Communism and home ownership

[CynicalIdealist]

My parents have this idea that when the communist revolution happens in America, they'll be forced to give their two story home to the state by gunpoint. They often cite people they know from Cuba/Vietnam who had this experience, but I've always thought that this was only the experience of large land/property owners? Isn't it only the means of production that are expropriated? I know for a fact that many homeless people have to look across the street at vacant homes that they can't live in, so don't we have more than enough ways to accommodate the entire population upon expropriating the capitalists?

And can anyone elaborate on the horror stories of people being forced to "give up their stuff" by gunpoint in "communist" regimes?

[Red Rabbit]

Under true Communism, you keep your home.

[Decolonize The Left]

My parents have this idea that when the communist revolution happens in America, they'll be forced to give their two story home to the state by gunpoint. They often cite people they know from Cuba/Vietnam who had this experience, but I've always thought that this was only the experience of large land/property owners? Isn't it only the means of production that are expropriated? I know for a fact that many homeless people have to look across the street at vacant homes that they can't live in, so don't we have more than enough ways to accommodate the entire population upon expropriating the capitalists?

And can anyone elaborate on the horror stories of people being forced to "give up their stuff" by gunpoint in "communist" regimes?

No one is going to take your parents home from them.

Theoretically speaking, what your parents fear is 'land redistribution,' whereby a 'socialist/communist' government seizes land/factories/means of production from private owners and redistributes it according to some plan. So if your parents owned 150 acres of land, much of which was arable, they might fear that the people who live on no land nearby might come and take that land for themselves.
No one is going to take the actual home from your parents, at least not reasonably.

As for the housing issue, yes, there is ample housing available for everyone at the moment. Simply put, the laws of private property and capitalist accumulation of wealth eliminate a reasonable possibility for universal housing.

- August

[RedMarxist]

same. My parents think that their house will be taken from them by Communist Party officials.

I tried explaining to them that only the big economically viable property will be seized, but they argue that is wrong as the rich people who owned the land worked hard to obtain it so they deserve it.

Any ways to refute this and calm their fears?

Communism goes directly against their line of thinking. A two story house, a firm belief in Capitalism and it's tenants etc etc.

I mean after all, there are millions without healthcare and millions more who are homeless against their will, but hey, according to them that's just the way it is and always will be.

[thriller]

The house was built by labor, and therefore your parents have a right to it because they compensated the people who built it. If they are not using the house in a way that forces people to sell their labor for a wage, and therefore making a profit, I don't see anyone even wanting to take it. As the OP mentioned, it would just be the actual productive instruments of society that would be seized. As far as land goes, well that was not built by labor, and so no one can really own it. There is a difference between private property and personal commodities.

As far as RedMarxist's question... Rarely do people who own large tracts of land and factories work to get it. In the cases that they do, if they are profiting off of the work of others, they are not working hard, they are hardly working, since they have the capital to hire laborers to do the work for them.

[Conscript]

The only homes that should be seized are ones rented out, because those houses arent used by their owners. Communists have no interest in your personal property, private property on the other hand...

[Revolution starts with U]

What gives a 2 parent 1 child home any right to have 6 bedrooms in the first place while others live on the streets or in rundown outdated unpassable (in inspections) housing?

But no. As long as the house does not infringe upon the reasonable functionings of the community, they have nothing to fear.

[Yugo45]

And can anyone elaborate on the horror stories of people being forced to "give up their stuff" by gunpoint in "communist" regimes?

My family's house (mother's side) had a huge house, but only one person (brother of my great grandfather) lived in it at a time (when communist gained power, after WW2). So they took the house and gave it to a bigger family (7 of them, which by then lived in a 3 room house). Great grandfather's bro in exchange got to live in that three room house, so it was like an exchange, really.

Most of my family didn't have a problem with that "exchange", but some whine today (mostly those who weren't around at the time) about how commie bastards dared to take away their tradition, their old houses.. They are the family outcasts, though :lol:

So, in short, no, communists (at least Yugoslav ones) didn't force people out on the street by gunpoint. Especially not for no reason.

[Sputnik_1]

well, i doubt they would have to give their house away... but honestly... do a small family need so much space? :/
In a communist society everyone would get as much as they need and if they believe they still need a big house then I don't see why shouldn't they keep it.
Personally, if i had a huge house with lot of space i don't really need i think that a big family would make a better use of it then me and i'd rather live in a small flat that meets my needs.

[Искра]

So, in short, no, communists (at least Yugoslav ones) didn't force people out on the street by gunpoint. Especially not for no reason.
Wrong, they did and it was based on ethnical background, as they kicked a lot of German (no matter if they were on Axis side or in partisans), Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian people out. Maybe you consider that a good reason, but I don’t share your opinion.

[graymouser]

If your parents have rental property, then there is a chance it will be granted to the tenants as their home. But other than that, socialism will involve nationalization of the banks, not of people's houses. It's likely that we would be able to forgive some or all of their mortgage debt, if they have any.

Now, there are urban planning questions that arise with a transition to socialism - specifically, trying to move people into ecologically sustainable housing and out of their existing homes, and in the US at least to get rid of (or restructure) the whole suburb/exurb system. But this would need to be a voluntary process, and would likely take place over a whole period (i.e. moving people into ecological housing when their current housing is in disrepair or when children move out of their parents' homes, etc).

[Yugo45]

Wrong, they did and it was based on ethnical background, as they kicked a lot of German (no matter if they were on Axis side or in partisans), Hungarian, Italian and Bulgarian people out. Maybe you consider that a good reason, but I don’t share your opinion.

Okay, well, I was making a conclusion from "personal" experiance, guess it wasn't same everywhere.

[RedRose]

Unless your parents live in a comically oversized mansion when it's just a 3 people family, then no it won't be taken away. And even if their personal property is confiscated, it will be an exchange and they will still have a good home to suit their needs.



And Bill Gates was told to quit his whining
When he said it wasn't fair
And his mansion became a collective farm
After the revolution


Just to quote your signature Yugo45, that's basically what will happen. Bill Gates will be removed and have his land put to good use, but your parents will likely keep their house.

[Nox]

Here's a short poem I write about home ownership in Communism:

After the revolution
The government will control everything
Not even a grain of salt will belong to the people
Everyone will be a slave
And live on the bare minimum
You will have to wait 5 hours in a queue for a loaf of bread
And if you don't give everything to the government, you will be dead!


LOL jk im not a bolshevik
;)

[enoon]

If your parents have rental property, then there is a chance it will be granted to the tenants as their home. But other than that, socialism will involve nationalization of the banks, not of people's houses. It's likely that we would be able to forgive some or all of their mortgage debt, if they have any.

Now, there are urban planning questions that arise with a transition to socialism - specifically, trying to move people into ecologically sustainable housing and out of their existing homes, and in the US at least to get rid of (or restructure) the whole suburb/exurb system. But this would need to be a voluntary process, and would likely take place over a whole period (i.e. moving people into ecological housing when their current housing is in disrepair or when children move out of their parents' homes, etc).
Whats wrong with suburbs?

[RedMarxist]

Whats wrong with suburbs? Suburbs are the epitome of Capitalism. Based on whether or not the housing market is going strong or not, developers lop down a few hundred trees, put up more housing then is actually needed based on whether or not people will actually buy the houses or not, and hope to make a profit.

Before '08's housing bubble collapse, housing was popping up like crazy. Now, at least where I live, there are a bunch of unsold homes just laying there at half their original price. its bad for business.

in a nutshell, anarchy of the market. The market doesn't plan at all ahead to make sure it doesn't implode in on itself. It acts as if times will always be good, and overproduces housing.

But, I think it would be a bad idea to repeat what the Soviet Union tried which was getting rid of *all* private property and shoving everyone inside run down, subsidized apartments to "promote total equality."

But I do agree that voluntarily over time suburbanization should be dismantled. But of course, there is always the issue of people being so used to Capitalism in America, that they may not want to part with their million dollar mansions and "small mansions".

Why should a family consisting of two parents and one child have six or seven bed rooms. I can understand three bedrooms(one child bedroom, one parent bedroom, and one guest bed room) but anymore us crazy and wasteful.

[carlk]

Suburbs are the epitome of Capitalism. Based on whether or not the housing market is going strong or not, developers lop down a few hundred trees, put up more housing then is actually needed based on whether or not people will actually buy the houses or not, and hope to make a profit.

Before '08's housing bubble collapse, housing was popping up like crazy. Now, at least where I live, there are a bunch of unsold homes just laying there at half their original price. its bad for business.

in a nutshell, anarchy of the market. The market doesn't plan at all ahead to make sure it doesn't implode in on itself. It acts as if times will always be good, and overproduces housing.

But, I think it would be a bad idea to repeat what the Soviet Union tried which was getting rid of *all* private property and shoving everyone inside run down, subsidized apartments to "promote total equality."

But I do agree that voluntarily over time suburbanization should be dismantled. But of course, there is always the issue of people being so used to Capitalism in America, that they may not want to part with their million dollar mansions and "small mansions".

Why should a family consisting of two parents and one child have six or seven bed rooms. I can understand three bedrooms(one child bedroom, one parent bedroom, and one guest bed room) but anymore us crazy and wasteful.
Wastefull? If it is what people want it cannot be considered wastefull. And suburbs dont have to have more houses than needed, that is a trait of capitalism, not suburbs.

[Revolution starts with U]

Wastefull? If it is what people want it cannot be considered wastefull..

That's not true. Some people want to smoke blunts. That is pretty damn wasteful. Bongs get you higher on less weed :thumbup1:

[DragonDrop]

Another thing about suburbs is that there's a lot of land per person, and that land could probably be put to better use as farmland. Also there's always the fact that the expansion of suburban mcmansion style housing results in much more deforestation than comparable expansion in smaller houses or apartments.

[thriller]

Another problem with suburbs is the way they are developed. Many are plotted out and construction is done BEFORE they go up for sale. This means, for many families, they have to choose from pre-built, large scale houses. Many working families choose this pre-conceived lifestyle due to the alternative. Rather than letting people create the structure of their own environment, they are forced to choose something built simply to create a profit.

[miltonwasfried...man]

It is private property that should be outlawed, not possessions. A house is your place of comfort and isn't hurting anyone else. Yeah if you live in some huge mansion on an large piece of land, some redistribution may have to come in effect but otherwise I don't see the point seizing anyone's house. Let us take over the factories and farms, leave people's homes alone.