Tranportation?

[NorwegianCommunist]

In a socialist country, what would transportation be like?
Would the bus be free? and would cars get more expensive because of the Co2 and gasses that harms the envirorment.

Where does socialism stand on this? :D

[Psy]

In a socialist country, what would transportation be like?
Would the bus be free? and would cars get more expensive because of the Co2 and gasses that harms the envirorment.

Where does socialism stand on this? :D
Well from the perspective of planned economy for utility transportation would mean a focus on moving people rather then making a surplus value from the commodity of transportation.

[Zulu]

Short answer, Yes.

Some modest fares on public transportation should remain for some time probably, to prevent abuse.

And private ownership of cars should be banned at some point in the course of socialist construction, because automobile is obviously a mean of production.

[#FF0000]

And private ownership of cars should be banned at some point in the course of socialist construction, because automobile is obviously a mean of production.

No.

I would also love for you to live somewhere like my area and try to get by without a car.

[Zulu]

No.

Yes.




I would also love for you to live somewhere like my area and try to get by without a car.
Public cab.

And anyway, you won't recognize "your area" after a couple of decades of socialist construction.

And anyway, personal transportation will remain, but will not be private. Those in actual need of a VW "Bug" class vehicle or a 4x4 Jeep will be allocated one, of course.

[Franz Fanonipants]

i think that there will have to be different schemes and organization of transportation depending on geographical/transportation needs.

in some places, cooperative car ownership would probably be a good thing. perhaps a community could work on improving local transportation (i know that park and ride systems are pretty solid in the rural area i live in and am originally from) with a sort of cooperative car letting service for long distance driving.

i don't know. ultimately a lot of this shit is arguing about angels dancing on the heads of pins.

[#FF0000]

Yes.

No, cars are not a means of production. I'm sorry.


Public cab.

okay so there won't be personal cars for some reason but there will be garages full of public cabs to ferry people from place to place at their beck and call.

There would probably have to be a lot of these garages around the entire area if you would want it to be in any way convenient.

And you'll have tons of people whose job it is to just sit around and wait in a cab all day.

Why? It's totally unnecessary and is actually a barrier for people. What's wrong with having personal transporation?


And anyway, you won't recognize "your area" after a couple of decades of socialist construction.


How so? Is everyone gonna live in an urban area under communism? I don't think so, guy.


And anyway, personal transportation will remain, but will not be private. Those in actual need of a VW "Bug" class vehicle or a 4x4 Jeep will be allocated one, of course.

hahahahahahahahahahahahhaa

[Red Noob]

There is no doubt that a massive change in transportation and such is to come about. Assuming peak oil is a valid theory, we'll eventually have to lean to more electricity-based modes of transport and such.

Under socialism, it would be nice if we could do away with the making of those god awful isolated upper-class neighborhoods that are 20 miles from the closest town that are purposely designed to make you oil slaves.

[Rooster]

I think you have to get over this whole notion of buying stuff, NorwegianCommunist. I don't see a problem with everyone having cars. Technology is bound to improve and it's really the automotive industry right now (and the oil industry) that's kinda holding it back. But, when the means of production are being held in common, then you won't get any rush hour. Imagine that. No big queues of traffic. I personally would like to see public transport expanded. There's a lot of routes that have been discontinued in my area because they present little profit and there's places that really need routes and new infrastructure. The subway system here, for example, hasn't changed much since it was first made (and it's the third oldest subway in the world). That could really do with expansion. And it really should if more people are expected to use it. Trains could be made longer and stuff like that.

And cars are not a means of production. What do you produce when you own a car?

[NorwegianCommunist]

Why is there no rush hour during communism, Rooster?
:D

[Zulu]

No, cars are not a means of production. I'm sorry.

I am not sorry, and transportation is a very important part of the social production process. Hence, the private means of transportation are private means of production. Even if used for entertainment, a car is indistinguishable from, say, a merry-go-round in the city park, so, means of production, period.






okay so there won't be personal cars for some reason but there will be garages full of public cabs to ferry people from place to place at their beck and call.

There would probably have to be a lot of these garages around the entire area if you would want it to be in any way convenient.

And you'll have tons of people whose job it is to just sit around and wait in a cab all day.
And no. Under socialism public cab service (which will supplement the main transit system) will be organized so that the drivers and other garage personnel will be busy the entire work day.





Why? It's totally unnecessary and is actually a barrier for people. What's wrong with having personal transporation?
Nothing is wrong with it if you really need it. However, even if you have to use it, you don't have to legally own it. And it's completely wrong to have it just because you feel like it, and your capitalist shared with you some of his profits from exploiting a hundred of 12-year-old T-shirt-makers in some Guatemala or other, so that you could buy that car and would not try to overthrow him.





How so? Is everyone gonna live in an urban area under communism? I don't think so, guy.

You should really read up on some Marxism-Leninism. Abolition of difference between the city and the countryside is one of the basic theoretical requirements for communism. So yeah, everybody will live in areas of the same type under communism, which will be "rurban", so to say.

I would imagine many small towns (10-30 thousands of residents) connected by a network of maglev railroads. Also, as physical health will be a big deal, many people will choose bicycles as their primary means of daily transportation in those towns.

Of course, some remote outposts and stations in tundra and deserts and whatnot will remain, with probably some people choosing them as their permanent places of residence, but that'll be more of an exception than of a rule.





hahahahahahahahahahahahhaa
Glad to see communism is such a funny thing to live in!



.

[#FF0000]

I am not sorry, and transportation is a very important part of the social production process. Hence, the private means of transportation are private means of production. Even if used for entertainment, a car is indistinguishable from, say, a merry-go-round in the city park, so, means of production, period.

What does a car produce?

And even if they did produce anything, that doesn't mean one can't just have one for personal use -- same with stoves, sewing machines, and computers.


And no. Under socialism public cab service (which will supplement the main transit system) will be organized so that the drivers and other garage personnel will be busy the entire work day.

Oh boy drudgery.


and your capitalist shared with you some of his profits from exploiting a hundred of 12-year-old T-shirt-makers in some Guatemala or other, so that you could buy that car and would not try to overthrow him.

What



You should really read up on some Marxism-Leninism. Abolition of difference between the city and the countryside is one of the basic theoretical requirements for communism. So yeah, everybody will live in areas of the same type under communism, which will be "rurban", so to say.

Sounds more like 'urban sprawl' to me but okay.


Glad to see communism is such a funny thing to live in!


I just think your big dumb vision of communism as early 20th century War Socialism is funny. It's 2012. Production techniques are as such that producing a wide range of personal vehicles would be easy as hell and even if someone was the type to worry about carbon footprint, who cares because then we can produce a million different-looking cars based on the Tesla Roadster engine or something.

[Rooster]

Why is there no rush hour during communism, Rooster?
:D

When the means of production are held in common, then there is no common time when everyone has to get to work in the morning and then to leave in the afternoon. Does it make sense to get up at 6am every day just go get to work? No, capitalism compels people to get up at that time in the morning. What I'm saying is, people can get to work whenever they want. It won't be a uniform time that would create a build up in traffic.

[Bostana]

I figure that Public Transportation like buses would be free, yes

[Psy]

And cars are not a means of production. What do you produce when you own a car?
Transportation capacity, for example when it sits in a parking lot for 8 hours at a workplace it is wasted transportation capacity.

[Rooster]

Transportation capacity, for example when it sits in a parking lot for 8 hours at a workplace it is wasted transportation capacity.

I ask again, what do cars produce?

[Psy]

I ask again, what do cars produce?
Transportation capacity, the capacity to transport people and objects, just like trains or do you not think trains are means of production?

[Rooster]

Transportation capacity, the capacity to transport people and objects, just like trains or do you not think trains are means of production?

Is distribution a means of production?

[Psy]

Is distribution a means of production?
If it is not then railway capitalists would have no property in the Marxist sense as they own the means to transport.

[Rooster]

If it is not then railway capitalists would have no property in the Marxist sense as they own the means to transport.

What about personal cars, though? Like what I was asking. Does a taxi driver create surplus value or is their labour unnecessary? Distribution is secondary to the means of production, where the transportation of goods are of concern which wasn't what the topic was. Does McDonalds ship out all of their burgers from a single factory?

[Zulu]

Is distribution a means of production?

If understood as delivering stuff to the end user, then it's part of the production process and usually involves the means of production specific to this task.

[Rooster]

If understood as delivering stuff to the end user, then it's part of the production process and usually involves the means of production specific to this task.

Distribution is not a part of the production process. Does individual ownership of cars make anything? If me and a couple of buddies drove across the country to the beach, does that make anything?

[Psy]

What about personal cars, though? Like what I was asking. Does a taxi driver create surplus value or is their labour unnecessary? Distribution is secondary to the means of production, where the transportation of goods are of concern which wasn't what the topic was. Does McDonalds ship out all of their burgers from a single factory?
The problem is without means of transportation resources can't be move to means of production were they are transformed into commodities and those commodities can't get to market, also labor can't get to means of production to partake in the production process.

With Personal cars it is the owner using their own labor to create the utility of mobility, yet the mechanization of their labor in this case is bound to them thus can't be utilized by other labor. It is like industrial workers of the first shift took all the machines home with them after the shift and the next shift found themselves in a factory with no means of production.

[StalinFanboy]

It really creeps me out when so-called "communists" imagine a world where everything is even more efficient than the capitalist hell-hole we already live in. This is not to say that I want a world in which the work we do is less efficient, requiring more of our labor, but that I want a world where work as such does not exist.

The reason why public transportation exists is to get people (read: commodities) from one place of commerce to another, or from work to home, as efficiently as possible. I just don't see the necessity of high speed, mass transportation in a communist world. The problem with it all is that it says nothing about our need to go slow, to not be bound by schedules that break up our days into ridiculously small amounts of time, and reduce our lives to a 7 day loop.

[Psy]

Distribution is not a part of the production process. Does individual ownership of cars make anything? If me and a couple of buddies drove across the country to the beach, does that make anything?
If you came across a idling bulldozer at a construction site and took it for a joy ride would that no longer make the bulldozer means of production because the bulldozer produced nothing during your joy ride?

[The Douche]

If you came across a idling bulldozer at a construction site and took it for a joy ride would that no longer make the bulldozer means of production because the bulldozer produced nothing during your joy ride?

If somebody owns a bulldozer as their day to day vehicle, and does not use it for work, then no, its not part of the means of production.

[Zulu]

I just think your big dumb vision of communism as early 20th century War Socialism is funny. It's 2012. Production techniques are as such that producing a wide range of personal vehicles would be easy as hell and even if someone was the type to worry about carbon footprint, who cares because then we can produce a million different-looking cars based on the Tesla Roadster engine or something.

Why would a communist society produce something that is not in use 95% of the time, when it could put the lion's share of the labor and raw materials involved in the car making to some good purpose, such as, IDK, public golf courses, theme parks, space elevators, saving freaking pandas, and things like that? Just because capitalists have marketed the private car as such a necessary appliance to have?

[Zulu]

If somebody owns a bulldozer as their day to day vehicle, and does not use it for work, then no, its not part of the means of production.
It is, only used inefficiently. Transportation, if only of your body from one place or another, especially when involving some complex machinery and fuels, is production.

[Psy]

If somebody owns a bulldozer as their day to day vehicle, and does not use it for work, then no, its not part of the means of production.
How does that change the bulldozer's capacity to mechanize labor?

[Zulu]

Distribution is not a part of the production process. Does individual ownership of cars make anything? If me and a couple of buddies drove across the country to the beach, does that make anything?

Yes, it makes you happy.

[Igor]

A lot of people like cars. Cars can fun, and they don't pose a serious risk to anything if they're used in more sparsely habitated areas (you know, most of the world really) and by enthusiasts. Fuck the people who think they should be taken away just because they don't fit your ideal of the communist society.

[The Douche]

Capacity doesn't determine shit. I have a bunch of tools in my closet, they can be used for work, does that mean I own the means of production because I can fix small things around my house?

[Zulu]

Capacity doesn't determine shit. I have a bunch of tools in my closet, they can be used for work, does that mean I own the means of production because I can fix small things around my house?

Oh yes it does. That bunch of tools would cost a fortune in the 17th century. The fact that tools are cheap and available these days doesn't change squat about their nature of the means of production.

BTW, cell phones and PCs are means of production too.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

You should really read up on some Marxism-Leninism. Abolition of difference between the city and the countryside is one of the basic theoretical requirements for communism. So yeah, everybody will live in areas of the same type under communism, which will be "rurban", so to say.

Rurban? Why? Small towns ought to be combined into new urban centres. Transportation means will assure good and fast transport to any rural, urban or other destinations. Mechanisation of agriculture will diminish employment in that sector anyway. There will only be city, farmland and unspoilt wilderness. A city is an unbeatable organisation for providing quality services of all needs and culture.

Small rural villages and similar would gradually be incorporated into growing cities in a planned manner, not like the chaotic urbanisation of capitalism, where the new arrivals are forced into dreadful slums and left to the whims of the capitalist industry. The cities themselves would naturally be redeveloped during the process of the construction of the new society. There would no longer be the need for cars but as a means of amusement. You want to drive, go pick up a rental car at some club for such, that's all right, but the car will not be the main instrument of the city, it will not be what it is today, where the over-dimensioned roadways are enormous fractures in the social fabric; little isolated bubbles of disjointed lives shuffling back and forth betwixt the daily chores.

There will be no distinction between urban and rural, because all will be urban. There will be great cities, purged from the excesses of the same during capitalism, purged of the filthy slums and blue-tinged exhaust, free from endless fields of sprawling single family homes, free from the cancer of capitalist development, free from gated communities, free from the arbitrary borders of private property.

[The Douche]

Oh yes it does. That bunch of tools would cost a fortune in the 17th century. The fact that tools are cheap and available these days doesn't change squat about their nature of the means of production.

BTW, cell phones and PCs are means of production too.

This isn't the 17th century, I don't make any money through the use of my tools.

Its not the ease of access or the price/availability that effects the nature of the item, its what they're used for.

These definitions aren't static, my hammer is not the means of production, if I sell it to a carpenter, then I guess you could call it the means of production. But it still doesn't create wealth, without the knowledge and skill of the carpenter.



If my fucking shoes carry me to work does that mean my shoes need to be communized?

[StalinFanboy]

This isn't the 17th century, I don't make any money through the use of my tools.

Its not the ease of access or the price/availability that effects the nature of the item, its what they're used for.

These definitions aren't static, my hammer is not the means of production, if I sell it to a carpenter, then I guess you could call it the means of production. But it still doesn't create wealth, without the knowledge and skill of the carpenter.



If my fucking shoes carry me to work does that mean my shoes need to be communized?


well technically marx said that anything that was used in the process of production was a MoP, even things that have no value in them such as air or a stick off the ground.

the problem of course is that marx was a productivist bastard.

[The Douche]

Except that the tools in my closet aren't used in the process of production either...

[StalinFanboy]

Except that the tools in my closet aren't used in the process of production either...

what i meant to say that is by using them you can produce things with them.

i agree with you of course that the premise of all of this is a little ridiculous.

[gorillafuck]

It really creeps me out when so-called "communists" imagine a world where everything is even more efficient than the capitalist hell-hole we already live in. This is not to say that I want a world in which the work we do is less efficient, requiring more of our labor, but that I want a world where work as such does not exist.

The reason why public transportation exists is to get people (read: commodities) from one place of commerce to another, or from work to home, as efficiently as possible. I just don't see the necessity of high speed, mass transportation in a communist world. The problem with it all is that it says nothing about our need to go slow, to not be bound by schedules that break up our days into ridiculously small amounts of time, and reduce our lives to a 7 day loop.because staying in the exact same place all the time would be boring.

[Psy]

This isn't the 17th century, I don't make any money through the use of my tools.

Making surplus value does not define means of production, if it was then communist societies would have any means of production as the idea of surplus value would no longer exist.



Its not the ease of access or the price/availability that effects the nature of the item, its what they're used for.

No it is their capacity to produce.



These definitions aren't static, my hammer is not the means of production, if I sell it to a carpenter, then I guess you could call it the means of production. But it still doesn't create wealth, without the knowledge and skill of the carpenter.

If my fucking shoes carry me to work does that mean my shoes need to be communized?
You are assuming Marxists want to make all means of production a commons.

[Zulu]

These definitions aren't static, my hammer is not the means of production, if I sell it to a carpenter, then I guess you could call it the means of production. But it still doesn't create wealth, without the knowledge and skill of the carpenter.
This is some kind of mysticism. No change to the essence or the quality of your tools occurs when you sell to to a carpenter. They just lay there in your closet, unused. Which is also a waste, but quite minuscule and can be tolerated. Cars, however are expensive and take a lot of labor and materials to make, so that's a serious waste.

Think of the following examples:

Is a plot the fertile land not a means of production if left fallow?

Is a horse a means of production if a peasant uses it to plough his field? Is the same horse not a means of production if the same peasant uses it to ride (or drive a cart) to another village?

Is a fancy cybernetic arm from the latest sci-fi novel you've read not a means of production?






If my fucking shoes carry me to work does that mean my shoes need to be communized?
Well, come to think of it, in full communism there won't be private property on anything at all, so yes, your shoes will be communized. Which does not mean somebody else will wear them. Personal items will remain, even cars, as I've earlier said, but while the need for shoes and individual communication devices for every member of society will be self evident, the need for the personal means of transportation will most likely be not, as the communist society will be likely more efficient with public transportation as the principal means of it.



And, this thread just begs for this picture:

http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/8521/autobq.jpg

(The first frame is shot from a closer distance though, so the difference is slightly less drastic than it appears from the image.)


.

[Zulu]

Rurban? Why? Small towns ought to be combined into new urban centres. Transportation means will assure good and fast transport to any rural, urban or other destinations. Mechanisation of agriculture will diminish employment in that sector anyway. There will only be city, farmland and unspoilt wilderness. A city is an unbeatable organisation for providing quality services of all needs and culture.

Small rural villages and similar would gradually be incorporated into growing cities in a planned manner, not like the chaotic urbanisation of capitalism, where the new arrivals are forced into dreadful slums and left to the whims of the capitalist industry. The cities themselves would naturally be redeveloped during the process of the construction of the new society. There would no longer be the need for cars but as a means of amusement. You want to drive, go pick up a rental car at some club for such, that's all right, but the car will not be the main instrument of the city, it will not be what it is today, where the over-dimensioned roadways are enormous fractures in the social fabric; little isolated bubbles of disjointed lives shuffling back and forth betwixt the daily chores.

There will be no distinction between urban and rural, because all will be urban. There will be great cities, purged from the excesses of the same during capitalism, purged of the filthy slums and blue-tinged exhaust, free from endless fields of sprawling single family homes, free from the cancer of capitalist development, free from gated communities, free from the arbitrary borders of private property.

That vision is another possibility. Maybe some deliberate experimenting will be carried out in the course of socialist construction to determine which is more efficient. Geographical, climatic and environmental factors will have to be taken into consideration, so it's possible that some areas will see agglomerations built in advanced city-planning techniques like in your suggestion, and some will see that "rurban" stuff like in mine. Who knows, maybe there will even be underwater cities or "atolls" in the middle of oceans like somebody suggested in another discussion, so try having a private car there!

[PhantomRei]

"Electric transit systems have existed since the late 1800s. In 1999, a patent for Evacuated-tube Transit systems was approved in the US that is currently being developed and tested in China -- stupid Americans. The developer claims this system can safely reach speeds of over 6,000 km/h for inter- and intra- continental travel (eliminating the need for trains, planes, ships, etc.) and under 300 km/h for regional travel, with less than 1/10th the cost of installing a railroad over an equal distance. For intracity transit (which would replace almost all automobiles), SkyTran utilizes magnetically-levitated transit pods that can safely travel at speeds of up to 260 km/h with 1/100th the cost of a highway of equivalent distance . Because both ET3 and SkyTran are fully automated systems, traffic jams, accidents, etc. would essentially be gone forever and, because their designs focus on serving as many people as possible, they are far more resource-efficient simply because a car, train, plane, boat, etc. just sits there while the owner isn't using it, whereas these systems go to the next person as soon as the last person is finished with it."


This a good idea.

[StalinFanboy]

because staying in the exact same place all the time would be boring.
Yes that is exactly what I said... :rolleyes:

[gorillafuck]

Yes that is exactly what I said... :rolleyes:what did you say? I thought you said you see no need for high speed mass transit.

[Ostrinski]

You guys are assholes if you're gonna take my car.

[StalinFanboy]

what did you say? I thought you said you see no need for high speed mass transit.
I was very straight forward. high speed mass transit arose out of capitals need to move commodities quicker over longer distances. in a world devoid of the commodity form, devoid of work as we know it, and therefore devoid of value, there is no reason for "efficiency" and certainly no reason to keep around glorified cattle cars.

people have been moving around since we evolved from chimps. but there is a difference between moving around and being transported. humans are the only beings who are absolutely condemned to a life where happiness and meaning are at stake. through the socialization of capital, and the further imposition of the commodity form on to the body, and mass transit is certainly a process of this, any meaning to life and any presence people have in the world has been destroyed. there is a reason why "diseases" such as anxiety and depression are so rampant in these modern times.

[Ostrinski]

Shouldn't this kinda thing be a democratic decision like everything else in a socialist society? Some wankers in this thread.

[PhantomRei]

But what if hypothetically everyone democratically decided not to build any roads? Or cars. Well?

[Psy]

I was very straight forward. high speed mass transit arose out of capitals need to move commodities quicker over longer distances. in a world devoid of the commodity form, devoid of work as we know it, and therefore devoid of value, there is no reason for "efficiency" and certainly no reason to keep around glorified cattle cars.

It is not like communists can ignore energy accounting, thus efficiency would still. Accountants will still exist under communism, they would just be tracking EROEI and labor time rather then capital. Meaning planners could point to the EROEI of mass transit plans and say cars are illogical because see their EROEI is much lower then rail systems thus cars are stupid.

[Tenka]

I was very straight forward. high speed mass transit arose out of capitals need to move commodities quicker over longer distances. in a world devoid of the commodity form, devoid of work as we know it, and therefore devoid of value, there is no reason for "efficiency" and certainly no reason to keep around glorified cattle cars.
I think the desire to not waste precious hours of our very short lives in moving from point A to point B is reason enough for "efficiency". People migrated before capitalism, and will want to be able to move freely and quickly with capitalism and borders out of the way, over great distances, often to the same general vicinities, whence hopefully their individual journeys will be facilitated by more and improved pedestrian paths.
The language "glorified cattle cars" shows a personal bias against public transport; it's not like personal autos and bicycles are any different in the great scheme of things under capitalism. Too, not everyone can drive a car or ride a bike -- so what, will they have to have a friend who has one and wants to take them places on the back seat if they intend to get around, see places, visit people from whom they're geographically separated post-revolution? Or will there be some sort of pathetic taxi service for them?


people have been moving around since we evolved from chimps. but there is a difference between moving around and being transported.Not if you want to go where you're being transported.


humans are the only beings who are absolutely condemned to a life where happiness and meaning are at stake.I don't see how moving around in the same vehicle as a few other people could possibly threaten your happiness or sense of meaning.


through the socialization of capital, and the further imposition of the commodity form on to the body, and mass transit is certainly a process of this, any meaning to life and any presence people have in the world has been destroyed. there is a reason why "diseases" such as anxiety and depression are so rampant in these modern times.What does this have to do with public/mass transport? Plenty of people have chronic anxiety and clinical depression without having travelled by such means in decades at least....

[arilando]

Short answer, Yes.

Some modest fares on public transportation should remain for some time probably, to prevent abuse.

And private ownership of cars should be banned at some point in the course of socialist construction, because automobile is obviously a mean of production.
I hope your not being serious.

[arilando]

Rurban? Why? Small towns ought to be combined into new urban centres. Transportation means will assure good and fast transport to any rural, urban or other destinations. Mechanisation of agriculture will diminish employment in that sector anyway. There will only be city, farmland and unspoilt wilderness. A city is an unbeatable organisation for providing quality services of all needs and culture.

Small rural villages and similar would gradually be incorporated into growing cities in a planned manner, not like the chaotic urbanisation of capitalism, where the new arrivals are forced into dreadful slums and left to the whims of the capitalist industry. The cities themselves would naturally be redeveloped during the process of the construction of the new society. There would no longer be the need for cars but as a means of amusement. You want to drive, go pick up a rental car at some club for such, that's all right, but the car will not be the main instrument of the city, it will not be what it is today, where the over-dimensioned roadways are enormous fractures in the social fabric; little isolated bubbles of disjointed lives shuffling back and forth betwixt the daily chores.

There will be no distinction between urban and rural, because all will be urban. There will be great cities, purged from the excesses of the same during capitalism, purged of the filthy slums and blue-tinged exhaust, free from endless fields of sprawling single family homes, free from the cancer of capitalist development, free from gated communities, free from the arbitrary borders of private property.
So you want everyone to live in apartments?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

So you want everyone to live in apartments?

If by that you mean large multi-story housing complexes, yes.

I predict that soon follow something rambling about the glory of the homestead and a plot of land and "harmony with nature".

[Ostrinski]

But what if hypothetically everyone democratically decided not to build any roads? Or cars. Well?Then that's a really dumb decision, obviously.

[PhantomRei]

"Then that's a really dumb decision, obviously"

Because...why? It's not not as if there aren't better means of transport.

[arilando]

If by that you mean large multi-story housing complexes, yes.

I predict that soon follow something rambling about the glory of the homestead and a plot of land and "harmony with nature".
What kind of benefits would there be from everyone living in apartments?, Besides, studies consistently show that a majority of people prefer to live in Single-family detached houses, and since communism would be democratic, i find your scenario wery unlikely.

[Zulu]

Single-family


Communization of wives and children, bro.

[PhantomRei]

"Besides, studies consistently show that a majority of people prefer to live in Single-family detached houses, and since communism would be democratic, i find your scenario wery unlikely"

That's because nuclear family arrangements arose from, and are perpetuated by capitalism.

[arilando]

Communization of wives and children, bro.
If people want to live together as a family, or live alone, i see no reason why they should't be allowed to do so.

[Psy]

Then that's a really dumb decision, obviously.
Because? Rails require less labor to build and maintain for the tonne kilometer. Meaning focusing on buildings rails over roads gives communist society much more transportation capacity for far less necessary labor. The USA and USSR only built highways for military purposes, if not for those military purposes neither would have any highways as railways by the end of WWII were proven to be much more profitable, generating much more surplus value compared to roads.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

What kind of benefits would there be from everyone living in apartments?, Besides, studies consistently show that a majority of people prefer to live in Single-family detached houses, and since communism would be democratic, i find your scenario wery unlikely.

What? Higher population density means less land wasted, means easier access to services, employment, so on; means closer living and less fragmented society.

You imply that somehow human nature means people will prefer some filthy detached homes (ah, human nature arguments are marvellous). That is a very detached (enjoyable word-game, there) way of looking at things, because a preference for single-family detached homes (family should be destroyed, either way) is the result of cultural and social traditions, not of human nature. There's plenty of historical forms of many types of housing, and preference is decided by cultural tradition. The U.S. culture is, with its Homestead Act and romanticism of home-ownership, the most ferociously anti-flat; but likewise detached houses are relatively uncommon in other locations. Culture will be re-shaped. The new society should not merely conform of the degeneracies of the old, the effects of nationalist nation-building policy or private land development strivings, but re-shape the land, the city and the culture. Destruction of the detached home in urban space is therefore desirable, it is a wasteful tumorous growth that furthers the social decay of capitalist society, and would be a roadblock to the construction of socialist society.

[arilando]

What? Higher population density means less land wasted, means easier access to services, employment, so on; means closer living and less fragmented society.
Well how high a population density do you want? It is possible to achieve densities of 30000+ people per square mile in neighborhoods that consists mosly of single family house, if that is what your concern is. Your argument is just an argument for increased density, not against single family houses, which i agree with, as when i say single family detached house, i simply mean single family detached house, not single family detached house on a 1/4 of an acre lot. You can have single family houses and wery high density at the same time, they are not polar opposites.


You imply that somehow human nature means people will prefer some filthy detached homes (ah, human nature arguments are marvellous).
What exactly makes detached homes filthy?


That is a very detached (enjoyable word-game, there) way of looking at things, because a preference for single-family detached homes (family should be destroyed, either way) is the result of cultural and social traditions, not of human nature. There's plenty of historical forms of many types of housing, and preference is decided by cultural tradition. The U.S. culture is, with its Homestead Act and romanticism of home-ownership, the most ferociously anti-flat; but likewise detached houses are relatively uncommon in other locations.
Exept that in all societies throughout history detached houses have been considered the most desirable form of housing, indeed since most people have historically lived in rural areas, detached houses have historically been the predominant form of housing. The only reason detached houses have historically been uncommon in most urban societies, is because most people could't afford them.


Culture will be re-shaped. The new society should not merely conform of the degeneracies of the old, the effects of nationalist nation-building policy or private land development strivings, but re-shape the land, the city and the culture. Destruction of the detached home in urban space is therefore desirable, it is a wasteful tumorous growth that furthers the social decay of capitalist society, and would be a roadblock to the construction of socialist society.
Can you explain why you think "Destruction of the detached home in urban space is therefore desirable, it is a wasteful tumorous growth that furthers the social decay of capitalist society, and would be a roadblock to the construction of socialist society"?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Well how high a population density do you want? It is possible to achieve densities of 30000+ people per square mile in neighborhoods that consists mosly of single family house, if that is what your concern is. Your argument is just an argument for increased density, not against single family houses, which i agree with, as when i say single family detached house, i simply mean single family detached house, not single family detached house on a 1/4 of an acre lot. You can have single family houses and wery high density at the same time, they are not polar opposites.

It's not just "density". To have such density with single family detached homes, you basically end up with them wall to wall anyway and with a lot less open and green spaces to begin with. It's also about accessibility; with such low densities, access within short walking distances to all essential services will be less easily provided. It is much more difficult to provide good transport solutions to such spread out areas; whereas forty-five story tower blocks around a railway station will all have good access.


Exept that in all societies throughout history detached houses have been considered the most desirable form of housing, indeed since most people have historically lived in rural areas, detached houses have historically been the predominant form of housing. The only reason detached houses have historically been uncommon in most urban societies, is because most people could't afford them.

That is because the single dwelling is most often the most traditional one, because of its basic simple nature. They have also not always been uncommon in urban societies.


Can you explain why you think "Destruction of the detached home in urban space is therefore desirable, it is a wasteful tumorous growth that furthers the social decay of capitalist society, and would be a roadblock to the construction of socialist society"?

I thought I explained why. What is unclear? The single dwelling is a fragmenting force, it much more strongly than a flat block divides the urban and public space into separate universes and therefore promotes such undesirable patterns of thought (my house, my land, possessives of such nature). The flats could come in all manner of types to suit the needs of residents, large flats for communal multi-household groups or single flats, and not to mention connection to fancy pneumatic pipes for common goods deliveries... but I digress.

Your argument is that "people prefer single dwellings". This is nonsense because it does not take into account the material histories and reasons for this being so. Single dwellings are often favoured culturally for a number of reasons, not lest a sort of property fetishism and obsession about ownerships, and also because it is a considerable symbol of status and well-being in many societies. Some other subjective properties are also involved, bad sound insulation and what-have-you might bring some to turn to the hate of the danchi, but these are concerns of poor construction that could easily be remedied in the post-capitalist world.

Imagine, instead of a sprawling cesspit of a neighbourhood crowded with little ugly houses, forty-five story cruciform tower blocks penetrating the green canopy of lush parkland landscapes, little paths and fountains under a warm sun. Easy access to transportation means, supplies, education and health care can be provided within no more than five-ten minutes walk of any home.

[arilando]

It's not just "density". To have such density with single family detached homes, you basically end up with them wall to wall anyway and with a lot less open and green spaces to begin with. It's also about accessibility; with such low densities, access within short walking distances to all essential services will be less easily provided. It is much more difficult to provide good transport solutions to such spread out areas; whereas forty-five story tower blocks around a railway station will all have good access.



That is because the single dwelling is most often the most traditional one, because of its basic simple nature. They have also not always been uncommon in urban societies.


I thought I explained why. What is unclear? The single dwelling is a fragmenting force, it much more strongly than a flat block divides the urban and public space into separate universes and therefore promotes such undesirable patterns of thought (my house, my land, possessives of such nature). The flats could come in all manner of types to suit the needs of residents, large flats for communal multi-household groups or single flats, and not to mention connection to fancy pneumatic pipes for common goods deliveries... but I digress.

Your argument is that "people prefer single dwellings". This is nonsense because it does not take into account the material histories and reasons for this being so. Single dwellings are often favoured culturally for a number of reasons, not lest a sort of property fetishism and obsession about ownerships, and also because it is a considerable symbol of status and well-being in many societies. Some other subjective properties are also involved, bad sound insulation and what-have-you might bring some to turn to the hate of the danchi, but these are concerns of poor construction that could easily be remedied in the post-capitalist world.

Imagine, instead of a sprawling cesspit of a neighbourhood crowded with little ugly houses, forty-five story cruciform tower blocks penetrating the green canopy of lush parkland landscapes, little paths and fountains under a warm sun. Easy access to transportation means, supplies, education and health care can be provided within no more than five-ten minutes walk of any home.
Well i just disagree fundamentally with your position, i would personally hate to live in an apartment, having to take an elevator every time i wanted to go outside, not being able to decide what materials i want my home to be built of, not being able to build extensions as they are needed, not being able to decide how the rooms are distributed, not getting light in from all 4 sides etc. What about instead of forcing everyone to conform with what you think is the ideal life, let the people who wants to live in the kind of environment you like do so, and let the kind of people who prefer to live in detaches houses do so?

[Psy]

Well i just disagree fundamentally with your position, i would personally hate to live in an apartment, having to take an elevator every time i wanted to go outside, not being able to decide what materials i want my home to be built of, not being able to build extensions as they are needed, not being able to decide how the rooms are distributed, not getting light in from all 4 sides etc. What about instead of forcing everyone to conform with what you think is the ideal life, let the people who wants to live in the kind of environment you like do so, and let the kind of people who prefer to live in detaches houses do so?
The problem is energy efficiency due to lack scale. Capitalists have proven time and again that bigger is always more efficient, the more you centralize production processes the more efficient labor is. Capitalists only build suburbs because of Keynesian logic, that the crisis of capital is one of under consumption, when you factor in all the labor value that goes into maintaining the suburbs they have a negative surplus value and are subsidized by bourgeoisie states.

Once communists get rid of bourgeoisie states why should the worker state subsidize suburbs? Why should Africa put up with slower industrialization so people can live in inefficient housing? Why should the Middle East keep sending the USA oil so it can run inefficient private cars?

[Zulu]

The problem is energy efficiency due to lack scale. Capitalists have proven time and again that bigger is always more efficient, the more you centralize production processes the more efficient labor is. Capitalists only build suburbs because of Keynesian logic, that the crisis of capital is one of under consumption, when you factor in all the labor value that goes into maintaining the suburbs they have a negative surplus value and are subsidized by bourgeoisie states.
Oops, you've just shot yourself in the foot, comrade. You said capitalists did it, so it must be bad now!



Once communists get rid of bourgeoisie states why should the worker state subsidize suburbs? Why should Africa put up with slower industrialization so people can live in inefficient housing? Why should the Middle East keep sending the USA oil so it can run inefficient private cars?
Because the counterrevolutionary petty bourgeoisie takes all those things for granted, obviously.

[Psy]

Oops, you've just shot yourself in the foot, comrade. You said capitalists did it, so it must be bad now!

Well there is no point for a communist economy to be stimulated by inefficient production methods, thus a communists economy would tend to lean towards centralizing production in order to produce more utility for less labor so communists society can have more stuff for less necessary labor time.



Because the counterrevolutionary petty bourgeoisie takes all those things for granted, obviously.
The bigger problem is that the American Dream mixed with communism would result in workers state waring with each other for resources as the American Dream is unsustainable, we can't have world communism with a living arrangement that requires the vast majority of the world to live in poverty due to the USA consuming the bulk of the Earth's energy production.

[Zulu]

Well there is no point for a communist economy to be stimulated by inefficient production methods, thus a communists economy would tend to lean towards centralizing production in order to produce more utility for less labor so communists society can have more stuff for less necessary labor time.

Yeah I know. I was just mocking the ultra-leftists who think workers should have a poll to decide on whether to produce every next pair of shoes...





The bigger problem is that the American Dream mixed with communism would result in workers state waring with each other for resources as the American Dream is unsustainable, we can't have world communism with a living arrangement that requires the vast majority of the world to live in poverty due to the USA consuming the bulk of the Earth's energy production.

That's right. Typically you're told that since communism eliminates inefficiency (by definition, never mind the previous contradiction), there "will be enough to provide for everybody". It does not occur to them, that the one-storey America itself is a large part of that capitalist efficiency, which needs to be eliminated.