Home Ownership

[AK]

Just some questions in general: (I'm a bit sketchy on the subject)
By owning land (that would presumably be used for construction of a house, etc.) are you a capitalist?
And how would the construction of homes work under a socialist (and later communist) society, who would own the home?

[FreeFocus]

Ownership is determined by use in this case. If you live in a house, it's your's. What is illegitimate is someone claiming to own a house merely by virtue of a piece of paper (a deed), when they don't live in the house - this applies to basically all of the capitalist real estate business.

[Raúl Duke]

I think by "owning land" doesn't exactly define you as a capitalist unless you set up this land towards something productive and set up exploitative social relationships (employ wage laborers) to work the land (land than becomes...I think...physical capital).

[AK]

But landlords are essentially capitalists, right?
And under a socialist system, how would the construction of homes be managed, would this be the job of a governing body or what?

[APathToTake]

I got a question similar to this from a friend recently.
She said, "What about the different sized homes? Who would decide in which home which people live?"
My response was that it would come down to need, more than anything else. But to be honest, I wasn't really sure how to respond.
Would larger house's (I'm talking mansion sized) be divided into some sort of shared house?

Any light shed on this, would be great.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ownership is determined by use in this case. If you live in a house, it's your's. What is illegitimate is someone claiming to own a house merely by virtue of a piece of paper (a deed), when they don't live in the house - this applies to basically all of the capitalist real estate business.

Isn't that just a carryover from the old feudal absentee landlordism?

[Quail]

I'm slightly intoxicated so my response might not make as much sense as I would like it to.

The distribution of houses would mostly be related to need, and also I guess to what's practical regarding a particular area/house. So if there were loads of small families and a massive house, then the massive house could make flats or whatever. I imagine that the residents of a space would have ownership of that space to an extent, but only so long as the community believed that was right. So for example, if a large family occupied a large house, and then most of the family moved out, that house could be used in a more productive way than housing the remainder of the family who lived there originally, so the community should have the right to propose that the space be used differently.

[FSL]

In socialism land is nationalized so housing construction will be part of the overall economy plan. Families can take ownership of their homes or pay a nominal rent for staying there. Home ownership in Cuba is very high I think, somewhere around 80-90%.

Regarding the size and quality of housing. If it's any indication of what might happen, after the russian revolution construction of mansions was outlawed. Everyone lived in flats that were not of course identical. Buildings that were given more attention (by getting carvings or bay windows) were reserved for important artists or WW2 heroes. Most of the other buildings were pretty plain. As productive forces increase, we'll be able to pay as much attention to any building, thus eliminating inequalities. Existing mansions were appropriated and put in use by the local communities in some way or the other, for example you could turn one in a museum or a library.

[AK]

In socialism land is nationalized so housing construction will be part of the overall economy plan. Families can take ownership of their homes or pay a nominal rent for staying there. Home ownership in Cuba is very high I think, somewhere around 80-90%.

Nationalising land...hmm... a lot of us are kinda against nationalisation... not wanting to return to the Eastern Bloc and all... isn't there some alternative?

[ArrowLance]

Just some questions in general: (I'm a bit sketchy on the subject)
By owning land (that would presumably be used for construction of a house, etc.) are you a capitalist?
And how would the construction of homes work under a socialist (and later communist) society, who would own the home?

Owning land only makes you a capitalist if you use that land to accumulate capital.

Homes under our society would, i should hope, be constructed and be owned by us communally. However, I am still sure some sort of paper work will be drawn to help legally defend the right to some privacy.

[F9]

Lots of people get to the false idea that communism is you own nothing, and everything is shared by anyone.Communism is to be able to give to everyone anything, not all share few things.
Your house is yours, your pc is yours, your car is yours its not a place that you can jump to the others house whenever you want.

The point of Communism is to give to everybody what they need, so not other people have more things than you, and if they do, it will be just because you didnt want or needed some things. Not all people want a Ferrari, lots could settle with a Golf:cool:, not all people want a pool etc.

And no, this dont makes you a capitalist, it makes you a human.

Fuserg9:star:

[AK]

Homes under our society would, i should hope, be constructed and be owned by us communally. However, I am still sure some sort of paper work will be drawn to help legally defend the right to some privacy.
That's what I was thinking, you don't want some intruder barging into your house claiming that it's under collective ownership and he can do whatever the fuck he wants with it.

[FSL]

Nationalising land...hmm... a lot of us are kinda against nationalisation... not wanting to return to the Eastern Bloc and all... isn't there some alternative?


Those of you who are against that can think of something better. I, favouring land nationalization, have little reason to look for an alternative.

[ROBOTROT]

By owning land (that would presumably be used for construction of a house, etc.) are you a capitalist?
And how would the construction of homes work under a socialist (and later communist) society, who would own the home?
Interesting question.

I actually think that home ownership can be seen as capital. Most individuals invest in homes these days both to live in them (i.e. use them), and with the expectation that they are an investment that will increase in value (i.e. to eventually exchange them at a higher price).

Now obviously that doesn't make home owners bourgeois because they aren't exploiting a workforce for their labour power. But I do think it can have a conservatising effect on the working class.

Think about it. If you've worked hard ploughing your wages into paying off a mortgage for twenty years, you may be less likely to be interested in levelling the whole economy so anyone can get a house for free. You're going to want your investment to get as big a return as possible so that it puts you one step ahead of everyone else. I think, therefore, that home ownership begins to blur the lines between the middle and working classes.

Now obviously if there is a financial crisis and houses are devalued or workers can't pay them off and have to foreclose, all that comes undone. But isn't this the predicament of the traditional capitalist lower middle class, who are always fearfully a breath away from falling into the working class? I even think this goes some way in explaining the state of the labour movement in places like the USA, Europe and Australia at the moment.


Nationalising land...hmm... a lot of us are kinda against nationalisation... not wanting to return to the Eastern Bloc and all... isn't there some alternative?
Nationalisation is a poor way to put it because it suggests a top down process of the state forcibly expropriating things from private individuals, a bit like if the government decided to buy out the banks (or the way the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, a lot of industry in Hitler's Germany, some of the US manufacturing sector during WW2, etc. was run). It usually means the transfer of power away from a ruling class of private individuals to a ruling class of state bureaucrats. I.e. it's basically another form of capitalism.

Socialism entails a democratic movement from below or it means nothing as far as I'm concerned. It would mean a radical decentralisation of control, not a centralisation to the state, no matter how benign it professes to me. This would look more like super-democratic local councils deciding things in the communities they effect and then relaying that into a central co-coordinating body than a centralised power decreeing everything down to the people from on high.

IMHO most likely, if there was a revolution, people would be able to keep their homes if they wanted and landlords would lose any right to charge rent for property they used to own. It would all be up to the democratic decision of the people of course, but I can't imagine anyone being forced out of their home unless either A) they had been part of the capitalist class and were living in a large house or mansion that was beyond their needs or B) they were living in crumby housing that was deemed unsuitable for living in (in which case I imagine they would be relocated to somewhere much better).

On the legal side though, things would change a lot. Title deeds wouldn't mean what they mean now. If there was a democratic decision to kick someone out of a home, then that would be binding. People would no longer own the home or the land in the capitalist sense, they would be permitted to live in it by the democracy. If someone tried to use that property to do things that undermined socialism (like accumulating capital), the democracy would need to prevent them from doing so. So if I hypothetically planted a bunch of fruit trees in my backyard and demanded people exchange with me more than what they cost to grow for the crop, the democracy would be within their rights to confiscate and redistribute whatever profits I had been able to make.

[AK]

Lots of people get to the false idea that communism is you own nothing, and everything is shared by anyone.Communism is to be able to give to everyone anything, not all share few things.
Your house is yours, your pc is yours, your car is yours its not a place that you can jump to the others house whenever you want.

The point of Communism is to give to everybody what they need, so not other people have more things than you, and if they do, it will be just because you didnt want or needed some things. Not all people want a Ferrari, lots could settle with a Golf:cool:, not all people want a pool etc.

And no, this dont makes you a capitalist, it makes you a human.

Fuserg9:star:
I understand the difference between private and personal property, Fuser. What this thread was about is would home owners be treated as landlords, because they own property that could potentially be used to create profits.

[F9]

I understand the difference between private and personal property, Fuser. What this thread was about is would home owners be treated as landlords, because they own property that could potentially be used to create profits.

Home owners?You mean people with many houses?If they dont use them, others will get inside.How can they make profit?By renting them?Obviously there is no such a possibility in Communism and those who will try practice capitalist measures will fail miserably.

So if i get your question right now, if someone has 10 houses, and only uses 1, yes he will be informed that as the others arent used by him, others are going to settle in who need them. But still there is no way anyone can make profit in communism.If someone makes profit, it aint communism.

Fuserg9:star:

[Dean]

Just some questions in general: (I'm a bit sketchy on the subject)
By owning land (that would presumably be used for construction of a house, etc.) are you a capitalist?
And how would the construction of homes work under a socialist (and later communist) society, who would own the home?

Not really. In owning a home, you develop equity. This is how it works:

In renting a home, you might spend 800%/mo in rent. You will never see this again. It goes to the property owner.

In a mortgaged home, you might spend 1200/mo in mortgage payments. half of this you will see again, be it by sale, reverse-mortgage or lien of your home, or some other transference.

In other words, buying a home allows you to save half of your payment each month, and eventually pay nothing but taxes on teh property (in a year, its about equivalent to one month of mortgage) - in the above example, you save 600$ a month.

This doesn't make you a capitalist. Even if you rent out an owned house, you are probably not making anything but petty capital. Petty-bourgeoise at worst.

[AK]

Home owners?You mean people with many houses?If they dont use them, others will get inside.How can they make profit?By renting them?Obviously there is no such a possibility in Communism and those who will try practice capitalist measures will fail miserably.

So if i get your question right now, if someone has 10 houses, and only uses 1, yes he will be informed that as the others arent used by him, others are going to settle in who need them. But still there is no way anyone can make profit in communism.If someone makes profit, it aint communism.

Fuserg9:star:
What if someone were to rent out a room in the house they live in?

[FSL]

Nationalisation is a poor way to put it because it suggests a top down process of the state forcibly expropriating things from private individuals, a bit like if the government decided to buy out the banks (or the way the Soviet Union, North Korea, China, a lot of industry in Hitler's Germany, some of the US manufacturing sector during WW2, etc. was run). It usually means the transfer of power away from a ruling class of private individuals to a ruling class of state bureaucrats. I.e. it's basically another form of capitalism.



If only one of you people could support these claims by any means possible instead of just making blind accusations ad nauseam...

[AK]

Those of you who are against that can think of something better. I, favouring land nationalization, have little reason to look for an alternative.
If you can tell me how the state can disappear after a long period where it owns all capital, then I might not hate nationalization so much.

[FSL]

If you can tell me how the state can disappear after a long period where it owns all capital, then I might not hate nationalization so much.


The army has no one to opress so it dissolves. Everyone has the necessary level of training and knowledge so any coordination needed is done by people who are elected or even randomly chosen.

For more details you could try reading some Marx maybe.

[AK]

The army has no one to opress so it dissolves. Everyone has the necessary level of training and knowledge so any coordination needed is done by people who are elected or even randomly chosen.

For more details you could try reading some Marx maybe.
Ah finally, an explanation that makes sense to simple-minded people like me. Thank you.

[F9]

What if someone were to rent out a room in the house they live in?

Who would be that crazy to go pay someone, when they can have a house for free, or a room?
Also how would s/he get paid?There wont be any money...

[bcbm]

i think individual/single family home "ownership" would drastically decline in communism. in some places, the us for example, there would also need to be a massive reorganization of communities as most suburbs are horribly built, which would further alter how living space is dealt with.

[AK]

Who would be that crazy to go pay someone, when they can have a house for free, or a room?
Also how would s/he get paid?There wont be any money...
Ah right... well what about the same under socialism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

there would also need to be a massive reorganization of communities as most suburbs are horribly built, which would further alter how living space is dealt with.Right - and I look forward to this a lot because if there's one thing in the US that shows how shitty profit-driven development is, it's the housing situation here.

I think people would probably want to design housing in a much more "campus" sort of way. So a group of homes or flats would surround a common area with things like a cafeteria, daycare, laundry services, rec area (please with a community movie theater!), pub, coffee/pot cafe and so on - all the necessities. This way the most people could enjoy the most luxuries (the kinds of things privatized now for the rich - cleaning and cooking services on demand) with the least amount of effort. You'd still have privacy and your own space, but you would also have social opportunities a short walk away.

Maybe this is just my fantasy. Probably just a reaction against the sprawling cities of California where you have to drive to get to a bar (kind of defeats the purpose) and most people stay at home watching TV in isolation and wasting the little free-time they have on preparing food, commuting, driving to supermarkets, and all the rest.

[Ovi]

Ah right... well what about the same under socialism?
The same thing. Why pay someone a rent when you can have it for free? I believe that even in a society that still uses money, some rights should be universal: healthcare, education, housing, even cars. It would not only improve everyone's lives but it's also more efficient. For instance, how much do you use your car each day? An hour? Two? In any case you pay for your car as of if you're using it 24 hours a day. A collective carsharing program would reduce the needs of cars many times as well as the huge number of parking lots where cars sit uselessly all day.

Right - and I look forward to this a lot because if there's one thing in the US that shows how shitty profit-driven development is, it's the housing situation here.

I think people would probably want to design housing in a much more "campus" sort of way. So a group of homes or flats would surround a common area with things like a cafeteria, daycare, laundry services, rec area (please with a community movie theater!), pub, coffee/pot cafe and so on - all the necessities. This way the most people could enjoy the most luxuries (the kinds of things privatized now for the rich - cleaning and cooking services on demand) with the least amount of effort. You'd still have privacy and your own space, but you would also have social opportunities a short walk away.

Maybe this is just my fantasy. Probably just a reaction against the sprawling cities of California where you have to drive to get to a bar (kind of defeats the purpose) and most people stay at home watching TV in isolation and wasting the little free-time they have on preparing food, commuting, driving to supermarkets, and all the rest.

I have a similar opinion. Housing, working, shopping, places to hang out with friends, laundry services, they should be integrated in a community that's built for the people. Or as Andre Gorz (http://rts.gn.apc.org/socid.htm) brilliantly says it in his criticism of the motorcar (saw this link posted the other day)
Meanwhile, what is to be done to get there? Above all, never make transportation an issue by itself. Always connect it to the problem of the city, of the social division of labour, and to the way this compartmentalises the many dimensions of life. One place for work, another for "living," a third for shopping, a fourth for learning, a fifth for entertainment. The way our space is arranged carries on the disintegration of people that begins with the division of labour in the factory. It cuts a person into slices, it cuts our time, our life, into separate slices so that in each one you are a passive consumer at the mercy of the merchants, so that it never occurs to you that work, culture, communication, pleasure, satisfaction of needs, and personal life can and should be one and the same thing: a unified life, sustained by the social fabric of the community.

[F9]

Ah right... well what about the same under socialism?

I cant answer that as i dont believe in the socialist stage.

[FSL]

Right - and I look forward to this a lot because if there's one thing in the US that shows how shitty profit-driven development is, it's the housing situation here.

I think people would probably want to design housing in a much more "campus" sort of way. So a group of homes or flats would surround a common area with things like a cafeteria, daycare, laundry services, rec area (please with a community movie theater!), pub, coffee/pot cafe and so on - all the necessities. This way the most people could enjoy the most luxuries (the kinds of things privatized now for the rich - cleaning and cooking services on demand) with the least amount of effort. You'd still have privacy and your own space, but you would also have social opportunities a short walk away.

Maybe this is just my fantasy. Probably just a reaction against the sprawling cities of California where you have to drive to get to a bar (kind of defeats the purpose) and most people stay at home watching TV in isolation and wasting the little free-time they have on preparing food, commuting, driving to supermarkets, and all the rest.


No, that's pretty much exactly how cities should be planned. There will need to be many building projects to provide decent housing to working class families in a number of countries. Making sure needs are met easily should define how we go on with them.

[ROBOTROT]

If only one of you people could support these claims by any means possible instead of just making blind accusations ad nauseam...
It would be useful to point out what exactly you disagree with.

[FSL]

It would be useful to point out what exactly you disagree with.


With the "rulling class of bureaucrats" who had no ownership of the means of production, very little control over them -and less as the time passed- no ownership of the products etc.

It makes sense to say that bureaucracy being unproductive remains a stratum which is in an antagonism with workers, in the same way bureaucracy is in an antagonism with -and yet obedient to- the bourgeoisie.
Having a better salary, even a significantly better salary, and large amounts of corruption is something that can happen today too without our societies stopping for one minute to be capitalist.
The levels of accountancy is a good indicator of the grip the working class (or the bourgeoisie) has in power but it's not a factor that defines the nature of a state.

[Uppercut]

I'd say you have the right to occupy and inhabit your home and that it cannot be searched without a warrant. However, the land it sits on belongs to everyone. So your community/neighborhood would share the land for growing crops, production, construction, etc.

You definately have the right to inhabit your home and the right the privacy. I believe if we all owned the land, we would start to become more of a "big happy family", so speak, and we would become closer to nature, our families, and our society. When you think about it, private property is simply invisible boundaries that do not serve the majority.

[syndicat]

By owning land (that would presumably be used for construction of a house, etc.) are you a capitalist?
And how would the construction of homes work under a socialist (and later communist) society, who would own the home?

Insofar as you just use a house to live in, it's merely a personal possession, if you own it. However, within capitalism, you can also make a profit on resale, if the market value has gone up. Of course, if you own a bunch of houses to make money from renting them, then you're a capitalist landlord.

But "ownership" of a house is a package of rights within capitalism. In principle they can be separated. For example, in the land trust I'm a member of, you own your apartment as part of a coop but when you sell it you can only get back the current value of the money you used to buy it (as measured by inflation). So you can't make a profit on resale. This is enforced by a "first right of refusal" in the land lease from the land trust. In other words, the apartment or house sits on land owned by the land trust (a community organization). It's ownership of the land enables it to prevent you from profiting from resale. This is a tactic to socialize ownership of land and housing independent of the state. You also pay a fee for use of the land, which supports the stewardship of the land trust over social housing.

Now, in principle under socialism people could "own" their homes in the sense of having a secure use right to it, have power to remodel it, are responsible for maintaining it, etc. But without any right to sell it on a market.

But if we consider provision of housing a social good, like health care, it is something the community as a whole could organize production of. So the social plan for an area might include such things as investment in construction of additional houses. There might be worker-run construction organizations that would build the houses for us. There might also be housing exchanges to arrange with worker orgs to build the houses, to provide info to people seeking housing on all available digs, etc. When you move away from your house, you'd just give the keys back to the housing exchange, and they'd find someone else to live in it.

We could call this "owning a house" if we wanted to, as long as we understand you wouldn't have the right to just go and sell it for a profit. In this case the house becomes merely a personal possession, like your ownership of your shoes or your car (if you own one).

[GPDP]

Heh, funny thing. My dad is about to buy an acre of land, and he plans to put a mobile home of some kind on it to rent it out.

It hasn't even been a year since we bought the house we're living on (which we had been renting for years). Now we're gonna be landlords...

Wow, looks like I'm gonna be petit-bourgeois soon.

[AK]

Heh, funny thing. My dad is about to buy an acre of land, and he plans to put a mobile home of some kind on it to rent it out.

It hasn't even been a year since we bought the house we're living on (which we had been renting for years). Now we're gonna be landlords...

Wow, looks like I'm gonna be petit-bourgeois soon.
*cough* Traitor. I mean, what?

[GPDP]

*cough* Traitor. I mean, what?

Not like I have a say in it. I'm only a student at this point working under my father.

So... technically, I'm still working class, since I, myself, don't own any capital or land. It's my father that does. I just happen to live with him.

And don't worry, I get into plenty of arguments with my dad because of my leftist convictions. :)

[AK]

Not like I have a say in it. I'm only a student at this point working under my father.

So... technically, I'm still working class, since I, myself, don't own any capital or land. It's my father that does. I just happen to live with him.

And don't worry, I get into plenty of arguments with my dad because of my leftist convictions. :)
If you inherit that capital, you might just end up on the wrong end of a bullet soon :tongue_smilie: