HOUSING [Archive]

Taboo Tongue

10th May 2006, 00:23

Probably be according to peoples need.
I would think mansions would either be given to those who need them (ie larger families\sets of people living together), to multiple families, and to ex-homeless (directly after the revolution).
The smaller houses will go to those who either like smaller houses (like myself), or to those who need less (those who want to live alone).

NewKindOfSoldier brought up some great ideas I had never thought of, and seem very plausible uses for the mansions.

philosopher

10th May 2006, 00:32

Originally posted by Taboo [email protected] 9 2006, 11:44 PM
Probably be according to peoples need.
I would think mansions would either be given to those who need them (ie larger families\sets of people living together), to multiple families, and to ex-homeless (directly after the revolution).
The smaller houses will go to those who either like smaller houses (like myself), or to those who need less (those who want to live alone).

NewKindOfSoldier brought up some great ideas I had never thought of, and seem very plausible uses for the mansions.
Does this also apply to the billion plus homeless migrants from the third world who will surely turn-up on the doorstep when they hear of this free housing, or are they to remain in their homelands to continue as wage slaves producing raw materials.

Wiesty

10th May 2006, 00:41

if there is a standard for the style of houses in the society, tear down all the fancy things in the apartment and use them for other things, and remodel them as the average apartment, and make the mansions into apartments, or hospitals, or something that gives back to society, like a homeless shelter.

cenv

10th May 2006, 00:53

I don't think it's a problem. Some of them would be used for facilities that require a relatively large amount of space, while others could be easily divided up into smaller units.

A special few could even be preserved as historical landmarks: "see, people used to live in these things! Can you imagine... a huge, three-story 'house' like this being used by a few people! See how unorganized, innefficient, and greedy people were back in the old days?!" :lol:

Zero

10th May 2006, 01:21

Originally posted by "philosopher"
Does this also apply to the billion plus homeless migrants from the third world who will surely turn-up on the doorstep when they hear of this free housing, or are they to remain in their homelands to continue as wage slaves producing raw materials.

You say this as if Communism was isolated.

The revolution will take place in every corner of the world (hopefully), and will persist untill every Human being is liberated. Once the revolution has subsided and the Capitalists have been smashed into the ground, never to be heard from again; we will be at least fifty or so years in the future. A constant revolution will take place in which cities, towns, and villages will be taken and retaken, and when we finally have the upper hand, our forces will be large, and many. With the promise of intellectual prosparity in the years following our New Red Army will have the labor power to advance everything to a future state. Big or small issue, everything will be taken on, and everything will be destributed according to need... or really in this case preferance.

In essence, don't sweat the small stuff. If "Suburbia" will be destroyed, and better, more equal housing will be installed; I'm cool with that. I'll help. But by the time that we reach Communism... things like this will allready have been taken care of by the revolutionary government of the past.

piet11111

10th May 2006, 04:09

mansions would probably turn into barracks/supply dumps and say penthouses are supplypiles for the poeple that live in that highrise.

(supply's as in food water fuel and weapons & munitions)

Zingu

10th May 2006, 05:08

Who decides in capitalism which family gets what apartment?

No-one really does, whoever gets it first. Do people riot and kill each other over this?

No.

To understand Communist society (I mean as in the *final* stage of communism), you have to start trusting the fact that people can autonomously make decisions on their own accord. Besides, I would expect that people move around alot in a post-communist society, meaning residence wouldn't be permament.

During the transitionary period, I would expect that some buildings would be requisistioned for the common good; like in the Spanish Revolution churches were turned into supply depots for foodstuffs.

As rouchambeau said: don't worry about it! Communism is about voluntary co-operation, people can decide and resolve it collectively. Each situation is unique with unique individuals; meaning that they must resolve it together in which everyone is statisfied, which can only be achieved by their own action.

redstar2000

10th May 2006, 06:16

Originally posted by philosopher
Does this also apply to the billion plus homeless migrants from the third world who will surely turn-up on the doorstep when they hear of this free housing, or are they to remain in their homelands to continue as wage slaves producing raw materials.

North America is very large...we can handle a billion if that many want to come here.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Cult of Reason

10th May 2006, 09:59

Originally posted by wet blanket+May 10 2006, 12:40 AM--> (wet blanket @ May 10 2006, 12:40 AM)
[email protected] 9 2006, 09:54 PM
Don't worry about it.
:lol: I like this.

Anyway, something similar has crossed my mind in the past: What are we to do with the suburban sprawl? This is an unsustainable and anti-social living arrangement and isn't very adaptive to socialized means of transportation. My only practical idea would be to demolish them and recycle any salvageable materials... but that'd be one hell of a project! [/b]
Have you heard about the Technocratic concept of Urbanates?

Zero

10th May 2006, 17:08

Haraldur, Urbanates could not be built directly after the revolution unless we devoted a large ammount of time and energy into creating them. Anything is possible, just lets not get too worked up about social "structure" of housing. Once we get rid of nationalism, once we drown out the struggle of Imperialism, and once we finaly manage to re-educate the population to the point where they are self actualised and solidaric (is that even a word?) individuals... THEN we can worry about such things as housing, or what to do with traditions, or religions, or whatever problems arise.

MrDoom

10th May 2006, 17:30

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 12:14 AM
A special few could even be preserved as historical landmarks: "see, people used to live in these things! Can you imagine... a huge, three-story 'house' like this being used by a few people! See how unorganized, innefficient, and greedy people were back in the old days?!" :lol:
How ironic that would be. ;)

wet blanket

11th May 2006, 06:20

Originally posted by Haraldur+May 10 2006, 08:59 AM--> (Haraldur @ May 10 2006, 08:59 AM)
Originally posted by wet [email protected] 10 2006, 12:40 AM

[email protected] 9 2006, 09:54 PM
Don't worry about it.
:lol: I like this.

Anyway, something similar has crossed my mind in the past: What are we to do with the suburban sprawl? This is an unsustainable and anti-social living arrangement and isn't very adaptive to socialized means of transportation. My only practical idea would be to demolish them and recycle any salvageable materials... but that'd be one hell of a project!
Have you heard about the Technocratic concept of Urbanates? [/b]
Yes, and that seems like a feasible alternative to our current situation. However what I was getting at was, what do we do with the housing situation that already exists?

piet11111

11th May 2006, 06:45

demolish the current housing situation.

the nazi's firebombed Rotterdam to force the netherlands to surrender because of this we managed to update the entire city to modern times.

i dont see how we could not demolish entire neighbourhoods to rebuild them with better and more comfortable houses.
heck why not slam in some gardens and trees aswell ?
especially fruit bearing trees like apple trees for instance i bet most poeple would love that.

Cult of Reason

11th May 2006, 13:07

Sorry, I thought you were thinking about the long term, the grand project etc..

In the very short term it might be possible for the gardens of suburbia to be merged, the dividing walls to be demolished, and so fields of crop could be tended, should that ever be necessary (and it might imporve sustainability), or, alternatively, the merged gardens could be used a communal social area (although I would imagine that people would also want small private areas for themselves).

Suburbia has a lot of roof space, so solar panels could be used, but there would be tremendous feasibility problems with that, I would think.

Apart from that, I am out of ideas at the moment.

piet11111

11th May 2006, 13:56

the fruit trees are just a nice addition for social areas i did not suggest farms in downtown :lol:

i think it would be really nice to see poeple plucking appels pears etc. while strolling through the streets.
the modern city is just a display for all sorts of different shades of grey concrete interupted by the graffiti and advertisements aswell as general trash.

no wonder i want trees in the city's and an end to all that concrete eyesores.

BattleOfTheCowshed

11th May 2006, 19:18

Hmm, interesting replies, I agree that one way or another we'll find a way to make use of the current supply of housing stock. However, I think the question philosopher was asking was what would moving (as in to a new home) entail in a communist society? I think the answer is, there would be some kind of social network whereby people could communicate with each other and express their intention to move and decide to 'swap'. If housing supply is short, workers collectives could be commissioned to complete new housing etc. And the old housing would either be rebuilt upon or left for anyone who wanted it to occupy.

Janus

11th May 2006, 19:27

There should be plenty of space and unequitable housing should be gone. Fair housing is a must of course. Furthermore, people can decide where they would like to live in discussions with each other. I'm more worried about the distribution of goods which would pose more of a problem.

OneBrickOneVoice

11th May 2006, 21:47

It should be the goal to have EVERYONE own a mansion. Of course it's impossible so I think that people would be alloted a certain amount of space in which is exclusivly theirs. People who live in trailers will get more space than people who live in mansions though just because of the living conditions.

Janus

11th May 2006, 21:51

Of course it's impossible so I think that people would be alloted a certain amount of space in which is exclusivly theirs.
You're not talking about re-establishing private ownership are you? Then the revolution would have been pointless.

It should be the goal to have EVERYONE own a mansion
There is no reason to even have mansions. Mansions take up too much land and aren't practical at all.

Cult of Reason

12th May 2006, 09:30

With no hired labour I would think that it would simply be too difficult to maintain a mansion, unless it is shared with a large number of people (which it should be).

Besides, mansions are not the most space efficient buildings, so a proliferation of them would have a large, possibly devastating, ecological impact.

philosopher

12th May 2006, 23:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:30 AM
With no hired labour I would think that it would simply be too difficult to maintain a mansion, unless it is shared with a large number of people (which it should be).

If no one owns the property and occupation is only temporary and there’s no money or state to pay for labour how does any property get maintained.

Wouldn’t people just let the property decay particularly if their own property was sequestrated by the revolution?

Consider the state of shared student accommodation, they don’t even clean up.

YSR

13th May 2006, 06:25

Originally posted by "philosopher"+--> ("philosopher")Does this also apply to the billion plus homeless migrants from the third world who will surely turn-up on the doorstep when they hear of this free housing, or are they to remain in their homelands to continue as wage slaves producing raw materials.[/b]

Excuse me, has anyone noticed this incredible piece of bullshit statement? There is NO way that there are "a billion plus" homeless migrants in the world.

And you've missed the point. At the risk of sounding like a Trot, the revolution happens simultaneously around the world. I mean, of course, not exactly the same time, but just because communism is reached in one country and it seizes to become a country doesn't mean agitation will cease everywhere. In fact, agitation will likely increase tenfold seeing the success of an anti-state model.

So why would these immigrants you so fear from the "third world" show up? If they did, we'd try to accomodate them. If they were smart, they'd use "us" as an example on how to overthrow their own bourgeoisie.

"philosopher"
If no one owns the property and occupation is only temporary and there’s no money or state to pay for labour how does any property get maintained.

Just because there is no property doesn't mean that everyone is just wandering around aimlessly. I have a job in my town. I work there. After the revolution, I will still work there. I will still attend a school in my town. I will need a place to live. I will likely live in the building frequently referred to as "my house". It will be the house where YSR lives. If people need a place to crash, of course I'll let them stay. If I need to go to some other place, I'm sure that people will do the same.

You can't be a revolutionary leftist, "philosopher". Because if you were, you would reject the notion that people need to be "forced" to do things, like take care of their residences, or go to work, or pay taxes, or fight other working people from foreign countries. You would understand that people will do these things even better when they are not being forced to do so.

Consider the state of shared student accommodation, they don’t even clean up.

This could be the least scientific statement I've ever encountered, besides perhaps "God is everywhere."

As a sidenote, I realize I just picked up LSD/RS2K/AS bolding disease there. I pledge to purge it from myself quicker than Stalin would purge a communist. (Bonus points! Dig at Stalin!)

wet blanket

13th May 2006, 08:35

Excuse me, has anyone noticed this incredible piece of bullshit statement? There is NO way that there are "a billion plus" homeless migrants in the world.
Chill out, it's an exaggeration however he does have somewhat of a point. If a communist revolution occurs, say, in the United States and communes start sprouting up all over lacking a central authority to regulate immigration, people from all over the world are going to flock to these areas provided things are not too chaotic. He was suggesting that perhaps there's going to be areas where the communist housing becomes an issue due to an increase in population. I think he was asking for remedies for such a situation(although the solution seems rather obvious when you think about it).

And you've missed the point. At the risk of sounding like a Trot, the revolution happens simultaneously around the world. I mean, of course, not exactly the same time, but just because communism is reached in one country and it seizes to become a country doesn't mean agitation will cease everywhere. In fact, agitation will likely increase tenfold seeing the success of an anti-state model.
That doesn't change the fact that a lot of people are going to 'take the easy route' and simply immigrate to a communist region. While you're right in that once an anti-state model is established agitation will increase, relocation is still a lot easier than revolution.

So why would these immigrants you so fear from the "third world" show up? If they did, we'd try to accomodate them. If they were smart, they'd use "us" as an example on how to overthrow their own bourgeoisie.
Precisely.

This could be the least scientific statement I've ever encountered, besides perhaps "God is everywhere."
:lol: I don't think he was intending to make a scientific statement. Although he does raise a pretty important point: people can get messy. I think that dorms would be a bad example though because the students don't really consider those rooms to be a home. Somehow I don't think that shared accommodation would become as much of a mess when people living there consider it to be home. However, using the same example, I think that well maintained shared college student accommodation is a very nice model that communist housing could resemble in terms of community/dining/shared maintenance responsibilities and resources.

drain.you

13th May 2006, 12:03

If it was solely up to me, (which it should never be lol), then I would start a massive scheme of demolition and building standard housing everywhere. Probably moving out from the capital of the country. Think its key to get rid of capitalist institutions and replace them with commie ones as soon as possible to make it harder for a counter revolution to take place.
Suppose you could build housing in farmers fields and then move people into them and destroy the old housing, turning that area into farmer's fields again?
I think immediately after the revolution, everyone will still have the same houses/furniture/wealth. It is going to take a hundred years or more after the revolution to have something that resembles communism. And its going to be hard, and theres going to be riots. I imagine it to be something like after the worldwars, all the economic hardship, rebuilding of cities and stuff. But we will get there eventually, one way or another and every country will have its own way of getting there.

Body Count

13th May 2006, 16:54

Originally posted by philosopher+May 9 2006, 11:32 PM--> (philosopher @ May 9 2006, 11:32 PM)
Taboo [email protected] 9 2006, 11:44 PM
Probably be according to peoples need.
I would think mansions would either be given to those who need them (ie larger families\sets of people living together), to multiple families, and to ex-homeless (directly after the revolution).
The smaller houses will go to those who either like smaller houses (like myself), or to those who need less (those who want to live alone).

NewKindOfSoldier brought up some great ideas I had never thought of, and seem very plausible uses for the mansions.
Does this also apply to the billion plus homeless migrants from the third world who will surely turn-up on the doorstep when they hear of this free housing, or are they to remain in their homelands to continue as wage slaves producing raw materials. [/b]
After all the contras like yourself are taken care of....believe me, there will be much extra room available..... <_<

philosopher

13th May 2006, 18:43

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 13 2006, 05:25 AM

Just because there is no property doesn't mean that everyone is just wandering around aimlessly. I have a job in my town. I work there. After the revolution, I will still work there. I will still attend a school in my town. I will need a place to live. I will likely live in the building frequently referred to as "my house". It will be the house where YSR lives. If people need a place to crash, of course I'll let them stay. If I need to go to some other place, I'm sure that people will do the same.

If everyone is to stay in the same house as before all that you would have achieved is to condemn the poor to stay in poor housing. Once money is abolished as many advocate even the slim chance that they had under capitalism of moving out will have been removed. They may wait for you to help them in a few decades more likely they will rise up and overthrow their new oppressors.

Bear in mind occupation is de facto ownership. Clearing your conscience by paying lip service to common ownership helps no one.

Donnie

15th May 2006, 01:24

The housing stock ranges from luxury mansions through to trailer parks and capitalism is unlikely to bring about equality. Given the length of time it takes to build additional properties how will it be decided who lives where if a communist free society were introduced immediately after the removal of capitalism. How will a move be organised in a moneyless economy?
Workers in building industrices can federate and discuss building construction and associate with other factories and industries needed to make the materials.
The first port of call is to house the homeless, we would get them off the street and place them in flats or houses that are empty. We would build more houses and we would renovate degenerated house so that they were adiquate for living. However who ever has the greatest need, needs to be seen to first.

YSR

15th May 2006, 01:42

Originally posted by philosopher
Bear in mind occupation is de facto ownership.

Couldn't disagree more. Occupation is the act of living in a place. Ownership is the legal defination of soverignty over that place.

I'm pretty sure, if you'll read my post, you'll see the part where I said "If people need a place to crash, of course I'll let them stay". Because I will have no power to control. I will have no ownership. I will simply be living somewhere.

Proudhon's "What is Property?" talks about how the legalization of property lead to the death of equality. "Property" in this context doesn't mean "what I carry" but "what large quantities of things I have legal ownership of". For instance, if I were walking through the desert in a post-revolutionary society and someone grabbed my shoes and absconded, I'd by understandable upset. But this is why we have communism. We'd sit down and work how to split the shoes up (cut 'em up and tie 'em to our feet so we'd both be in good condition).

So, back to our discussion of "ownership" versus "occupation", Proudhon's "property" is applicable. I don't "own" my house, I live there. I am "carrying it with me". Therefore, anyone is entitled to use my house. Common courtesy would involve talking to me about it, but there's no power from which I can kick the person out.

Once money is abolished as many advocate even the slim chance that they had under capitalism of moving out will have been removed.

Again, quite the opposite. No doubt, revolutionary poor people would simply "occupy" empty houses, move in with those who have extra room, or live in houses that have been left empty by the fleeing bourgeois class.

Would that make them "de facto owner[s]," philosopher? No. It would make them communists.

Armed_Philosopher

15th May 2006, 02:43

It realy seems like a waste to get rid of the mansions. I figure let them become student housing. If they wreck the place, then its better then burning it to the ground. At least they got something out of it.

Maybe some people would like being crouded into a big mansion like an apartment building....the shared pool might be nice...I would probibly rather live in a smaller place and have it all to myself, or better yet outside the city entirely in a permculture setting.

The fact that they are not "paying rent" is a good thing. If we dont use money, and money is only good for wiping your ass, then why would we need it to maintain the houses? All we need is resources and people who know how to maintain houses....if they dont....they had better learn. Maybe its best to let people decide for themselves, perhaps on a community level when revovation is nessisary.

A much bigger problem then who gets what house will be dealing with the decline of fossile feuls...our society is built arond capitalism and imports....we are not an agricultural society that can provide for its self sustainably without exploitation of other peoples resources imported into our super markets with fossil fuels.

A much more important question is where will you grow food, get water, building materials, and how will you provide for yourselves on a localized level.

MurderInc

18th May 2006, 05:59

I would expect that people move around alot in a post-communist society, meaning residence wouldn't be permament.

This is one of the dumber views of post revolutonary life.

One of the things which too many of us who believe in revolution can't understand is that some things must not be politicized, or have as little politics attached to it as possible.

Housing is one thing, but all people need a home, a totally different concept.

A home cannot be a place where the state is throwing everyone togeher in pursuit of non-antisocial behavior. It must be a place that gives you peace, and happiness, and calmness. It must be a place to raise your family and enjoy seeing children grow.

This goes beyond economic theory. Here, Jefferson got it right, not Marx: The pursuit of happiness.

Generally, I agree with the person who wrote that one shouldn't worry about it. It should be the last thing on everyone's minds.

And remember that there are many laborers in America who live in 2000 square foot homes. Not mansions, but regular R-1 housing. They need to have their homes if they are to support the revolution.