinterpreted my statements.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Markets ≠ individualism

You as well. I was referencing an earlier remark about inegalitarian housing promoting individualism. As if individualism is some curse to be avoided.

[mel]

You as well. I was referencing an earlier remark about inegalitarian housing promoting individualism. As if individualism is some curse to be avoided.

Your quote seemed to imply that socialism would abolish the price system yet retain housing markets because turning over houses owned by banks would "devastate the housing market", and that would "fuck our movement", which didn't make sense to me.

[revolution inaction]

You as well. I was referencing an earlier remark about inegalitarian housing promoting individualism. As if individualism is some curse to be avoided.




the one who wants to knock down expensive houses? he's an idiot. it does look from your post like you mean markets are necessary for individualism though.