Making the transition: What stays and what goes?

[Octavian]

As per the title my question about communism/socialism is what do we do with things left over from capitalism and what how do we sort things like cars and guitars for example.

Example 1. A person lives in a medium sized house(Person V) in an area where most people live in smaller sized houses, then the revolution comes. Does Person V's house get bull dozed and replaced with a smaller one or does everyone get medium sized houses?
Another question along this line I have is, would everyone have the same model of house?

Example 2. Will all cars be scraped to make one kind of car that everyone drives. Also what about things of preferences like guitars, would we still see companies that would work in smaller numbers and get funded based on application and use public factories to produce these things or would there just be one type of guitar(or anything of variety).

[The Man]

What will be gone in the death of Capitalism? Well all Classes, the State, Hierarchy, and Imperialism. Now I don't know if anything will be physically 'destroyed', except for some monuments or something.

Referring to Example 1, No his house will not get bulldozed :D. If he and his family need a place to live, they will continue to live there. Anarchists/Communists/Marxists are not in favor of Equality of Outcome, therefore we do not support people always getting the same houses, goods, and services.

Referring to Example 2, Cars will also not be scraped up :lol:. Remember, their are different communities that have different demands, and different Workers all over the world that will build different things. Oh, and there would be no such thing as funding. There would be no such thing as money.

[mikelepore]

The question seems to confuse having different models of products with having different companies. Society could have one central guitar manufacturing operation and still have a thousand different models of guitars. The matter of having separate companies, or having no companies, is the matter of who provides the management and the funding. Having a policy of putting a wide variety into the products is a separate issue.

The socialism is in having a system where the people can decide things. The socialism isn't in, after the people are allowed to decide, which particular decisions they will make.

[Rooster]

I think we'd get rid of all of the useless jobs (the ones that create no use-values such as being a janitor). Then, employ all of the unemployed, spread them out over all jobs and all hours. So we'd get total number of people divided by hours. This means that people will bed working something like an hour a day or so. But we keep open all of the existing routes that commodities go between. So if you're making TVs all of the TVs still go to the TV store. Because money is abolished then we can all just go to the stores and pick out what we want and go back home again.

[Octavian]

A. Referring to Example 1, No his house will not get bulldozed :D. If he and his family need a place to live, they will continue to live there. Anarchists/Communists/Marxists are not in favor of Equality of Outcome, therefore we do not support people always getting the same houses, goods, and services.

B. Referring to Example 2, Cars will also not be scraped up :lol:. Remember, their are different communities that have different demands, and different Workers all over the world that will build different things. Oh, and there would be no such thing as funding. There would be no such thing as money.

A. Wouldn't this still be somewhat of a class structure due to the bourgeoisie still having their pristine mansions and drive fancy cars etc. Meanwhile the poor would continue to live in small houses, tenements or subsidized housing. Wouldn't this be seen as causing tension and in the aftermath of a communist/socialist revolution would the response to poor be essentially "deal with it"?

B. So overtime would communities meld together forming larger and larger communities based on the productivity and capacity of the workers to mange and meet the needs of the community? As for the part about funding I was referring to the supplying of resources to someone or a group so that they could do something like create a new kind of car, airplane, phone, guitar, shoe, etc.

[Jose Gracchus]

It would soonly be unsustainable for bourgeois to continue living in their large mansions. Large homes and mansions are very impractically maintained on their own - most bourgeois families employ small armies of landscapers, painters, maids, lawnmowermen, etc. In a society after the revolution, the labor market would obviously be suppressed. Furthermore, bourgeois would be obliged to pay property taxes on their property without the benefit of exploiting others' labor. For both reasons, bourgeois would probably end having to vacate their homes. Surely there's an oversupply of mansions, but some could plausibly be occupied by the very companies of servants etc. that the bourgeois used to employ so that they may be re-purposed as vacation bed-and-breakfasts or the like, for workers. Others, in the interim, could be used to solve housing shortages, and be temporary dormitories for homeless and refugee workers.

It is a difficult question: in the United States, civil society, urban planning, the labor market - the most casual aspects of society have been so extensively deformed from rational dedication to use (20% of American homes are currently empty, for example) by the forces of mad capital accumulation, that there would certainly have to be a major period of rational "reconstruction". Simply the absurd suburban model of development, which is highly unsustainable and inefficient, serves no social purpose other than for the bourgeois to isolate themselves and the most skilled workers, coordinators, and largely whites, from responsibility in the greater urban community by which they are connected by employment. This will need to be abolished.

[jmpeer]

I think there will be conflict between the lower and upper middle class. The difference between the two has been growing increasingly more apparent in recent decades. It's a different experience to live in a town house with three to six kids versus a near million dollar single house with one or two kids. It's a different experience to have to take the bus, work, and take loans to pay for your own clothes, car, and college versus having parents who can buy these things for you. It's a very different experience, indeed. I don't think the lower middle class will tolerate these milder but still apparent inequalities. And for that reason, I disagree, I don't think you could just not bulldoze and let those people live in that larger house. Leave it to chance, and chance will teach you a thing or two about the tendencies of men. There needs to be some redistribution of property and planning of new, more equal, sustainable, and desirable urban developments.