How the houses distribution looks like in Socialism?

[Poland1944]

For example, we live in a capitalist system. I have an ok house for my family, a friend of mine has a little poor house, and a rich friend of mine has a large house.
If it has a socialist transition, what would happen? The state would take our houses? The rich one would be forced to share his house? How it would be? (Of course, you can use a real example like USSR, I'm asking because I don't have historical knowledge about this question)

[ckaihatsu]

---





scarce goods would have to be measured against a *new* consideration of 'social value' -- if you will -- that of who wants it badly enough:





this is a critical and crucial question for a revolutionary politics -- it can be generalized to the question of luxury goods / luxury inclinations / luxury production, overall.

I think the quick, administrative answer might be basically 'first come, first served' -- even if it has to measured to a microsecond-point accuracy. One possible option might be a calendar-year timesharing, if the requesters are open to that.


---





better, i think, would be an approach that is more routine and less time-sensitive in prioritizing among responders -- the thing that would differentiate demand would be people's *own* prioritizations, in relation to *all other* possibilities for demands. This means that only those most focused on product 'x' or event 'y', to the abandonment of all else (relatively speaking), over several iterations (days), would be seen as 'most-wanting' of it, for ultimate receipt.

My 'communist supply and demand' model, fortunately, uses this approach as a matter of course:





consumption [demand] -- every person in a locality has a standard, one-through-infinity ranking system of political demands available to them, updated daily




consumption [demand] -- basic human needs will be assigned a higher political priority by individuals and will emerge as mass demands at the cumulative scale -- desires will benefit from political organizing efforts and coordination




consumption [demand] -- a regular, routine system of mass individual political demand pooling -- as with spreadsheet templates and email -- must be in continuous operation so as to aggregate cumulative demands into the political process




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174





i'm also realizing that this model / method of demand-prioritization can be used in such a way as to lend relative *weight* to a person's bid for any given product or calendar event, if there happens to be a limited supply and a more-intensive prioritization ('rationing') is called-for by the objective situation:

Since everyone has a standard one-through-infinity template to use on a daily basis for all political and/or economic demands, this template lends itself to consumer-political-type *organizing* in the case that such is necessary -- someone's 'passion' for a particular demand could be formally demonstrated by their recruiting of *others* to direct one or several of *their* ranking slots, for as many days / iterations as they like, to the person who is trying to beat-out others for the limited quantity.

Recall:





[a]ggregating these lists, by ranking (#1, #2, #3, etc.), is *no big deal* for any given computer. What we would want to see is what the rankings are for milk and steel, by rank position. So how many people put 'milk' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'steel' for #1 -- ? How many people put 'milk' for #2 -- ? And how many people put 'steel' for #2 -- ? (etc.)

*this* would be socially useful information that could be the whole basis for a socialist political economy.





so, by extension, if someone was particularly interested in 'event y', they might undertake efforts to convince others to *donate* their ranking slots to them, forgoing 'milk' and 'steel' (for example) for positions #1 and/or #2. Formally these others would put 'person z for event y' for positions 1 and/or 2, etc., for as many days / iterations as they might want to donate. This, in effect, would be a populist-political-type campaign, of whatever magnitude, for the sake of a person's own particularly favored consumption preferences, given an unavoidably limited supply of it, whatever it may be.

[ckaihatsu]

Also:





[1] eliminate all finance, [2] whatever you can't hold on your person or actively be in the presence of will potentially be reclaimed by someone else. No force required. Annnnnnnnd we're done.

[Slavic]

There are plenty of empty and vacant homes/apartments that can immediately serve as housing for the homeless. Getting people feed and off the streets should be priority number one for any society worth a damn.

I would assume that in a society without rent and capital would result in people revitalizing their homes and neighborhoods. Neighborhood blight just doesn't happen in a vacuum, these neighborhoods are just your typical victims that Capitalism produces in its race for profits.

About the large luxury houses? I am honestly not sure. I do not think that some kind of policy like "Anyone in a home over x square footage should be thrown out or forced to share" would be beneficial. I am not opposed though to reactionaries and particularly vile members of the bourgeoisie being removed from their homes.

EDIT


[1] eliminate all finance, [2] whatever you can't hold on your person or actively be in the presence of will potentially be reclaimed by someone else. No force required. Annnnnnnnd we're done.

Also in favor as it would result in the removal of second and vacation homes from someone's personal property in the most logical and ethical way possible.

[ckaihatsu]

There are plenty of empty and vacant homes/apartments that can immediately serve as housing for the homeless. Getting people feed and off the streets should be priority number one for any society worth a damn.


Yup.





I would assume that in a society without rent and capital would result in people revitalizing their homes and neighborhoods.


Certainly, especially given the materials for doing so would be freely available, as per communism.





Neighborhood blight just doesn't happen in a vacuum, these neighborhoods are just your typical victims that Capitalism produces in its race for profits.


Yup again.





[1] eliminate all finance, [2] whatever you can't hold on your person or actively be in the presence of will potentially be reclaimed by someone else. No force required. Annnnnnnnd we're done.





Also in favor as it would result in the removal of second and vacation homes from someone's personal property in the most logical and ethical way possible.


Good point.





About the large luxury houses? I am honestly not sure. I do not think that some kind of policy like "Anyone in a home over x square footage should be thrown out or forced to share" would be beneficial. I am not opposed though to reactionaries and particularly vile members of the bourgeoisie being removed from their homes.


The specifics of such a policy would have to be decided-on, along with the closely related issue of what stuff *in* the home could continue to be claimed and kept -- it could be defined as drawing a consistent line around what would be considered 'personal possessions', with everything else becoming 'public domain' and/or 'free-access resources'.





I've also wondered about how everyday use of *physical space* would change, once private property is done away with -- perhaps the communization of materials, and physical space, would mean that daily life would be much more *mobile* than today, perhaps more resembling the times of primitive communism, since there would be no more uncertainty in modern "foraging".

Private collections of whatever cultural artifacts would give way to a norm of *collectively* administrating such collections, more like a common network of museums or an academia that's as ubiquitous as the Internet.

It's tough to say, though, because it would probably hinge on how much slack the people of such a world would grant to the domain of *sentiment* -- would personal possessions *increase*, in a hoarding kind of way, for expanding and expansive personal reasons, or would society frown on such harboring of sentimentality, since all items themselves would be freely available anyway -- ?

A formal economy would be good to preserve and encourage individuality, but from a strictly material standpoint wouldn't be absolutely *necessary*, as the degree of socialized life increased. Doubtless there would have to be some complex balancing of the two, in all aspects.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

For example, we live in a capitalist system. I have an ok house for my family, a friend of mine has a little poor house, and a rich friend of mine has a large house.
If it has a socialist transition, what would happen? The state would take our houses? The rich one would be forced to share his house? How it would be? (Of course, you can use a real example like USSR, I'm asking because I don't have historical knowledge about this question)

Actually, in the fSU, large, gaudy and aesthetically weird apartment complexes were apparently, all the rage. Similar to American 'projects' in a way and also involved, at one point communal apartment living before the advent of the ever so lovely khrushchyovkas, lolol

[Baracko Marx]

Fancy houses could be used as timeshares for workers on vacation.