Big Houses

[The Man]

My brother asked me today about Anarcho-Communism, and asked "Would people be able to get big houses still?" And I couldn't really answer his question. Maybe you guys can help, what would you say?

[Rêve Rouge]

To house a big family, I suppose it would be reasonable. Other than that I'm not sure. Assuming a hypothetical anarchist society, I think you would be able to, since there wouldn't be any "authority" to stop you.

[Sensible Socialist]

It depends by his definition of big. Hopefully, houses become more energy-efficient, without much of the wasted space people tend to value. I think houses could become radically different, even, especially if they are connected more with the surroundings and nature.

No one can truly answer the question without knowing exactly what is meant by big houses, but I would assume that ten-bedroom, ten-car, private-lake homes would not exist.

[Rêve Rouge]

No one can truly answer the question without knowing exactly what is meant by big houses, but I would assume that ten-bedroom, ten-car, private-lake homes would not exist.

Private lake homes ceasing to exist I understand.

But what if someone wants to have the others you stated? Would it be their right to have said ten-bedroom, ten-car homes? I know they won't need it, but I'm pretty sure there are people out there that do want it.

[Sensible Socialist]

Private lake homes ceasing to exist I understand.

But what if someone wants to have the others you stated? Would it be their right to have said ten-bedroom, ten-car homes? I know they won't need it, but I'm pretty sure there are people out there that do want it.
I'm talking in a scarcity society. Assuming that the materials used to build the home would come from the local workers group associated with getting and dispening those materials, how would they be able to give out ten-bedroom (or any large mega-home in general) to all people that want them?

Right now, home sizes are kept low because of lack of finances. However, when that is not a problem, I tend to think that people will want more, and will take more, if the option is avalaible. But there is not enough room, or materials/energy I assume, to allow every citizen to construct the home of their dreams.

But I would also like to state that the conception of homes could, and should, change drastically after a revolution. The box style of homes could give way to more eco-friendly homes, built around and into nature. Threre are probably some great pictures online of homes built right into nature. I'll try to find some, but they're a better alternative than creating mega-structures with ridiculous amounts of wasted space.

[FreeFocus]

Assuming your brother isn't a child, I think the fact that he seriously asked this speaks to his class position or, at least, class consciousness. Working-class people around the world live in anywhere from shacks to slums to small apartments that house their families and several relatives to two or multi-family homes. Working-class people don't live in mansions (if you know of any, feel free to post; by any means, it's no more than a minute percentage of the working-class).

Look, there's NO reason why anyone needs a 109-room house to live in. None. In a socialist society, given proper planning and rational use of resources, people will have enough living space to be comfortable. You won't be crammed, but it won't (and shouldn't) be a 109-room mansion. What constitutes comfortable will depend on the person's needs, if they have a family or not (and its size), etc. Communities would have to deal with this individually though.

[The Man]

Okay so what would stop people from having 100 room houses, if there is no government?

[Widerstand]

Okay so what would stop people from having 100 room houses, if there is no government?

Well if you want to build a 100 room house by yourself I guess you are free to do so? Don't complain about squatters after you're done.

[FreeFocus]

If people in a communist society want mansions, they need to chop down the wood or acquire the materials and build it themselves. Full stop. We shouldn't be replicating the wastefulness seen in capitalism.

What would stop people is that building a mansion yourself is cost-prohibitive: do you want to invest all of your time and labor for years into doing that? If so, enjoy your mansion. I have a feeling this would be so uncommon that it doesn't really warrant consideration right now.

[Sensible Socialist]

Okay so what would stop people from having 100 room houses, if there is no government?
There is government, even in anarchy. There is not a powerful state, but to think people would be running around without any sort of form and order is a sadly typical view of anarchism.

Not to mention, who will build it? Slaves? Yourself? With what materials? If you want to spend thirty years cutting and hauling lumber, bricks, and other materials, you probably deserve a mansion. But I doubt anyone would want to spend their life like that.

[Rêve Rouge]

But I would also like to state that the conception of homes could, and should, change drastically after a revolution. The box style of homes could give way to more eco-friendly homes, built around and into nature. Threre are probably some great pictures online of homes built right into nature. I'll try to find some, but they're a better alternative than creating mega-structures with ridiculous amounts of wasted space.

I agree. Have you seen stilt houses before? They're quite interesting. They can built on land and on water! I think they would be pretty useful for fishers and farmers.

Something like this:http://home.swipnet.se/dahlins/bilder/prakan.jpg

[Sensible Socialist]

These are pretty cool as well.
http://www.greenprophet.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/underground-cave-homes-9.jpg
http://www.mnn.com/sites/default/files/user-36/DaleHouse.jpg

[The Man]

There is government, even in anarchy. There is not a powerful state, but to think people would be running around without any sort of form and order is a sadly typical view of anarchism.



So whats the difference between government and the state?

[Diello]

This probably isn't what the original asker had in mind, but in parecon a group of people could pool their resources to build a big house which would used communally.

[electro_fan]

of course people would be able to live in better conditions than currently, which includes a larger degree of living space etc, but surely people having 100+-room houses would just create more inequality again?

[Rêve Rouge]

So whats the difference between government and the state?

From Webster's Dictionary

Government: "The organization, machinery, or agency through which a political unit exercises authority and performs functions and which is usually classified according to the distribution of power within it."

This political unit may take in form of a president, to a confederation of workers' councils.

According to Max Weber

State: "An organization with an effective monopoly on the use of legitimate violence in a particular geographic area."

According to Karl Marx

State: "An institution used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

We can see here that the state is a political entity that is used to enforce the laws, plans and goals of the government. All to maintain social order.

[Sensible Socialist]

So whats the difference between government and the state?
Government is not bad. Government could simply be direct democracy, as people vote on laws that must be followed. It's how people shape the society they live in. The state, on the other hand, is a powerful tool used by a minority in order to keep power out of the hands of a majority. Anarachists favor the former, not the latter.

[dernier combat]

So whats the difference between government and the state?
A government is any entity that governs (the exact quantity of individuals with decision-making power is irrelevant to the definition of a government). A lot (most? all?) of anarchists are of the opinion that the state constitutes a centralised political authority, which is used to maintain class rule by defending the mutual interests of all the ruling class. I feel the centralised aspect is important in this definition because, from every angle from which we have criticised the state, all our criticisms have been based around the observation that the state has so far only ever manifested itself as a centralised body. A "state" of workers' councils or communes would bear very little resemblance to a centralised state (take, for example, the capitalist state, whose decision-making power comes from just a few hundred represenatatives). The workers' "state" would not act in an authoritarian manner toward its own citizens, tax them, conscript them or remove them from direct control of the "state" apparatus. Some proponents of a workers' state say that the state would suppress internal counter-revolutionary elements. My understanding is that, very soon after a genuine workers' revolution, the old class system (complete with the counter-revolutionary capitalist classes) in the given area, which is by now under workers' control, would be gone and there would therefore be no need to suppress internal capitalists as there wouldn't actually be any.

[The Man]

Is it possible that this government can be self-government?

[malthusela]

Is it possible that this government can be self-government?

In an Anarchist society, any government would be 'self government.' Anything else would require some heirachy, or external authority. Thus making in not anarchist.

[The Man]

In an Anarchist society, any government would be 'self government.' Anything else would require some heirachy, or external authority. Thus making in not anarchist.


So this government would be Individual Government, for example, i rule over my life?

[malthusela]

Um, are you an individualist? In any case, nobody will have rule over your life. As a base in An anarchist community, you would have no superiors to control you. However, you would undoubtedly have communally accepted roles. If you did not follow these, you could be kicked out of said community.