Results 21 to 31 of 31
how do you know this is what people want? They certainly seem to want to have their own privacy. So what are you planning? Forcing them into communal living at the point of a gun? sounds like top down barracks communism to me.
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.
We (Americans) would need a strong change in values to live in communal living.
Here's my question regarding private homes. If people are allowed to own homes, what happens when all the homes are owned and some people still do not have one? I understand we could build more houses, but let's take this to the extreme. Let's say all of the housing space is gone due to environmental factors beyond our control. What happens to the homeless?
Last edited by Fulanito de Tal; 21st September 2010 at 20:00. Reason: grammar
The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things. -Karl Marx
Of more value is that you understand and learn to not support your security on your clothes because if you lose everything then what are you left with if all you have is only decorations? What a shame. It surely sounds sad like a condemnation that you base your life on only material shit. Nothing special can be purchased. As the little prince says, “What is essential is invisible to the eye.” - Cultura Profetica [translated by me]
Well then I guess there would be homeless but I don't think it'll ever get to the point that there is just no room for people to live.
I'm on some sickle-hammer shit
Collective Bruce Banner shit
FKA: #FF0000, AKA Mistake Not My Current State Of Joshing Gentle Peevishness For The Awesome And Terrible Majesty Of The Towering Seas Of Ire That Are Themselves The Milquetoast Shallows Fringing My Vast Oceans Of Wrath
Well if there was no way more houses could be built then we will have to allocate the ready existing houses.I am sure buckingham palace has enough places to house luxembourg.
On a serious note during the russian revolution people were given houses in the heart of the cities to share, which was a vast improvement from the wooden shacks at the edge of the city. So in all if there was a situation to arise when there was no more heads the needs of people not being homeless come before the wants of people who like to play lord in a castle.
In every 'property' thread, the word toothbrush is bound to come up.
Godwin's law of property.
What would your solution be?
I think that means that homes would not be personally owned.
The devaluation of the human world grows in direct proportion to the increase in value of the world of things. -Karl Marx
Of more value is that you understand and learn to not support your security on your clothes because if you lose everything then what are you left with if all you have is only decorations? What a shame. It surely sounds sad like a condemnation that you base your life on only material shit. Nothing special can be purchased. As the little prince says, “What is essential is invisible to the eye.” - Cultura Profetica [translated by me]
The solution is communal living, because then everybody has an incentive to improve the conditions of the structures within which they live. Our idea of a "home" is a social construct, and has only existed for a very short time period in human history (in its current capitalistic form). The way in which each family lives in a completely separate structure today only encourages division and alienation within a community. We need to create cohesiveness, therefore communal living is the answer.
The short answer is that private property will be abolished to the fullest extent possible. I think the general rule will be that if can be considered a form of constant or variable capital, where the exchange-value overshadows the use-value, then it will be placed in common. Cases in point:
- The means of production (factories, shops, mills, etc.), distribution (OTR trucking, railroad, air cargo, etc.) and exchange (stores, dealerships and outlets, from the corner liquor store to Wal-Mart).
- Public services, including utilities (heat, electricity, water, etc.), mass communication (Internet, telephone, television, etc.), health care, education, and so on.
- Large farms, "factory farms" and agri-business
- Multi-family dwellings and rental properties
Individual, single-family houses will likely be placed into common ownership through attrition, as people move or die. (Since the right of capital inheritance would be abolished, the probate issues would no longer be a concern.)
Pretty much, if it's not listed above, you don't have to worry about losing it. But there are some exceptions. For example:
- Nobody wants your toothbrush, but if you've got 20 boxes of 2000 toothbrushes each, expect a knock on the door, you hoarder.
- Your car is your car, but if you're running a black market car dealership out of your backyard, we're headed your way.
- Like with the car, your boat is your boat, but if you're backyard looks like a marina, batten down the hatches. Then again, if your other house is a yacht, heave to and prepare to be boarded.
- Nobody's going to take the clothes off your back or out of your closet, but you might want to consider donating some if your house looks like the clothing department at Macy's.
In short, if all you can get out of these things is more or less only the use-value, then there is no concern about it. It's yours and you've earned them.
How do I put this nicely? Umm...fuck you and your extreme collective mindset. There is nothing wrong with individualism, as long as you don't take that to the extreme as well and trample on other people's wellbeing in the name of your own individual needs.
Homes are not the problem. Do you want thousands of people to live in bland gymnasiums sharing bathrooms by the hundreds? A post-capitalist society should be focused on meeting everyones needs, not an overarching umbrella that is supposed to suit everyone.
Your way of making everyone equal is the reason communism often times has a bad name.
Marx was spanked by a bourgoeis nanny as a child.
One of the main flaws of capitalism is its inefficiency. Collectivism solves this and is the essence of communism. Communism and individualism are diametrically opposed, so if you call yourself an individualist you can not be considered a true revolutionary, probably just someone doing it for the image while implicitly rejecting its main tenets.
Again, why must you "own" something to have or have access to it? I presume none of you have trouble sharing your kitchen sink with your family, computers at your school or library, seats on the light rail, etc, etc. When there's an abundance or enough of a resource and you're confident you'll have access to that resource, you don't have to put any thought into it. You just use it as you need it. So why do you insist people must be able to "own" personal property? Society can and should be structured in such a way that ownership is completely obsolete.
Last edited by jmpeer; 25th September 2010 at 00:54.
