Will Communism Demolish Housing?

[tooAlive]

If you look around the world today, there's a lot of inequality in the housing market. There are little houses, then there are huge mansions. There are little apartments, then there are huge penthouses. Ect...

So, I'm assuming that will cause problems. How will it be justified for someone to live in a small apartment while others get to live in castles?

Under your system, will the mansions and big houses be demolished and replaced with apartment buildings? If not, how will you deal with this inequality?

[Mrcapitalist]

You are confusing private property with personal property.

[consuming negativity]

You might get something out of reading this thread: http://www.revleft.com/vb/gonna-live-best-t186398/index.html

[tooAlive]

You are confusing private property with personal property.

It doesn't matter if housing is public or private. Even if you don't "own" your land, you still live in it. So what will be done about the vast size inequality in today's world, given the chance of communism as you envision it happening?

[sosolo]

There's no reason that enormous houses can't be broken up into fairly spacious apartments.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (http://tapatalk.com/m?id=1)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

They'll eventually be demolished, yes. Not while anyone resides in them, though, and anyone would obviously have to be rehoused before demolition.

[Manic Impressive]

Yeah but what are you going to do about those people who are forced to live in big houses. Those places get cold really easily and I bet they're a pain in the arse to clean if you can't purchase the services of a maid. I pity the poor buggers who have to live in those places after the revolution.

But yes just like in every society in history buildings have been demolished and new ones built. I don't think it's too much of a leap to say in absolute certainty that the practice will continue in socialism. However, I don't think you are likely to see a forced policy of destruction.

[Sinister Intents]

You are confusing private property with personal property.

He does that a lot and I've tried explaining the difference multiple times, it sucks actually.

[Skyhilist]

I think mansions could just be divided up amongst people. Everyone should be able to live in a reasonable standard of housing, but no one needs a ridiculously large house or several houses all to themselves. We've already got something like 6 empty houses for every homeless person, so we've certainly got enough reasonably sized houses for everyone I think. After everyone has a house, I think it might actually end up being a good thing that there will be a lot of empty houses left. To achieve post-scarcity for some resources, we might have to expand production, but this should never be done at the expense of the environment. It we can convert a lot of houses that aren't being used into industrial workplaces, then that's great because then we don't need to expand further into the ecosystem to accommodate the expansion of industry.

[AnaRchic]

I for one will never stand for someone being put out of their house, even if they're rich and have more room than they possibly need. Everyone will be free to keep their home, that is, the house/apartment they use and occupy. That said, landlords will not keep the homes they rent out, these will pass to the tenants, who will now live in them rent free.

A home should belong to those who occupy it, period. If you own a home to profit off of others, that home passes to the one who occupies it. If you own a home that is your home, meaning you occupy it, then it is your possession and you are free to it.

As time goes on, houses will be built and scaled to fit occupancy needs. A bigger family or group of people would probably have a bigger house, etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I like to think those horrible McMansions will be bulldozed - they're poorly located in suburban areas and usually seem to be built out of crappy materials.

It's also my hope that suburban areas in general will go the way of the dodo, although enough people seem to like this inefficient, anti-social and ugly mode of living to make a suburb-free society of cities and villages a vain dream of mine.

[Crabbensmasher]

Obviously there will be some size discrepancies. We can try and divide up houses as much as possible, but I think, ultimately, it can never be 'perfect'. We're not going to build orwellian cubes the exact same measurements for everyone to live in. Architecture as we know it today won't be thrown out the window, because, ultimately, it has merit, and even more importantly, it's already there.

Hopefully it's just one of those things, where you'll say, well, my neighbour has a few extra square feet than me', but if we've learned our shit by then, we'll be able to brush it aside.

Over time, hopefully, the horrible urban planning methods we see will prove obsolete, and those can be replaced. The houses though, it would be stupid to bulldoze them.

[JollyRoger]

Your saying its ok to destroy someones house and downsize it?? What if that person worked hard their entire life and saved up for that nice house? And that's how they rewarded them self? Everyone with the same house....seems kinda odd. You go to college....earn a degree....work hard.....earn more money....only to have the same standard of living as someone who does nothing their entire life.......I don't get it.....

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

We're not going to build orwellian cubes the exact same measurements for everyone to live in.

What the hell is an "Orwellian cube"? That's the daftest thing I've seen in a while. Have you even read 1984? The very situation of the housing portrayed is that the great majority of the population live in dilapidated pre-revolution half-collapsing terrace housing of the Victorian era, while bombed-out plots remain undeveloped and shanties fill the void, and where the inner party members live in relatively modern blocks of flats. So what the devil is an Orwellian Cube?


Your saying its ok to destroy someones house and downsize it?? What if that person worked hard their entire life and saved up for that nice house? And that's how they rewarded them self? Everyone with the same house....seems kinda odd. You go to college....earn a degree....work hard.....earn more money....only to have the same standard of living as someone who does nothing their entire life.......I don't get it.....

Yeah, colour me surprised. :glare:

[Jimmie Higgins]

Your saying its ok to destroy someones house and downsize it?? What if that person worked hard their entire life and saved up for that nice house? And that's how they rewarded them self? Everyone with the same house....seems kinda odd. You go to college....earn a degree....work hard.....earn more money....only to have the same standard of living as someone who does nothing their entire life.......I don't get it.....but you're fine with all this when the market does it? I live in a single family home that's been converted into four appartments... I went to college and have worked half my life now.

Anyone who is concerned with people loosing their homes or being forced to live in bland or cramped homes should support Marxist/anarchist politics and be against capitalism.

Of course I don't know exactly how a liberated society would democratically decide to handle housing, but I feel confident in saying it would be one of the early main priorities. Current houses might have to be split up or whatnot in the immediate aftermath of a revolution depending on the housing situation at the time. Currently in my town there are more empty buildings than there are homeless people, so I doubt much drastic short-term measures would be as necessary, because people could convert those in the short term.

In the medium term, I'd imagine that reorganizing or just creating new communities built around community needs and desires would be a priority. I think with democratic planning replacing market based development, communities would be made pretty differently.

@noXion: personally I think people only like suburbs given the available options. Suburbs are favored in society because of their exchange value: cheap land assembly-line like mass construction, less cost for developers in terms of taxes. But people who strive for a suburban home are attracted to the use value: an affordable home, your own space privacy, and a little greenery. I think these values can be done (and surpassed) in totally different models of community construction.

I think gentrified urban centers that have developed in the us in that last decade or so give a distorted glimpse of how urban communities can be just as desireable to many people. These neighborhoods are usually mixed use with lots of services and entertainment very close, public transit (sometimes private transit, like the google buses in the Bay Area), community gardens and parks nearby to make up for the lack of yards. Of course housing/rental prices keep these areas exclusive (and extra police in these areas keep the effects of and victims inequality "managed"), so it's a distorted view, but I think it shows that people are also drawn to a less alienating kind of community when these same folks could also easily afford a much bigger house with a yard and garage if they moved to nearby suburbs.

[Mather]

It's also my hope that suburban areas in general will go the way of the dodo, although enough people seem to like this inefficient, anti-social and ugly mode of living to make a suburb-free society of cities and villages a vain dream of mine.

I'd rather live in the suburbs than the concrete monstrosities that pass for council housing in London. I have rather fond memories of the suburban house I lived in when I was a teenager, with it's garden and the neighbourhood was nice and green with plenty of parks and places for kids to play. The only reason my family left it was because it was a rented place paid for by housing benefit and we moved to a council flat, which was not as nice but it was more secure in terms of tenancy.

At the end of the day people should live where they please and not be subject to a tyranny of "efficiency" that you seem to have an obsessive fetish for. Efficiency is not the be all and end all of everything you know.

A communist society should be about meeting people's needs, not telling them what their needs should be.

[Jimmie Higgins]

If we don't consider things like the neighborhoods and cities destroyed, people displaced, over imperialist competition like in WWII and just look at economic impacts, this is housing under market conditions:

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb405/ghilde2011/Decade%20of%20Fire/charstfixed-1.jpg
The Bronx in the 1970s when it was more profitable for landowners to burn down apartment buildings than rent.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/24/article-0-1AE19BB0000005DC-559_964x558.jpg
Detroit today.

In Oakland, something like 20% of the black population has been displaced in the last decade - mostly moving to outlying areas where rents are cheaper or to other regions entirely (a reverse migration back to the South). We had both a foreclosure crisis and a massive increase in rents at the same time.

This is the state of things that worker's movements would have an interest in abolishing.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'd rather live in the suburbs than the concrete monstrosities that pass for council housing in London. I have rather fond memories of the suburban house I lived in when I was a teenager, with it's garden and the neighbourhood was nice and green with plenty of parks and places for kids to play. The only reason my family left it was because it was a rented place paid for by housing benefit and we moved to a council flat, which was not as nice but it was more secure in terms of tenancy.


I'm not sure what you are referring to here, as the vast majority of UK council housing, including in London, are suburban terrace housing. There's only a small selection of lovely 1950-60's blocks left - in London, more than half of those that once stood have been demolished, and still others privatised.

I recommend this book on the architectural history of high flats in the United Kingdom, which chronicles their rise and their falling out of grace, after which they became regarded - as you put it - 'concrete monstrosities':

http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/?page_id=17

The UK, and England in particular, has a cultural proclivity for detached houses due to history. This preference is partially responsible for the United States detached-house oriented obsession as well, inherited through colonialism.

[Mather]

If we don't consider things like the neighborhoods and cities destroyed, people displaced, over imperialist competition like in WWII and just look at economic impacts, this is housing under market conditions:

http://i1204.photobucket.com/albums/bb405/ghilde2011/Decade%20of%20Fire/charstfixed-1.jpg
The Bronx in the 1970s when it was more profitable for landowners to burn down apartment buildings than rent.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/24/article-0-1AE19BB0000005DC-559_964x558.jpg
Detroit today.

In Oakland, something like 20% of the black population has been displaced in the last decade - mostly moving to outlying areas where rents are cheaper or to other regions entirely (a reverse migration back to the South). We had both a foreclosure crisis and a massive increase in rents at the same time.

This is the state of things that worker's movements would have an interest in abolishing.

I agree, the state of places like Detroit and Baltimore is truly tragic. Whole communities have been obliterated by the madness of the market and the only 'improvement' that the market can offer is gentrification, which is code for the social 'cleansing' of these communities and filling it in with the 'aspirational' and 'upwardly mobile' dicks that then take over these neighbourhoods.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I'd rather live in the suburbs than the concrete monstrosities that pass for council housing in London.

The reason those are "monstrosities" is because they are poorly-maintained and badly-designed. They're not the be-all and end-all of high-density housing, which doesn't have to have that cookie-cutter monotony of which suburbs can be just as guilty. The lessons are clear that mixed developments are the most successful because people don't have to walk long distances or drive just to get everyday essentials or get to work, creating a better sense of community.


I have rather fond memories of the suburban house I lived in when I was a teenager, with it's garden and the neighbourhood was nice and green with plenty of parks and places for kids to play.

Well-designed high-density housing means more land would be available for parks, play areas and green spaces which in suburbs would otherwise mostly be divided up into jealously-guarded private little enclaves or squeezed into tiny grass verges in between roads and buildings.


At the end of the day people should live where they please and not be subject to a tyranny of "efficiency" that you seem to have an obsessive fetish for. Efficiency is not the be all and end all of everything you know.

A communist society should be about meeting people's needs, not telling them what their needs should be.

If people need housing, then they are ill-served by planning methods which are wasteful of land (a finite resource if there ever was one, and artificial islands are likely to remain materially expensive for the foreseeable future) and which are predicated on widespread car use and bourgeois notions of property ownership.

[Mather]

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, as the vast majority of UK council housing, including in London, are suburban terrace housing.

My own borough where most council housing is on estates. None of them are really tall, five or so floors high at most (with a few towers that are ten floors plus) but most made of concrete. There used to be a lot of council owned homes (terraced and semi-detached) with gardens, but they have been sold off in greater numbers than the big estates as they tended to be in richer neighbourhoods and were thus higher in value in real estate terms.


There's only a small selection of lovely 1950-60's blocks left - in London, more than half of those that once stood have been demolished, and still others privatised.

This is now happening everywhere across London, the government seems intent on pushing the poor out completely. Where they expect them to go, I have no idea and I suspect they don't even care.


I recommend this book on the architectural history of high flats in the United Kingdom, which chronicles their rise and their falling out of grace, after which they became regarded - as you put it - 'concrete monstrosities':

http://fields.eca.ac.uk/gis/?page_id=17

The UK, and England in particular, has a cultural proclivity for detached houses due to history. This preference is partially responsible for the United States detached-house oriented obsession as well, inherited through colonialism.

At the end of the day I am not opposed to the idea of flats or even skyscrapers, just the crap ones that the ruling class consider suitable for the working classes. The cheap materials used and the piss poor layout and design in council housing reflects, in my view the low level of standards that the ruling classes have for the working class and poor.

[Ember Catching]

If you look around the world today, there's a lot of inequality in the housing market. There are little houses, then there are huge mansions. There are little apartments, then there are huge penthouses. Ect...

So, I'm assuming that will cause problems. How will it be justified for someone to live in a small apartment while others get to live in castles?

Under your system, will the mansions and big houses be demolished and replaced with apartment buildings? If not, how will you deal with this inequality?
The mention of castles really mystifies me: just how many castles do you think serve as anybody's primary residence today? Suffice it to say hardly anyone who can call a castle or a palace 'home' will survive the coming social war.

For an increasingly rational administration of human activities, carelessly demolishing any unjustifiably large or lavish residence sounds absolutely mental. If they can't viably be renovated to comfortably support as many occupants as possible, such extravagant residences should be replaced with appropriate accommodation where practical or otherwise preserved for their historical value.

[Mather]

The reason those are "monstrosities" is because they are poorly-maintained and badly-designed. They're not the be-all and end-all of high-density housing, which doesn't have to have that cookie-cutter monotony of which suburbs can be just as guilty. The lessons are clear that mixed developments are the most successful because people don't have to walk long distances or drive just to get everyday essentials or get to work, creating a better sense of community.

Are there any current examples of decent high density housing that you have in mind? Are the Brownstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownstone) flats of New York such an example?


Well-designed high-density housing means more land would be available for parks, play areas and green spaces which in suburbs would otherwise mostly be divided up into jealously-guarded private little enclaves or squeezed into tiny grass verges in between roads and buildings.

I agree here. Even if the suburbs remained, the whole idea of having things like shops and other services at great distance from where people live would have to change, no more American style mega malls or shopping parks that are only accessible by car, which by their very nature exclude a lot of people from such services. I am all in favor of making cities more human scale and that they be less imposing and distant. When it comes to urban planning I am a fan of the English anarchist Colin Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ward). He didn't advocate the wholesale abolition of things like the suburbs but instead wanted to humanise such places by getting rid of things like garden fences and having communal gardens so that such communities would be less isolated and more organic.

But that is the thing, I feel if cities are to be planned then we should try an avoid doing it in a way that it ends up looking planned, in the way Soviet cities were or the ugly architecture of Le Corbusier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier) and Erno Goldfinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern%C5%91_Goldfinger). I like cities that do look a bit messy and crazy rather than the dullness of repetitive symmetry, regimentation and extreme efficiency. Efficiency has it's place but it if you take it too far then you end up with a soulless city without any character like Pyongyang.


If people need housing, then they are ill-served by planning methods which are wasteful of land (a finite resource if there ever was one, and artificial islands are likely to remain materially expensive for the foreseeable future) and which are predicated on widespread car use and bourgeois notions of property ownership.

You have a point but an even bigger problem for London and the South East is that too many people are living here as this region is the only area with any substantial economic activity, forcing people to leave other towns and cities across Britain in the hope of finding a job.

LINK (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/great-migration-south-private-sector-jobs-london)

Britain really needs to become less London centric and I say that as Londoner myself who loves the city.

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=father+equilibrium&client=firefox-a&hs=1jV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=8YTmUvaXJoua7QbV04GoAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=890#facrc=_&imgdii=h_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%3A%3BmK7V22MiL6wA-M%3Bh_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%3A&imgrc=h_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%253A%3BKVNAur70LOb6-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cyberpunkreview.com%252 Fimages%252Fequilibrium27.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 Fwww.cyberpunkreview.com%252Fmovie%252Fdecade%252F 2000-2009%252Fequilibrium%252F%3B650%3B280

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Are there any current examples of decent high density housing that you have in mind? Are the Brownstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownstone) flats of New York such an example?
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=father+equilibrium&client=firefox-a&hs=1jV&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=8YTmUvaXJoua7QbV04GoAg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1920&bih=890#facrc=_&imgdii=h_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%3A%3BmK7V22MiL6wA-M%3Bh_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%3A&imgrc=h_u5_Gv1NQNh8M%253A%3BKVNAur70LOb6-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cyberpunkreview.com%252 Fimages%252Fequilibrium27.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252 Fwww.cyberpunkreview.com%252Fmovie%252Fdecade%252F 2000-2009%252Fequilibrium%252F%3B650%3B280

Why would they? That's the New York version of a Victorian terrace. That's hardly very high-density.

http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/11415910.jpg

Choi Fook Estate, a recent (2006-2009 erection) public housing estate in Hong Kong. Something anyone with half-decent taste ought to admire.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Are there any current examples of decent high density housing that you have in mind? Are the Brownstone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownstone) flats of New York such an example?

Yes, I think those would count. What do you think of these:

A: http://www.worldtoptop.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/buqshan_hotel.jpg
Buqshan Hotel, Yemen

B: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_loyea1SjEh1qzq1jzo1_500.jpg
Housing buildings in Ivry sur Seine

C: http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/High_Density_Housing_____20120101_800x600.jpg
Apartment buildings in Australia? Couldn't find where this photo was taken but it looks good

They certainly show that big buildings don't have be drab grey blocks.


I agree here. Even if the suburbs remained, the whole idea of having things like shops and other services at great distance from where people live would have to change, no more American style mega malls or shopping parks that are only accessible by car, which by their very nature exclude a lot of people from such services. I am all in favor of making cities more human scale and that they be less imposing and distant. When it comes to urban planning I am a fan of the English anarchist Colin Ward (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ward). He didn't advocate the wholesale abolition of things like the suburbs but instead wanted to humanise such places by getting rid of things like garden fences and having communal gardens so that such communities would be less isolated and more organic.

Do you know of anything written by Colin Ward that might be of interest? He sounds like he might have some good ideas but I didn't see anything directly relevant on the wiki page.


But that is the thing, I feel if cities are to be planned then we should try an avoid doing it in a way that it ends up looking planned, in the way Soviet cities were or the ugly architecture of Le Corbusier (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Corbusier) and Erno Goldfinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ern%C5%91_Goldfinger). I like cities that do look a bit messy and crazy rather than the dullness of repetitive symmetry, regimentation and extreme efficiency. Efficiency has it's place but it if you take it too far then you end up with a soulless city without any character like Pyongyang.

I think the aesthetic problems with the architecture of Le Corbusier et al, in style if not in layout, can be offset by allowing the inhabitants to leave their mark on the places which they've made their homes. Instead of punishing graffiti in order to enforce an uncomfortable sterility of features, communities could invite artists from among them to paint murals to brighten up those dull walls.

I'd say the soullessness of a city depends upon more than it's architecture. Cities are living, breathing spaces (even Pyonyang, although it's not breathing and living very healthily) in which large numbers of people live. Singapore's architecture is highly functional and efficient and even good-looking as far it's corporate blandness allows, but by all accounts it's a comatose place when the sun goes down because there's hardly any night life.


You have a point but an even bigger problem for London and the South East is that too many people are living here as this region is the only area with any substantial economic activity, forcing people to leave other towns and cities across Britain in the hope of finding a job.

LINK (http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/27/great-migration-south-private-sector-jobs-london)

Britain really needs to become less London centric and I say that as Londoner myself who loves the city.

Agreed.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

C: http://www.thefifthestate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/High_Density_Housing_____20120101_800x600.jpg
Apartment buildings in Australia? Couldn't find where this photo was taken but it looks good



I believe that is the Chinese or Singaporean variation of McMansions. Fuck that tacky abomination.

Also fuck this typical liberal hogwash deriding of Corbusier and Goldfinger's fine works. The only problem with Corbusier's plans was the excessive orientation around the automobile, but this was something that plagued everything in that era, including Frank Lloyd Wright's "Broadacres" Hippie Towers in Rural Setting plan.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you think that's tacky, then you'll probably utterly loathe the kind of thing that's fashionable in the Gulf states at the moment. Stuff like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraj_Al_Bait) horrific eyesore:

http://i.imgur.com/TwmLx.jpg

Personally I think even a Le Corbusier without the graffiti looks miles better than that shitpile.

[tooAlive]

If you think that's tacky, then you'll probably utterly loathe the kind of thing that's fashionable in the Gulf states at the moment. Stuff like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraj_Al_Bait) horrific eyesore:

http://i.imgur.com/TwmLx.jpg

Personally I think even a Le Corbusier without the graffiti looks miles better than that shitpile.

Looks nice. :thumbup:

[Dodo]

This is a key question for me as well. (jumping in without reading the rest of the thread) Its not just the size of the houses that is a problem. It is their location? How would people handle that? Not only who lives in what but also where...closer to sea? closer to central locations? in a greener area....etc

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Not only who lives in what but also where...closer to sea? closer to central locations? in a greener area....etc

Seafront's for industry. The whole idea with the sea view being desirable is a modern manifestation of consumer society. Those things cannot be judged in abstract, as they, like many things, are product of culture and thus cannot be predicted for a post-revolutionary society.

Access to parkland and amenities shall be guaranteed by superior planning and transportation opportunities and should therefore not be an issue in the way it is today.

[tooAlive]

Seafront's for industry. The whole idea with the sea view being desirable is a modern manifestation of consumer society. Those things cannot be judged in abstract, as they, like many things, are product of culture and thus cannot be predicted for a post-revolutionary society.

Access to parkland and amenities shall be guaranteed by superior planning and transportation opportunities and should therefore not be an issue in the way it is today.

I wasn't gonna post anymore but this has to be one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've heard in a while.

Wow. Seriously?

Cool. You take the public apartment right next to the public train station and listen to the sound of trains all night. That'll leave the sound of the ocean and the nice views available for the people who actually appreciate them.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I wasn't gonna post anymore but this has to be one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've heard in a while.

Wow. Seriously?

Cool. You take the public apartment right next to the public train station and listen to the sound of trains all night. That'll leave the sound of the ocean and the nice views available for the people who actually appreciate them.

Go back to hoarding your rare fucking art you useless fuck.

(As an aside: I do live in a public housing estate and it is quite close to the railway, though one can't really hear shit when indoors.)

[Sinister Intents]

I wasn't gonna post anymore but this has to be one of the biggest loads of rubbish I've heard in a while.

Wow. Seriously?

Cool. You take the public apartment right next to the public train station and listen to the sound of trains all night. That'll leave the sound of the ocean and the nice views available for the people who actually appreciate them.

How is that a load of rubbish? Sounds fine to me.

Where you live really doesn't matter at all. Why do you care where you live? I live in a fucking swamp in NY

[tooAlive]

How is that a load of rubbish? Sounds fine to me.

Where you live really doesn't matter at all. Why do you care where you live? I live in a fucking swamp in NY

I'm sorry you truly feel that way.

I'd honestly like for you all to know what it's like to live next to soothing oceans, or vibrant green pastures with relaxing breezes.

I just get the impression you have an inferiority complex where you want impose a lifestyle of mediocrity on yourselves as if it's something righteous or noble.

[Sinister Intents]

I'm sorry you truly feel that way.

I'd honestly like for you all to know what it's like to live next to soothing oceans, or vibrant green pastures with relaxing breezes.

I just get the impression you have an inferiority complex where you want impose a lifestyle of mediocrity on yourselves as if it's something righteous or noble.

I think you're a dumbass and you just like feeling like you're bourgeois or some shit. I live in a beautiful area, fuck living by the ocean or the lake it gets so fucking cold here in the winter. I think you're the inferior one and you can't comprehend communism. Now bow, bow until you've broken through the floor.

[tooAlive]

I think you're a dumbass and you just like feeling like you're bourgeois or some shit. I live in a beautiful area, fuck living by the ocean or the lake it gets so fucking cold here in the winter. I think you're the inferior one and you can't comprehend communism. Now bow, bow until you've broken through the floor.

Heh. So much for believe we're all equals. :lol:

[Dodo]

I'm sorry you truly feel that way.

I'd honestly like for you all to know what it's like to live next to soothing oceans, or vibrant green pastures with relaxing breezes.

I just get the impression you have an inferiority complex where you want impose a lifestyle of mediocrity on yourselves as if it's something righteous or noble.

I know what you mean. I live in İstanbul(most of my life), a city where sea is a crucial part of the city's urban organization. There is a massive difference in living in the shitty(not necessarily low quality) inland areas far from everything and closer to the heart and the sea.
There is a bit of subjective value issue here involved.
To me, handling of the housing is one of the biggest issues for a revolution.

It is also worth mentioning though that the current system we live in does not exactly provide a solution to this either. Its just, within the context of this system it is understandable since there is a market price,inheritance..etc involved. But how would this work in a society which claims to solve "contradictions" of material life?

[Sinister Intents]

Heh. So much for believe we're all equals. :lol:

Would you treat me like an equal? I'd treat you as an equal if you treat me that way. Still bow before communism, bow until you break through the damned floor. You don't know what communism and socialism are, and we've answered your damned questions again and again, you show one sign like you're learning in a positive way, then you show the opposite and it seems more like you're being an asshole troll than someone who is trying to learn about communism. Are you fucking trying convert people or some shit? That's not gonna fucking happen.

[tooAlive]

I know what you mean. I live in İstanbul(most of my life), a city where sea is a crucial part of the city's urban organization. There is a massive difference in living in the shitty(not necessarily low quality) inland areas far from everything and closer to the heart and the sea.
There is a bit of subjective value issue here involved.
To me, handling of the housing is one of the biggest issues for a revolution.

It is also worth mentioning though that the current system we live in does not exactly provide a solution to this either. Its just, within the context of this system it is understandable since there is a market price,inheritance..etc involved. But how would this work in a society which claims to solve "contradictions" of material life?

I understand where you're coming from as well. I lived in a very small 1 bedroom apartment with my parents for a little over 20 years. There's a massive difference between that and living next to the water.

Like you've mentioned, circumstances like this will inevitable cause strain in a communist society as there simply isn't enough "pretty" property for everyone.

So of course, you have the ones trying to "erase the notion" of what property is pretty, and which isn't. I think that's pure rubbish. People know what a turd is when they smell it, no matter how nice you try to paint it.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Go back to hoarding your rare fucking art you useless fuck.

(As an aside: I do live in a public housing estate and it is quite close to the railway, though one can't really hear shit when indoors.)

But- but- wouldn't you be so much happier in one of those cookie-cutter suburban houses with an adorable smiling happy family and an adorable smiling happy golden retriever and I just might hurl.

Seriously, what is with the bougie architectural ideology in this thread? I find a person who can't appreciate a nice concrete high-rise to be suspicious.

[tooAlive]

Would you treat me like an equal? I'd treat you as an equal if you treat me that way. Still bow before communism, bow until you break through the damned floor. You don't know what communism and socialism are, and we've answered your damned questions again and again, you show one sign like you're learning in a positive way, then you show the opposite and it seems more like you're being an asshole troll than someone who is trying to learn about communism. Are you fucking trying convert people or some shit? That's not gonna fucking happen.

Why wouldn't I? I might disagree with you, but I don't think you're inferior to me.

But you can't possibly treat me as an equal when asking to bow before your ideology.

[tooAlive]

But- but- wouldn't you be so much happier in one of those cookie-cutter suburban houses with an adorable smiling happy family and an adorable smiling happy golden retriever and I just might hurl.

Seriously, what is with the bougie architectural ideology in this thread? I find a person who can't appreciate a nice concrete high-rise to be suspicious.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you prefer living in a concrete box next to a train station, I won't try to steer you away from it.

I find the sound of the ocean to be much more appealing, personally.

[Sinister Intents]

Why wouldn't I? I might disagree with you, but I don't think you're inferior to me.

But you can't possibly treat me as an equal when asking to bow before your ideology.

I don't know, I've had lots of people treat me like I'm less than them for bullshit reasons. Like my Polish and German ancestry, Being a feminist anarchist, being a metalhead, having mental health issues. I've been treated like an inferior many a time. I wouldn't consider you inferior to me.

That was more fucking around and not being serious the whole bowing thing.

[tooAlive]

I don't know, I've had lots of people treat me like I'm less than them for bullshit reasons. Like my Polish and German ancestry, Being a feminist anarchist, being a metalhead, having mental health issues. I've been treated like an inferior many a time. I wouldn't consider you inferior to me.

That was more fucking around and not being serious the whole bowing thing.

Usually someone treats another as inferior to feel better about themselves. It's pretty pathetic and also quite ignorant to assume that a person's intellectual ability is sub-par because of their interests and/or political affinity.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

[Dodo]

Seriously, what is with the bougie architectural ideology in this thread? I find a person who can't appreciate a nice concrete high-rise to be suspicious.

My issue is not with the form of the housing. Where an individual would live or settle is also an issue. The subjectivity of the value of the house depends greatly. Lets assume private property and family as we know(an economic unit) has abolished. We are free. I want to live in what is called today the Kadıköy district of İstanbul which is closer to the sea and main urban centres and definetly not in Kartal district which is pretty much just there because of city's unstoppable expansion, full of concrete. How could this issue be handled?
There isn't a lot of point in "envisioning" socialism as I believe it'd be up to the people to decide how they handle it asides from certain ground rules(nothing that would lead to a classed society is allowed, e.g private property over means of production, houses can be somehow related to this as well) but I do not have even a basic idea on this at this point.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you prefer living in a concrete box next to a train station, I won't try to steer you away from it.

I find the sound of the ocean to be much more appealing, personally.

Good for you, mister art collector. Personally, having lived next to the sea, I can't stand the bathers, the stench of salt, suntan and half-used condoms burning in the sun, fucking cicadas, and so on. Other people might prefer to live in the suburbs, in the mountains, in dormitories, in Canada, whatever - you can't assume that everyone in communism will have the same bland cookie-cutter, newspaper-sponsored opinions on what desirable housing is. The point of the communist movement is not to draw up a detailed plan for housing in the next century, but to create the material circumstances that would allow people to resolve these things voluntarily, without market mechanisms and class stratification.

[Sinister Intents]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and if you prefer living in a concrete box next to a train station, I won't try to steer you away from it.

I find the sound of the ocean to be much more appealing, personally.

I always found it really dismissive and ignorant of what I say when having a conversation and someone disagrees and says that's your opinion or you're entitled to you own opinion. Home's made using concrete would be pretty good, it'll block a lot of noise, with your concrete home you could have the walls and floors have a system of pipes put through them to keep your home warm in the winter. I don't remember what that's called, but in my line of work I've installed them and it's quite fun. I guess you'd have to travel to find your home under socialism. I like my swamp despite the winters.


Usually someone treats another as inferior to feel better about themselves. It's pretty pathetic and also quite ignorant to assume that a person's intellectual ability is sub-par because of their interests and/or political affinity.

Anyways, that's just my opinion.

I know that all too well. It is pathetic, but I get it in life still and it's lead me to have some serious anger problems.

[tooAlive]

I know that all too well. It is pathetic, but I get it in life still and it's lead me to have some serious anger problems.

Perhaps it's not a realistic possibility in the immediate future, but I have found that it's not wise or healthy to surround yourself with those type of people.

If they don't help bring you up and see the positive side of you, they're bringing you down. Hopefully you can find people that bring you up and value your company.

[Sinister Intents]

Perhaps it's not a realistic possibility in the immediate future, but I have found that it's not wise or healthy to surround yourself with those type of people.

If they don't help bring you up and see the positive side of you, they're bringing you down. Hopefully you can find people that bring you up and value your company.

Indeed, i get what you're saying, its good I'm trapped at home the majority of the time sometimes, don't have many friends and I try to only surround myself with my family, I gave up talking to people at college.

Going back to concrete homes for under socialism. I think that would be a good idea because you can do so fucking much with concrete, and the work is fun and good for exercise. You can have heated floors and walls for the winter. Get the floor sealed and it's easy to clean, put plastic microfilm under your floors, especially in a basement and you're safe from radon gas build up. Using concrete can keep people from using wood as often for homes.

[Baseball]

. The point of the communist movement is not to draw up a detailed plan for housing in the next century, but to create the material circumstances that would allow people to resolve these things voluntarily, without market mechanisms and class stratification.

And the point of some of these questions is not to ask for a "detailed plan for housing in the next century", but rather an explanation of HOW "people might resolve these things voluntarily, without market mechanisms".

[Jimmie Higgins]

And the point of some of these questions is not to ask for a "detailed plan for housing in the next century", but rather an explanation of HOW "people might resolve these things voluntarily, without market mechanisms".Democratic planning based on use rather than market based non-planning by various firms trying to destroy each-other for the purpose of the accumulation of profits. How do Amish figure out house-building without markets? How did people build anything? Markets are not necessary to create anything - they are one way of organizing production (a way based on exploitation and preventing the majority from having any power in the economy and thus willing to be exploited in exchange for surviving).