land allocation

[pedro san pedro]

how do people feel that land should be allocated under communism? under anarchism?

different pieces of land are worth much more than others -be it because they have a nicer view, are more fertile, are in a better climate, access to water etc etc.

can there be true equality if people have better areas to live than others?

supposedly, if we lkeft everyone on the land they currently own, those that have exploited the capitalist system would still be rewarded for their "efforts"

[iloveatomickitten]

"if we lkeft everyone on the land they currently own"

What idiot would even consider that communism?

It's totally impossible to have total equality perhaps the point is that the working class 'own' the means of production? Not that they are equal in all ways . More fertile land would make no difference as they yeild the farmer produces would not result in more for the farmer, nicer views as opposed to city services, but access to water?

[RedAnarchist]

All land should be public, except for private homes.

[Pawn Power]

land would not be given out in pure communism because all land would be shared
and their would be no private home either, they would be owened by everybody

[Essential Insignificance]

All land should be public, except for private homes.

Can you elucidate for me what is an "private home".

[monkeydust]

pedro san pedro

It's hard to be very certain on this topic, simply because without seeing actual results, we can only speculate on how things will turn out, if they do at all.

Presumably all land would be collectively owned, in a broad sense everyone will have an equal stake in the land available. No single plot of land would ever be privately owned.

I think it's safe to assume that in your questions you were referring to land for living, rather than simply land per se.

It's safe to assume that we wont just leave things as they are, none of us would allow any one person to hoard land to the extent that is done today.

But how would land actually be distributed realistically?

I'm actually not entirely sure on this, as you rightly point out some places to live are considered far more desirable than others. What gives one man a right to live somewhere, above others, when many would like to live in such a place?

Perhaps the best way for desirable land to be distributed would be by ballot. As there is no other 'fair' method to determine who gets what. I see no other to decide who should be allocated to live in a 'desirable' area.

It's important to note however that such a 'desirable' area would only be considered as such for the intrinsic merits of the geographical location concerned, it's not as if certain people's beasic living standards (e.g.lity of sanitation etc.) will differ greatly, there shouldn't be too much jealousy over different areas, not so much as we see today. Moreover, there are plenty of 'desirable' areas to live, and what people consider 'desirable' is by no means certain. Some people actually do prefer 'grotty' cold climates to hot areas, I myself do.

Hopefully we will be able to satisfy the vast majority in terms of land allocation.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by pedro san [email protected] 27 2004, 06:18 AM
how do people feel that land should be allocated under communism? under anarchism?

different pieces of land are worth much more than others -be it because they have a nicer view, are more fertile, are in a better climate, access to water etc etc.

can there be true equality if people have better areas to live than others?

supposedly, if we lkeft everyone on the land they currently own, those that have exploited the capitalist system would still be rewarded for their "efforts"
you'd think the land would be distributed according to the most sensible uses for it that benifit every one.
The mariner lives by the sea, the famer lives in the country. The urban worker lives in the city. And all these areas should be equally great. No ones life should suck.

[Essential Insignificance]

One of the foremost principals of Marxism, post-proletarian revolution, is that of the abolishment of the social cleavage and antagonism between the city and the "idiocy" of rural life.

There will be know definite particulars, "employment" wise either…one may manufacture steel in the morning and heard cattle in afternoon. Social production will be regulated by the populace not an individual.

A wonderful prospect to ponder over.

[Inter arma, enim silent leges]

Originally posted by Raisa+Apr 15 2004, 12:53 AM--> (Raisa @ Apr 15 2004, 12:53 AM)
pedro san [email protected] 27 2004, 06:18 AM
how do people feel that land should be allocated under communism? under anarchism?

different pieces of land are worth much more than others -be it because they have a nicer view, are more fertile, are in a better climate, access to water etc etc.

can there be true equality if people have better areas to live than others?

supposedly, if we lkeft everyone on the land they currently own, those that have exploited the capitalist system would still be rewarded for their "efforts"
you'd think the land would be distributed according to the most sensible uses for it that benifit every one.
The mariner lives by the sea, the famer lives in the country. The urban worker lives in the city. And all these areas should be equally great. No ones life should suck. [/b]
That's all well and good. But how do you allocate who get's the middle floors in an apartment block? The top view? There seem no way to equally please everyone in a situation like this.

[Raisa]

<<That&#39;s all well and good. But how do you allocate who get&#39;s the middle floors in an apartment block? The top view? There seem no way to equally please everyone in a situation like this. >>

Thats a good question. Even now though, to get an apartment it is first come first served, they give you what ever they have.

[God of Imperia]

You don&#39;t have to make things so complicated all the time. No one owns any land or everyone owns all the land. Those are the choices. With the first one it is the state who says where you live and with the second you can choose. If there is already someone else who lives there well then you just live there with two ...
Isn&#39;t it all about being there for each other ... In anarchism and communism there is NO room for private property, so talking about private homes is a waste of time ...

[UnionofSovietSocialistRepublics]

One problem i considered is who would live in the mansion (assuming all houses havent been knocked down and rebuilt to a certain specification post-revolution) and who would live in the former council house? I thought it would make sense for bigger families (say a family of 5 kids and 2 parents to live in a mansion) whilst a 2 person family would live in a much smaller house, however i would fear this would result in people having more children simply so they can reside in a fancier property.

[God of Imperia]

If you wanna live in a mansion, just go live in it, the people there will gladly accept you and you can stay as long as you want. If you think it gets to full, just move to another mansion, or to another kind of house ... Don&#39;t make things so difficult, you&#39;re free to choose or if you don&#39;t want to, you can always ask someone of the council (I don&#39;t believe in a state, but there got to be something to just guide everything in good ways) to give you guidence ...

[monkeydust]

Originally posted by El [email protected] 18 2004, 10:31 AM
One problem i considered is who would live in the mansion
If mansions are not knocked down, which I suppose they will be, then I presume there would e a great number of people living in each.

There&#39;s a &#39;mansion&#39; near where I live and 6 families reside in it, quite comfortably. It may be quite possible to house large numbers of people in a single big structure. A mansion for one family would be outrageous however.

In any case I suspect they would be knocked down.

[Raisa]

Originally posted by Left+Apr 18 2004, 12:51 PM--> (Left @ Apr 18 2004, 12:51 PM)
El [email protected] 18 2004, 10:31 AM
One problem i considered is who would live in the mansion
If mansions are not knocked down, which I suppose they will be, then I presume there would e a great number of people living in each.

There&#39;s a &#39;mansion&#39; near where I live and 6 families reside in it, quite comfortably. It may be quite possible to house large numbers of people in a single big structure. A mansion for one family would be outrageous however.

In any case I suspect they would be knocked down. [/b]
Its really wasteful to knock down a mansion
knock down the delapidated old wood houses that poor people are crammed into instead.
But to knock down mansions is wasteful.
Even if you say, its a sign of a class less society or what ever, i dont believe in erasing the past. Let people see how far we have come.

[Don't Change Your Name]

Ermm...mansions? Make them museums/offices/hotels/warehouses/studios/libraries/etc.

Using them for living is stupid.

[Essential Insignificance]

Ermm...mansions? Make them museums/offices/hotels/warehouses/studios/libraries/etc.

Using them for living is stupid.

Why specifically…there are innumerable quantitys of reasons why it would be an "great" idea for people to live in them.

I take it that you advocate the establishment and maintenance of the variants of proposals that you nominated above, then the lodging of families.

Question, if your next-door neighbour was residing in a "mansion", would you get jealous?..this is in a communist society of course.

[pedro san pedro]

There will be know definite particulars, "employment" wise either…one may manufacture steel in the morning and heard cattle in afternoon.

so under communism, we all make metal then listen to what the cows gotta say?

thats really really strange

[Essential Insignificance]

so under communism, we all make metal then listen to what the cows gotta say?

thats really really strange

Not all of "us" will…but chances are, we will do it within our lifetime. Man is not his "occupation" as in capitalism…man is a social being…"regulated" by society, that is, in a communist society.

If you don’t like the idea…chances are you going to detest communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I don&#39;t think turning mansions into libraries/museums/whatever will work, we have enough of them already. And what of the mansions in remote or fairly remote locations?

Most large houses are pre-capitalist in origin (At least in the UK) and so represent a social order that toppled long before.

I would absolutely LOVE to share a 15th Century Tudor country manor with about a dozen other people.
Can you imagine how many people the Palace of Versaille could hold? or buckingham palace?

[pedro san pedro]

Essential Insignificance Posted on Apr 23 2004, 09:54 PM
QUOTE
so under communism, we all make metal then listen to what the cows gotta say?

thats really really strange



Not all of "us" will…but chances are, we will do it within our lifetime. Man is not his "occupation" as in capitalism…man is a social being…"regulated" by society, that is, in a communist society.

If you don’t like the idea…chances are you going to detest communism.


yeah, i understood this...just thought it was a fairly unusaul pairing....metal production and cattle rancher&#33;

interesting that you mention that man is not his occupation under communism. while i think this is obviously a negative aspect of today for most people, i am lucky enough to be employed to do what i love in the non-profit sector.
i would hope that under a new system, there would be more oppurtinities for people to truely become their occupations, but to gain the freedom to truely choose what that occupation will be.

[Essential Insignificance]

yeah, i understood this...just thought it was a fairly unusaul pairing....metal production and cattle rancher&#33;

Just trying to demonstrate the polar opposites of production in capitalism and there relativeness in a communist society and the significance of those in communist society.


interesting that you mention that man is not his occupation under communism. while i think this is obviously a negative aspect of today for most people, i am lucky enough to be employed to do what i love in the non-profit sector.

But that, by no means, signifies who you are as an independent individual…that is not who your are: an occupation…even if you enjoy it to the highest degree.

Although, I am very happy for you.



would hope that under a new system, there would be more oppurtinities for people to truely become their occupations, but to gain the freedom to truely choose what that occupation will be.

You are almost defining the definition of capitalism…under capitalism we are continually told that "we are what we want to be"…"if we don’t try then nothing will come of us".

But there are certain definite laws of capitalism, for instance it is impossible for say 10% of the population to be "vets" and "lawyers" and another 15% to be "doctors"…for reasons I am sure you understand. Production will come to a stop if this was to happen.

Much is the same in communism.

I am not saying that there wont be any particulars such as as "doctors", "lecturers", "scientist" and "vets"…but society will regulate itself. That is to say that the doctor may at some stage may produce steal or the "vet" may one day work on the pig farm.


Lastly…people are not there occupation.

In communism there are know occupations…just socially necessary "means", if you like.

[pedro san pedro]

but i never want to do a job that i dont enjoy -i would do the work i am doing for free if i could (i put in a lot of volunteer hours as it is).

surely what i enjoy is at least part of who i am....

i am doing what i am passionate about...
with people that are like minded.

sure, it is not all of what i am, it doesnt say what music i like, what food i enjoy, how i dance etc, but it says a fair amount.

likewise, i could probably infer quite a lot about what sort of person your average ceo of a multinational is


obviously a lot of people are in employment they dont like, because they have no choice, but a lot of jobs show a bit of a persons character.

what their interests are -what they chose to study at uni

what their goals are -money vs helping people

[Essential Insignificance]

but i never want to do a job that i dont enjoy -i would do the work i am doing for free if i could (i put in a lot of volunteer hours as it is).

In communism you will be doing the work for free anyway…in the lightest sense of the word.



surely what i enjoy is at least part of who i am....


Of course it is, for your given case, insofar.




i am doing what i am passionate about...
with people that are like minded.

I am extremely envious of you…but I work part time doing something that I completely "loathe"…this does not define me as a individual...well maybe in your eyes.


sure, it is not all of what i am (and i hope it never is), but i feel that you can tell a fair amount about someone by what their occupation is..

(though of cousre there are always exceptions to any rule)

The thoughts of a true capitalist or one indoctrinated by there ways…if I was to labour cleaning toilets all day, would this define myself and communicate to you whom I am, just so that I can live…I don’t think so.

Your just a lucky individual, who is able earn a living under capitalism, doing what you enjoy…there is not many of you.