What is to become of houses?

[Jacob Cliff]

Sounds like a dumb question, but houses are personal and not private property, right? Houses wouldn't be communally shared, right?

[Antiochus]

I mean, do you really want to live with your mother in law? :lol:

The more ostentatious of the houses (i.e the Versailles type ones) can be made into museums or public property. I don't see the point in expelling a bunch of upper middle class people with a 3 bedroom from their home. Just from a practical point of view it would be pretty stupid.

[Creative Destruction]

They would be the property of no one. How housing is divvied up would be based on the needs of the citizen communards. If you live in a house, though, I don't see why the commune should evict you from it. Live in it as long as you want, if you want or need to move, then it is returned back to the commune and someone else is designated to live in it.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Ultimately, it's up to people who are going to live in the socialist society - which hopefully includes much of the present company - to decide on that. I think the most efficient arrangement is to have high-rise buildings with a fair number of apartments and some shared facilities (cantinas, laundries and so on). That is what I would argue for, and how I imagine the socialist society will solve the issue. That might mean demolishing some houses to make way for the more efficient high-rises (or parks etc.), but such is life. Again, the point is that the socialist society will give its members use of the apartments, and so on, but not property - these apartments would not be "yours" to dispose of as you see fit without regard for other people.

In the transitional period, who knows. I would hope that the civil war would not cause massive dislocations of civilians, but I might as well hope that this doughnut I'm eating is doing good things to my cardiovascular system. Probably people with larger houses are going to have to accept refugees, troops and so on.

[Subversive]

All land will be public land. Therefore, that makes the homes on the land part of public property, in a way.
Yet, no one is going to be forced to live communally with other families, that isn't what is meant by public property.

Just as if you were in possession of a public vehicle. Is this vehicle yours or everyone's? If it is your job to drive everyone else to work, then it is probably considered everyone's. But if the vehicle was designated to you, so that you can get to work, then it is yours for so long as you are in possession of it. Basically, so long as you require it. If you no longer require it, it is returned back to where you got it from and it would likely go to someone else who needs it.

You can consider it 'temporary ownership of public property'.

Someone residing on the property would naturally have temporary-ownership over the home until they no longer reside there.
This would mean that if you die, and die alone, your home and your land return to being public property.
If you die, and die with other residents in your home, they would naturally "inherit" the home as a natural means of inheritance, not inheriting the property, neither of land nor home, but inheriting only the residency, because they are still residents.
They remaining residents would not be relocated, as in the Capitalist system. The concept of a 'home owner' or 'head of household' is nothing but a bourgeois ideology. The abolishment of private property, when all lands are made public, would naturally do away with this bourgeois concept. Therefore, all residents are owners of the land and the home, just as all workers are owners of their workplace.

If, however, you owned a 'Summer home' prior to revolution, and you were not residing in that home at the time that land was made public and being redistributed, then you will obviously lose that home. The land would be public and the home would become someone else's.

In the case of old homes, shanties, slums, and any sub-standard living, society will likely deem it necessary to build new standardized housing for these people, likely apartment complexes, in which they will go. Once no one resides on these properties anymore they can be demolished and the space can be reused for something better, like new homes, a park, or a local garden.

In the case of bourgeois 'luxury homes', they will likely be stripped of their ownership and replaced into the same sort of standardized-housing as mentioned above. They would likely not allowed to keep the privilege. As others indicated before, some might be kept for historical purposes, as museums, others as event-centers or meeting-offices or such, and most will simply be demolished and likely replaced with standardized-housing, likely apartments or perhaps even workplaces and factories due to the amount of land and the location of most bourgeois properties.
These seizures of property would be considered justified replacements due to the stripping away of bourgeois privilege, to undermine the bourgeoisie and to eventually abolish their class entirely. However, the bourgeoisie would not be treated unfairly if they cooperate. They would receive the same sort of equal and standardized housing anyone else might get when relocating.

It is important to realize that the amount of habitable land on Earth per individual on Earth is not a large amount, especially when subtracting the amount of land needed for farming, roads, workplaces, parks, museums, libraries, etc. Inevitably it must necessarily be realized that even with today's current population, and including no growth, many people must live together. So it is very likely that 'apartment complexes' would be favored for individuals, and 'homes' might be favored for people with families, people who live together. There is no real need for a single individual to have an entire home to themselves. An decent apartment is more than enough for even two people (but with two people plus a child it starts becoming cramped).
So naturally it should be a focus of society to concentrate on building efficient-housing, and getting everyone to live there, rather than just trying to establish and maintain housing itself. Some socialists argue for rural-development of housing, to 'spread out the cities', but this is actually not very feasible or practical if we want to eventually give everyone equal housing and still maintain enough farmland to feed everyone.

So it goes without saying that housing will be of one of the main concerns for revolutionary and post-revolutionary society. It will be up to that society to decide on the details.

[Creative Destruction]

So naturally it should be a focus of society to concentrate on building efficient-housing, and getting everyone to live there, rather than just trying to establish and maintain housing itself. Some socialists argue for rural-development of housing, to 'spread out the cities', but this is actually not very feasible or practical if we want to eventually give everyone equal housing and still maintain enough farmland to feed everyone.

Vertical farming, while not a silver bullet, could be a good supplement if there is a shortage of farm land. Also, not to mention, much food is just completely wasted right now under capitalism. Once production becomes for need, this would also cut out any need to expand farms.

We are at a point right now where we can provide food for everyone in the world. It is not a scarce resource, except for economic barriers that keep it from people.

[The Red Star Rising]

You see this?

https://thekevinchen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/tumblr_lw7md2w9mu1r5vp1oo1_1280.jpg

Yeah fuck that, turn it into an apartment, a hotel, a museum or just anything useful for someone who isn't Mr.Moneybags. Or maybe just demolish it and use the space for an apartment. Whatever floats the community's boat.

More standard homes that while large, are not entirely conducive to housing more than one family are more likely to remain where they are. Homes with spare bedrooms that nobody's using (which are rather common) are likely to house other tenants however. It's substantially more useful to society for someone who would otherwise be homeless to use that spare bedroom than for someone to make a home theater or man cave out of it.

Multi-family households are likely to become more common, and I personally think that encouraging more interaction between them is a good thing anyway, rather than have every clan generally be secluded outside of special occasions.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

^ I got an idea. How about we turn all of the big mansions into the communal festival centers?

Basically, whenever the commune decides to have a huge party, we can have the parties at all of the old mansions. We can have a couple of volunteer families who live there year round (we can raffle it off every year or so) whose job is to maintain these places and to throw the parties.

[The Red Star Rising]

^ I got an idea. How about we turn all of the big mansions into the communal festival centers?

Basically, whenever the commune decides to have a huge party, we can have the parties at all of the old mansions. We can have a couple of volunteer families who live there year round (we can raffle it off every year or so) whose job is to maintain these places and to throw the parties.
Yeah honestly, even if it were just used as a haunted house every halloween for the kids, it'd probably do more to enrich people's happiness than it did as an all year round residence for the megawealthy.

[Sewer Socialist]

Houses wouldn't be communally shared, right?

Mine sure as fuck would be.

Grillin veggie burgers out back, diet cola in the cooler, cuzz.

[Bala Perdida]

Mine sure as fuck would be.

Grillin veggie burgers out back, diet cola in the cooler, cuzz.
cuz what? You hate yourself. Diet cola? Ewwwww! Get some apricot soda, or mexican cola. This is post scarcity, ain't nobody want diet cola.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Burn em all to the ground, fuck shelters, you won't last two seconds in the wastes with that kinda mindset buckarooo

Also, no, I'm not trollin, I'm advocating a new, sophisticated human pack system as a means of social organization

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

cuz what? You hate yourself. Diet cola? Ewwwww! Get some apricot soda, or mexican cola. This is post scarcity, ain't nobody want diet cola.

I don't want to live in a world without Fiet Coke.

[Sewer Socialist]

I've never had apricot soda, but that sounds totally awesome. Mexican cola I would probably pass up for some tamarindo, if you wouldn't mind picking some up. Or are you just coming to my barbeque to criticize my beverage selection?

[Creative Destruction]

cuz what? You hate yourself. Diet cola? Ewwwww! Get some apricot soda, or mexican cola. This is post scarcity, ain't nobody want diet cola.

Nothing is better than Sidral.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Nothing is better than Sidral.

Nothing is better than Mt. Dew; it has electrolytes and that's what we crave

[Bala Perdida]

I've never had apricot soda, but that sounds totally awesome. Mexican cola I would probably pass up for some tamarindo, if you wouldn't mind picking some up. Or are you just coming to my barbeque to criticize my beverage selection?
I'm down. I won't endlessly criticize it, I'm not your family. Oh wait, nevermind. Then I'd be insulating you.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

No but seriously like why do we really need shelter?

[BIXX]

cuz what? You hate yourself. Diet cola? Ewwwww! Get some apricot soda, or mexican cola. This is post scarcity, ain't nobody want diet cola.
He's called poor taste for a reason.

[Bala Perdida]

No but seriously like why do we really need shelter?
Will the pack system involve a physical roof over my head? Or are you thinking nomadic?

[The Red Star Rising]

No but seriously like why do we really need shelter?
Small, underweight, asthmatic nerds like me are probably going to get pneumonia and die without a warm, dry place to sleep in.

[BIXX]

Will the pack system involve a physical roof over my head? Or are you thinking nomadic?
Prolly nomadic, or semi-nomadic would be my thing.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Will the pack system involve a physical roof over my head? Or are you thinking nomadic?

Collapsible, economical, temporary shelters, like high tech, sophisticated tents, buildings and structures seem dated. Food, water and other necessities could be provided and set up like a watering hole, oasis type of situation. I think this would greatly help in grinding to a halt our species onslaught on out ecosystems. The amalgamation of nature and technology needs to happen. Look at how ideal the Avatar universe was. Plus a biological, non-verbal communication system is totally possible and already kind of exists. I think we need to embrace our animal past and reconcile that with the stuffy, pathological life of modern man in contemporary society.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Small, underweight, asthmatic nerds like me are probably going to get pneumonia and die without a warm, dry place to sleep in.

What I'm suggesting doesn't imply the collapse of healing but rather a radical revamping of the whole healthcare system and how we treat plague and bad humors.

[Slavic]

What I'm suggesting doesn't imply the collapse of healing but rather a radical revamping of the whole healthcare system and how we treat plague and bad humors.

Can't we all just be cyborgs and eat rocks? We can be cyborg nomads in previous inhospitable terrain, getting our intake of carbon through rock ingestion.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Can't we all just be cyborgs and eat rocks? We can be cyborg nomads in previous inhospitable terrain, getting our intake of carbon through rock ingestion.

This isn't an elaborate rouse, I've been kicking around these ideas for awhile :crying:

Seriously, how cool would that be? Like high tech Native American lifestyle; post-modern Pocahontas :wub: