What do we do about the housing market and the property problem?
When the next Great Depression occurs, should the Black Bloc seize and loot all property owned by millionaires and billionaires, especially if they're Chinese?
Or does that not go far enough, and require more drastic measures such as Year Zero?
Other urls found in this thread:
8ch.net
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Private house ownership is reactionary. There is no point in seizing it if we aren't going to stage a full scale revolution.
Duh.
kill all landlords tbh
commieblocks tbh
Why stop at millionaires? No one should own a house period. Ideally individuals will not be allowed to live in houses unless they have a family that is also living with them in those homes.
Dude, I really don't fucking get your obsession with private house ownership. I want to fucking have private space jesus christ
If you want a private space you can get an apartment. You aren't entitled to a house.
Ok, we got lost in translation here. I thought by house you meant an appartment too. My bad m8
Why would anybody downgrade from the current system into the shit system you're proposing for them?
now ≠ next great depression
Because the current system is completely unsustainable and will be disassembled by capital. Trump already fired the first shot when he tried to get the tax credit for home ownership removed. It's only going to get worse for wannabe petite bourg proles.
Super cheap commie blocks as opposed to basically unaffordable home-ownership sounds downright better for most of the world's population and comfier too
Tell me where Marx says this
Will this bring brutalism back?
Anyway, the answer to this was socialism with Georgist characteristics
Hope so
dogmatic leftcoms not welcome
Uh dude we are trying to abolish private property altogether eventually. An individual shouldn't be permitted to own something like a house. Home owners won't exist under socialism. Tenant rights will replace property rights.
Not a leftcom in the slightest, but saying this and claiming "reductionism" is not an argument
You should already know the difference between personal property and private property as a socialist. Private property isn't owning stuff.
Well, I don't want people to wake me up at night or random strangers comming into my bedroom while I'm sleeping if that is what you are implying.
Marx's remarks on private property refer to the privately held means of production. Through the seizure of such privately held production, the bourgeoisie are deprived of having control over it and the means for capitalism to function are abolished. Marx's issue was this privately controlled property, not what he called "personal private property"
Stop making christcoms look like we never read
Pics related
If you paid attention USA, you'd see home ownership tends to result in a petite-bourgeois mindset.
Well, p II is
Houses are a very important financial asset under capitalism. They appreciate in value constantly and allow the petite bourg to extract rents from actual proles. There is no way people will be permitted to own them under socialism.
I used to be a Georgist, I know how exploitative land ownership and speculation under capitalism can be. That doesn't mean either George or Marx argued for getting rid of housing. And arguing that something leads to a "petite-bourgeois mindset" is an absolute non-argument because then I can attribute most things that petite bourgeoisie happen to like as having influenced them in some reactionary fashion.
Why's you stop, and what do you believe now?
No one is arguing for that here. Kind of telling how you associate a system in which people are not permitted to own houses with having no housing at all though.
I feel like he didn't go far enough in his criticisms of other form of rent-extraction like the types Marx outlined and wage-labour in general. I still feel though that some of his criticisms are still apt and aspects like an LVT are useful could be implemented in a socialist system to deal with the use of limited natural resources.
I should have said get rid of houses to be specific, because they didn't argue for this either.
And to be even more specific, they didn't argue for people not being able to own houses.
I wrote a longer post on Georgism here if your interested 8ch.net
Finally, an agreeable christcom.
To all the petty bourgeois in this thread, tell me, in a socialist society, if your home was in the way of a public project like a highway or housing blocks; would you protect it, your private property, against dirty commie hands?
If you had to relocate to another city, would you rent your now vacant home to other workers?
If the answer is no, then how could you call it your property at all? If the answer is yes, how are you not basically a reactionary?
First, this isn't private property if you use it, its personal property. And if this is socialism, then it should be expected that you would most likely be in some sort of community council in which such things could be settled and disputed. Some sort of perverted eminent domain system or barracks communism in which the state can just take seize your house without really any kind of negotiation or community consensus is not the way.
wew lad
I want brainlets to leave
Just have a system in which the community agrees how many labour vouchers (or credit in a mutual credit system) a portion of land costs and have the owner pay an LVT to the community which will be distributed in a citizens dividend to each other citizen for having used up/for using up a limited resource of the communities. In this fashion, no body uses land more then they use as having land that is unused would lead to unsustainable costs. Land would then also correlate to how much a person strictly works.
And if you don't want to use a community function, just use cybernetics and utilize a computer which runs algorithms after analyzing surveyed land to determine the explicit "value" of that land by the scarcity of its resources or its limited quantity.
Interesting, thanks!
Just do what China does and build more public housing while making private land illegal: land and housing can only be bought with yearly contracts, aka you "buy" an apartment for 100 years.
sadly this is america so you will be shot for even attempting to impelment this
You just described public property, the fact that you peruse for a period of time doesn't mean it becomes le personal property meme.
Me too.
If that were the case, then everything to your toothbrush would be "public property" if the community or a computer agreed on its labour voucher cost. Its personal property ==because== you use for a period of time and for that time no one else can.
That is personal property though. If socialism means that everyone will be crammed into a single space accommodation built for 1 person but forced to house five+ by the government then count me out.
A typical amerifat suburban mcmansion would only qualify as personal property if you had around three or more children.
We already discussed similar shit here . If you work a certain amount of hours and pay for it, why not? Those labour vouchers will have been earned by your work alone, not anyone else's. Multiple people could make it easier to purchase if they come together as well to purchase one as each of their work would also be their own to use for each others benefit. Personal property doesn't suddenly cease to be personal property because you post a picture of a nice house.
You're thinking pre-mid 90s China. There is now an inflated housing market. There are still remnants of PRC property law that say the state technically owns your land, but in practice it only exists as a way for the government to seize your property if you do something they don't like.
One thing China does right is banning foreign investors from buying land. So their home prices and home ownership rate aren't as bad as North America's and Europe's. However, this won't be sustainable for too long if nothing changes polcywise as income inequality increases between their own bourgeoisie and proletariat.
It'd go down like this:
1. Tech industry pops, but rents don't decrease since homeowners are jewish. White collar people suddenly have to live in their cars in parking lots frequented by mentally unstable people who are already very good at breaking into cars, but the police don't do shit because mentally disabled people cannot stand trial meanwhile less sales tax revenues mean layoffs.
2. Landlords totally refuse to budge on price, causing vacancy rates to increase as units are pulled off the market to maintain a high market rate. This is the point where opportunists realize the value in squatting.
3. Landlords call police on the squatters using their deliberately empty property. Police remove them back to the open air asylums, but without any of their stuff (anything they can't pack with them is the landlord's now). Now without anything, most people break under the stress of having to rely on a church soup kitchen for meals around genuinely insane people. Since no industrial jobs exist there are no Unions, so even the employed ones are getting screwed by their bosses who want to know why they're taking showers at work. Homeless begin walking in groups, having shared camps and designated watchmen to keep the insane people and drugs out.
4. Unable to leave the city and find reasonably affordable housing, they then become part of a new urban poverty class. Bonus if unpaid student loans lead to their bank accounts being suspended, causing their fancy contact payment phones to be entirely worthless. This also fucks over the remaining employed homeless, who now have to accept 5% of their paycheck being taken by cash checking stores. Since transit vehicles were moved to plastic cards only years ago, they are also now locked out of the city's transit network forcing them onto bikes and cash only cabs. The impossible situation created here leads many to open robbery and theft of occupied dwellings, causing chain link fences and barred windows to go up further destroying home prices. The remaining public schools are closed and replaced with a voucher system, creating an excellent place for a new government. Police have their pensions scrapped for budget reasons causing them to stop giving a fuck, resulting in arson becoming a viable weapon against businesses who discriminate against the poor.
5. Someone figures out that they should just shoot the police when they come to evict squatters, as by now the amount of vacant units has exceeded the amount of occupied units which is causing housing prices to fall. As news of squatters fighting police become widespread, home prices collapse further as landlords get spooked. At this point the remaining residents are either extremely wealthy landed gentry with 3+ homes bought off their neighbors (at a massive discount) or destitute homeless squatters. Homeowners don't bother stopping for bicyclists, they know who they are and know the police don't have enough money to investigate hit and runs.
6. By now some squatters are getting legal control over properties they've squatted on for a long enough time, this allows them the ability to create local HOAs complete with their own armed and uniformed neighborhood watch. The original homeowners are either pushed to the margin of this new society, or have their houses burned down by arson. The remaining police and city government then become easy targets for armed insurrection as an assault is mounted on the city jail. With adequate prison facilities secured the final assault on city hall begins, with the last mayor being dragged out and crucified in the lobby.
Also just to clarify for non-americans:
- "Flipped" classrooms (students view video lectures as homework, do classwork under supervision of a proctor/tutor) and online-only education is pretty big in America and is the chosen path of reform by both parties. The end result are voucher programs, including those passed by Vice President Pence when he was Governor of Indiana, where students have to pay for school but get a government subsidy. Republicans embrace it to destroy teachers' unions while Democrats embrace it because it's "tech".
- Some transit agencies here have gone to card-only payments already, specifically the new SMART trains between Larkspur and Cloverdale California just north of San Francisco. In this case, the embrace of card-only payments was explicitly done to assuage locals' concerns that the new transit service would let homeless people ride. The only ways to ride are to have a plastic Clipper card which requires a valid mailing address, a phone with NFC (but not Xiaomi phones) which requires a credit card that requires a valid mailing address or pay $200 for the paper monthly ride pass that is only available inside grocery stores in gentrified areas.
- Most of California's Democratic gubernatorial candidates this year want to do "pension reform" by destroying the state pension system like Republican states have done. Many see the success Macron is having.
- It's highly likely public sector Unions (notably police and firemen) will be gutted this year when the conservative Supreme Court rules against them in Janus vs. ACSCME. Specifically they won't be able to extract fees from nonmembers whom are covered under their collective bargaining agreement, meaning less money.
In other words shit's fucked and it's only going to get more fucked as time goes on.
Americans are too classcucked for that. It would take a large war for them to wake up.
Desperate times demand desperate measures. Imagine someone with only a backpack full of clothes, a smartphone with no service, and maybe a half-functional car parked in some shitty parking lot because residential areas don't allow people to sleep in their cars. It only takes a few days without proper food for this person to become willing to rob to eat. Applied to tens of thousands, revolution becomes inevitable.
A rough example exists with Detroit. There, city services have given up trying to service anything outside of the main street and downtown, the latter of which is mostly vacant anyway. Police and firemen only keep the day to day peace, they don't investigate crimes because their pensions were destroyed. While this isn't a good example of revolution, it's a good example of police and the bourgeoisie defeating themselves and creating a power vacuum. Though in Detriot's place people can leave, this is not an option people will pursue on the coasts.
and it'll be more wide scale so the options of places to flee to won't exist
Most people can't get houses nowadays. If we could put our resources towards building high-quality appartments instead of invididual housing for the petit-bourgeoisie and a handful of lucky workers then atleast 95% of us would be better off.
This. Individual housing will be left as it is but we won't be building any new houses, just appartments. It's also convenient as fuck for transit.
I doubt he said something to that extent, but he definitely would've supported a practical way of properly housing everyone instead of deluding himself that everyone can own a large home.
I'm not giving up my house and land, deal with it
quit LARPing
Shut up, faggot.
Says the guy who pretends to enjoy black women more than white women.
what did he think he meant by this
Not really, but nice projection.
You know very well you would never be able to bang a white woman, so you pretend to find negroids cuter, when in fact you're just a cucked african american who has yet to meet his father.
the white female in your pic looks like a gremlin which is conflicting
I'm whiter than you, amerimongrel
You'll never be whiter than a chocolate milkshake, mutt incel.
That further proves my point. Gremlin or not, she looks hotter than the black woman.
this is a horrible way to prove a point since the negress actually looks human.
If by human you mean half chimp half homo sapiens, then sure.
Also, nice try, kike.
i'd prefer half chimp to half alien
This is a good thread about the housing market
As opposed to full evolved alien smh. Even martian girls are cuter than african women.
Seize and redistribute empty homes to those without, according to need.
Building new shit is a waste of resources when you got empty condos ripe for use.
I hadn't checked on this thread since the third post (by which i considered the topic settled) and i come back to it with some autists ranting about muh hwite womyn
Zig Forums never ceases to amaze
Redistributing currently empty homes will only get us so far. After capitalism we will need huge overhauls in urban planning and provide comfortable and affordable housing for everyone. The solution to this is state of the art commieblocks.
Everyone owning their own home on a plot of land somewhere is a sweet meme, but the reality of the future is likely to be highly concentrated urban populations centered around mass transportation and centralized distribution centers. Living space will need to be concentrated in order to maximize arable land usage and decrease distribution inefficiency.
So what is to be done with houses and housing as they exist now is largely a moot point. Communists need to be looking toward the needs and challenges of the future.
I want that future. Tired of driving. I've been to both Tokyo and NYC, and even the latter with its rundown, inconsistent subway was leagues better than being stuck in traffic for probably 3-4 hours a day. Tokyo was like some utopia of transportation. Even without a 24 hr subway the simplicity of perfectly on-time, clean, fast subway lines is devastating to my life. My travel times can vary by up to an hour depending on if somebody had their back broken in a car crash during rush hour, which seems to happen every other day of the week. The consistency of a beautifully choreographed subway system which always arrives exactly on schedule, and always gets to its destination at just the right time is awe inspiring. You can accurately plan your week of normal responsibilities around it, and you can feel healthy because you are walking and often standing for your ride instead of sitting on your sore ass in stop and go, aggressive traffic. Every area of the city is accessible, you never have to worry about parking. I would live in commie blocks if I could just have a fucking functional urban train. I will never not be salty that this is never going to be a reality in my city, one of the worst urban transportation hellscapes in America.
Commieblocks for every worker, houses for every family, deluxe commieblocks for highly productive members of society.
To each according to his needs, faggots.
What needs do any of those things serve.
Housing?
So, the opposite of communism, then? Great…
...
...
t. pol pot
I'm not pretending everyone can own a large home, but you seem to assume that cities as we know them will continue to exist in socialism or communism, rather then what Marx described as the "gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country". You also seem to be going on the presumption that there isn't enough room for homes, when in reality there is more then enough usable living space for most people to own a medium to small sized house, with most of that space currently going unused due to either continued speculation or through wasteful profit based construction like parking lots and the like. City sprawl is entirely due to correlation between income and rent and how rents will always follow them, driving those who make the least in society to the very fringes of the city for cheaper housing.
"gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country"
Why are Americans so obsessed with house ownership?
status symbol of reaching "middle class", that and capitalists push it since it makes them a fuckload of money via a variety of industries including financial, automotive, construction and a plethora of secondary industries that rely on the housing industry
Because if you don't I'll throw you arse first off Trellick Tower.
Can't stop modernism baby.
In Marx's time, the normal thing was to rent your house anyway. At least in the UK. Even if you were well-off, why shackle yourself to one property?
Keynes, by no means a poor man, rented as an adult.
ok you get the tower second.
(someone else goes first so you can see what you're getting.)
employing brutalists
American society is based off home ownership. At the most basic level, there is not enough social security or pension security to ensure people don't become homeless after they retire. Security is provided through a home, which is paid off through a few decades of work and serves as a place to retire and an asset to pay off creditors when the owner eventually dies. It's the primary way intergenerational wealth and prosperity is formed. Too much of a good thing is bad though, as the economy stops working for most people most become unable to afford homes and must rent. Homeowners ban construction of new units causing rents to skyrocket, making homeowners extremely wealthy and renters extremely poor.
A practical example of the divide can be seen within San Francisco's 911 system. Homeowners who call using landlines are connected right into the SFPD's downtown HQ, whereas renters who call through their phones are sent to a California Highway Patrol office 80 miles away in the state capital. As a direct result of this homeowners get faster and better 911 service while renters often have their calls dropped or simply ignored.
Uh so they don't have to pay fucking RENT.
Not everyone lives with their mommy and daddy.
I didn't realize that houses were free in the US.
Read Henry George
It was an attempt to stop add a layer of security not afforded to renters due to rent seeking and rent following income.
The US government pushed house ownership after world war 2 as a way to discourage strikes.
I've never really heard that one, though I don't doubt it. The main problem with a majority of people renting is that over time those people will be evicted due to rising rents which will occur regardless due to more improvements being built within the city driving the value of the surrounding properties up and therefore how much rent is charged. Overtime people are forced farther and farther away from the city into slums which occupy its periphery. With home ownership, people only have to worry about paying off the set price of the home and can take out a mortgage to do so. They also don't have to answer to a landlord who can arbitrarily raise the rent to force you out in order to make space for newer higher paying tenets. In this sense, people can now set themselves up as more permanent residents and begin taking out more permanent loans and making larger investments on their property. This compiles in making the economy less "fragile" as assets become more physical and savings aren't restricted that in the bank or that which is spent on consumer goods. It also somewhat mitigates the problem of far reaching land control as seen in places like the UK where the majority of the land is owned by a few families who can then set the rent. Of course its still capitalism though, so you end up in America having to deal with large scale housing bubbles and the inevitable boom/bust crises which occurs every decade or so as a trade off.
Also, to those who think otherwise, rent is just a bad a home ownership. It is probably one the most directly exploitative things in a capitalist economy. Read Henry George.
I hope it burns to the ground and takes the industrial world with it
Yeah let's absolutely murder the environment with extremely inefficient transit and housing layouts because amerianon doesn't like commieblocks, this is the brize of communism.
...
iktf x100
how does that crash prices though? also your forget that armed drones will shoot squatters on site based on face recognition technology
I wonder how many of those homes are empty? Where are all these people who can afford $500000+ homes?
I did specify "gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country" as Marx did, did I not? You seem to think I'm advocating for suburbs when in actuality I'm advocating for an efficient "purchasing" of land as specified here and the merging of the agarian countryside with the urban centers, which I imagine will be more like towns plotted around arable land or other necessary/essential resources which can be extracted for labour vouchers and then exchanged for food elsewhere. I stated that there is more then enough land for everyone to own a medium sized house not to make the point that everyone will own a medium sized house, but that there is more then enough land that they theoretically could if that were the case. With the system I described it would be quite difficult to own land which you simply did not use unless you worked extra for it or shared it with someone else who did work, meaning most living spaces for people who worked on an average hourly basis and did not have a family would most likely live in smaller homes. As a note, I do also find cities as a consequence of capitalism and do not see them existing in communism. Take that as you will.
Why does a permanently single roneryfag worker like (You) need a house? A block is enough.
I would love a cozy commie block….but it needs to be soundproof between the units. If it's not then it's not comfortable.
Why wouldn't everyone live in commieblocks? You can easily have appartments of varying sizes in them depending on whether it's a student, couple or family living there.
You're probably right. But maybe allocate the already built houses for families until we need that space for more commieblocks / infrastructure.
Check out public housing in Vienna. It's really comfy: en.wikipedia.org