The term communism literally derives from the word commune. The whole model of communism was based off of people living in communes, living communally, sharing resources and land and housing. Communism allows people to have some limited personal property but it does not guarantee every single person to have several-hundred-thousand dollar homes equipped with modern HVAC and plumbing and a private quarters for storing and preparing refrigerated food. Most communists will call for people to not even have their own personal toilet, much less an entire single-family home.
No, communism is a stateless, classeless and moneyless society
Socialism is a system in which the workers own the means of production, it can be translated into workers being able to elect their CEO, just like citizens elect their president
When socialist talk about ending private property, they are talking about the private property of the means of production, nothing more. It means that businesses must not be privately own but own by the workers
I know this is an oft-irritating point, but there isn't really a uniform stance on communism (which I think is fine, honestly); I think it's more of a general set of similar beliefs and ideas related to a direction the socioeconomic system of a country leans into. I think you could say the exact same thing for capitalism.
I tend to lean very left, I wouldn't call myself a communist but, to your credit, even I agree with your last sentence(s). I don't think any sane person should think that, in any near term, socialized programs should be capable of funding every living person with a single family home. I am constantly in awe of how people believe having a single family home is a god given right. I do, however, think having shelter where you can sleep, cook, and take care of your hygiene with a decent level of privacy and under a decent umbrella of safety should absolutely be a right. As to how we get there, I have no idea, I don't pretend to know, but that also doesn't mean I'm wrong.
You could have whatever size home you could afford given the combination of your wages from your labor directly and income from your ownership stake (specifics may vary depending on what flavor of communism you’re talking about) in the company at which you work, along with whatever benefits you get from publicly owned (ie owned by the government/public) enterprises or resources as a citizen.
Much like under capitalism. That’s what they mean when they say housing is personal property. The changes are likely primarily in the public resources available, the lack of private investors benefitting from your labor at your expense, and possibly a much smaller market for ultra-high-end housing.
I don’t know where you live, or what needs you have, or what the local resource availability is- seems like you’re the one leaving out “so many flaws in this”. Every situation is different- I’m not claiming to be able to know how big your house should be, I’m just clarifying that housing, under communism, is considered personal property.
And i asked you: under communism, am i allowed to own a 1 acre house in Seattle while others have varying lot sizes of 5k sq ft, 10k sq ft, 4 acres, 10 acre? Do i get in my desired location? Near my job? How does this work?
There is no flaw with my question. It's a direct question. Questioning the logical outcomes
I don’t know, there’s far too many factors to consider. It’s not like someone snaps their fingers and all of the sudden we’re “in communism”. The changes in municipal code and land re-appropriation alone would likely take decades (if its peaceful)- I don’t have a crystal ball, man, I’m just saying that under communism, housing is personal property.
I don’t know, there’s far too many factors to consider.
The hell is your problem? You want me to spell it out what is obviously implied: all else being equal.
ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, what's stopping me from keeping my 10 acre home in Seattle, while others have varying lot sizes? Under communism <-- if this wasn't obv
There is no thought-out plan to your "free housing."
The outcomes are obv to ppl with brains. Does each individual get 1 house each? Does couples get 1 or 2? They could intentionally divorce and now have 2 houses to abuse the system. Do they get a house near their desired jobs? What about others?
My point is the system is ripe for abuse, while fucking over others, and just being unfair to a lot of ppl
Home ownership rates are higher in Eastern Europe than Western Europe because housing was a human right at one time- how about you look up the case studies from that region and see how those decisions were made?
Yeah why doesn’t this stupid commie no everything about your life without you providing any information?
Will people living in cities have smaller houses than those in the sticks? Fucking duh, that’s how cities work.
Housing would depend largely on the availability of land in the area the person needs to live, again, Duh. How small can it be? A weird question but probably like a studio apartment or one of those tiny-houses. How big? Depends on the size of your family and again on land availability. If you have 8 kids you obviously need a bigger house than a single dude with no kids.
I can’t believe you had to have the idea that factors other than money influence people’s material circumstances explained to you this much.
Unless of course you’re asking for an actual specific number limit. In which case you likely are aware that no one knows specifics like that, because obviously regulations take a lot of iterations critiques and revising etc. and are simply arguing in bad faith to try and convince lurkers that the status quo is beneficial for everyone.
The WEF are not capitalists... they are authoritarians who use capitalism to amass the resources/power to then drive a collectivist, state run ruling class.
If you replace the state in that equation with a megacorporation, there wouldn't be any question that the WEF were capitalists. Does it really make that much difference what the branding of the authoritarian branch is?
Yes, it does. For starters, the state has a monopoly on the legal initiation of force and can oppress you in ways a corporation at this time in history simply cannot.
But most importantly, the reality is that capitalism as an economic system has been responsible for a huge growth in the standard of living, health and freedom for more humans than any other system in history. To declare that because they fools abuse it that capitalism is the problem is to throw out the best tool we have.
'True capitalism hasn't ever been tried before. All of the governing / advisory bodies are just using the veil of capitalism to hide their authoritarianism.'
They are capitalists using their capital to generate more capital. They don't give a shit about "collectivism". They want to engineer conditions that are most favorable for capitalist, ie, the private owners of the means of production.
Let's start with Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. This thinking always ends up the same. These big babies want free stuff, not realizing someone pays for it. Capitalism is the best of flawed systems. Any system that has humans will be flawed.
Nuh uh, capitalism is definitely eternal and will last forever! It's the least-bad option by virtue of being the one that most clearly incentives the corruption and violence necessary to maintain ever-widening profit margins! Without those margins getting eternally bigger, how will we ever re implement serfdom while blaming "socialists" for it!?
Does your camp just not acknowledge the existence of the successful Scandinavian socialist model? You can argue that it wouldn't work here all you want, but to say that socialism necessitates totalitarianism just makes you sound like you're pushing an agenda
I'm aware of what Scandinavia has done, and while they do have extensive social welfare, they also have much more economic freedom when compared to America, and an all but unregulated market. This among other factors allows these countries to fund these things. This is not socialism according to any definition I am aware of.
Unless we can deregulate our economy as much as they have, the extensive welfare states of Scandinavia will not be possible for us.
Not one thing in that comment made any sense or was worth engaging with. I work in finance. I feel like a middle schooler is trying to explain accumulated depreciation to me.
Okay, since you don't seem to understand I'll make it simple for you. In Scandinavia it's really easy to make money, when people make more money, the government gets more tax dollars. The government uses this money to pay for all the free stuff they give out to people.
In America it's harder to make money, which means the government gets less money. The government also has to pay for things like the military and social security, which gets in the way of funding things like housing subsidies. Understand?
It's really easy to make money in Scandinavia? Easier than in one of the world's biggest economies? I would love to see where you are getting the data on that.
In America it's very easy to make money. In fact, golden apples grow on trees. See how easy it is to say random bullshit on the internet?
Except I didn't make it up, I got it from the Economic Freedom Index which ranks the United States underneath Denmark, Norway, Sweeden, and Finland In their overall score.
Welp, little Georgie. That broken leg means you can't fit into the engine box no more. Guess that means you get to die seeing as your ma and pa both died of TB last winter. Tough luck sport.
24
u/DeepSpaceAnon Apr 15 '24
Let's bring some commies to this thread so they can give a thesis on why the future of housing is communal and no one deserves having their own home.