Given that the ownership of housing by private individuals helps to promote reactionary thought...

Given that the ownership of housing by private individuals helps to promote reactionary thought, wow would we eliminate it under socialism?

Attached: mcmansion.jpeg (1000x504, 84.04K)

What makes homeowners go toward reaction is the possibility of using the house to make money.
So we eliminate the reactionary nature of homeownership by extending homeownership to literally everyone and banning renting.

benis in anus :DDDD

Don't forget mortgages, fam

People will still be entitled to the space they live in, much like they are entitled to their toothbrushes. But if they decide to leave their house for a long period of time, then that house will belong to someone else who actually need it after a while.
So yeah sorry, but summer cottages would have to go, at least until theres not a single homeless person on earth. At this time it seems to take a while.

how do you figure this one?

You must not live near any major city in the developed world.

no i do. my question still stands

Commieblocks.
Appartments are only lacking compared to single housing because of the conditions they were built under. Governments go on a building spree when there's a housing shortage (or atleast, they used to) and aren't gonna spend too much on it. If resources were allocated to the building of appartments like they're allocated for single housing then we'd have top notch appartments for everyone.

Ban renting and make them communally-owned, with the power of leasing them to individuals only if they are going to live there.

What kind of dumb liberal are you? There's no rentier class under communism, you can't ban renting when you don't have home ownership.

Attached: thinking.jpg (400x400, 72.63K)

Rentiers and private property doesn't stop existing by virtue of "being in communism", as it was only a magic incantation, but as the product of the systems and policies in place.

Attached: wagglan.jpg (256x346, 16.56K)

Houses like the one in OP's pic are inherently reactionary because they make their inhabitants socially isolated and waste environmental resources.

You can't really ban renting. I mean you could ban it by law but if you do not abolish the conditions which encourage or mandate renting then it will re-manifest itself. Cheap as shit housing should be widely available to keep the supply of housing extremely high. This could is fairly straight forward and could even be achieved by socdems.

Just give the houses without people to the homeless problem solved

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (288x287, 80.85K)

renting could be banned with a labor voucher system.

Its not houses that are the problem in and of themselves and replacing them with apartments/commie blocs won't solve the problems associated with our living environment and at best it will replace one set of problems with another set of problems associated with the structure of our lives being shaped by capital.
The real source of the problem is the city itself which must gradually be abolished with the establishment of socialism in order for us to build living environments that serve our needs rather than the needs of capital. Most cities should eventually be razed almost entirely.
An integrated network of phalansteries/agrarian commune complexes with limited populations is the future we should be building.

Attached: dartmouthlibrary.jpg (1392x768, 456.32K)

so basically american suburbs with mandatory victory gardens

ANTI-URBANISCHE AKTION
raze the cities, agrarian war now
civilisation is fuck
kill em all
i am garden brutalist man
15, 235, 765, 376 dead urbanites

Attached: ricefields.png (500x280, 209.51K)

Attached: vomit blood4534.gif (480x270, 2.21M)

wrong

reactionary liberal begone

...

That's nice that you believe that, you'll never convince enough people to downgrade their comfortable lifestyle in a house on behalf of some abstract ideological you're presenting to them, nor can I comprehend why you'd want the people to live less comfortably. Instead they're probably going to slaughter you in the streets if you ever tried to take the idea of living in a house from them. All this does is push people away from the important tenets of socialism like ownership over one's own labour and democratic ownership of the means of production.

Yeah no. The petite bourg were always going to do this anyways, which is why all revolutionaries should plan on exterminating them first. Also capitalism itself is fortunately destroying the house ownserhip meme. So while you are whining about muh suburban ideal or whatever young and old people who are struggling to pay rent for a shitty closet sized room would gladly embrace the commie block model.

Attached: homeownership us.png (570x834 84.5 KB, 557.84K)

This is what internalized capitalism looks like, people.

most of the non-homeowners are urban renters who will eventually give up, move out of their urban city and buy a house becoming a homeowner. The question is when they'll get so frustrated with the lack of urban zoning reform they'll give up and become what they hate

you know it's true

Attached: personal vs private property.jpg (520x1020, 424.3K)

No they won't, especially when the capitalists stop subsidizing home ownership.

Almost every time commibeblocks are tried they end up as run down, crime-ridden pits

Jesus fucking christ do you just refuse to face the problems that always arise with public housing complexes, or is this one of those "Well it's just capitalism that causes problems, remove that and the masses would be happy living in dingy, depressing apartments"

And every time the american style of private house ownership occurs you get shitty apartments (for the price) and shit covered streets filled with extremely hostile homeless people who (justly) want you dead.

Attached: san francisco a7.jpg (920x613, 95.72K)

Capitalists don't need to subsidize home ownership. In California property taxes are capped at 1% the year the house was bought and it's transferable to children through wills. Renters have to deal with landlords scalping them and an 8% income tax on top of their existing Federal income taxes. People are naturally attracted to it, and are gradually forced into home ownership as rents keep increasing and forcing them outside of big cities. Homeowners lock ranks and keep high density housing from being built, meaning the only new units are renting a house or buying one.

There's no alternative than buying a house. People accept it, after they accept urban cities are run by incompetent neoliberals and become bitter towards leftism in general.

Attached: 4004462412_051c9113cb_b.jpg (1024x768, 302.91K)

San Francisco is a clusterfuck of NIMBY bullshit.


Reminder that half a century ago most of those nutcases would've been locked away in asylums.

Not in ones made after 1990 which tend to be gated communities. Capitalists evolve to what customers demand, which social housing usually does not.

Well no fucking shit, California is like ground-zero for capitalist "Fuck You Got Mine" bullshit

"Go West, young man" wasn't coined because it was the last refuge of the working man. And inb4 anyone posts that Steinbeck quote about embarrassed millionaires, California's problem is that it has ALWAYS been a magnet for people hoping to make a quick buck

Yes they literally do because otherwise your average prole could never afford it. This is basic shit dude.

Customers want cheap housing. Capitalist developers build more expensive housing. Really makes you think.

and now everyone is guaranteed to make money if they buy a house in some beaner shitheap like lodi or flag city and sit on it. Renters are made into second class citizens and are deliberately disenfranchised and ignored by the rest of the state until they finally give up and buy in or move out. It's a pathology that works and can self-perpetuate itself so long as home prices remain high and homeowners (or their children) don't sell.

This is a tough nut to crack because by default if nothing happens all the homeowners win, since they already have theirs while renters are cordoned off into special containment zones.

The first step is to eliminate all tax advantages for house ownership. That way sitting on a house becomes a tax liability for most people. However it will be difficult. Even Trump couldn't get that shit through.

Attached: san francisco home 3423.png (615x155, 45.13K)

Housing is plenty affordable if people move out. Homes start in the low 300k in many parts of the state, this is good enough for the working class who has to commute into the urban core. The only people who get fucked are petty bourgs who want to live a cosmopolitan lifestyle which requires them to rent inside the urban core.

It works great, at least for the state as a whole. The only problem is for the urban core who will gradually see employers leave for the periphery as their access to cheap white collar labor ceases to exist due to the restricted housing market. This causes suburbs to go from middle class to upper class while urban zones go down the path Detroit did as prices crash. But in that case urban homeowners just expand their lot sizes while commercial stores build larger parking lots, instead of building new units.

Again, it's just California being California. You can't build a culture around endless growth, striving, and population movement and not have fucked up housing problems

Same thing is happening in Seattle. And basically every other economically productive city in the US (and other developed countries.) It's not just a California problem.

California's unique tax situation gives it the best ROI though as it's impossible to just force homeowners to lease new units by raising their taxes.

Because almost every developed country has endorsed (explicitly or implicitly) economic policies of deindustrialisation, agricultural consolidation, degree inflation, and urbanisation. If the only job growth happens in major cities (because that's what corporations want), then you're going to get these housing problems as small towns /rural areas are hollowed out.

Given that the Left (liberal or socialist) is concentrated in cities, I don't expect these trends to be reversed in any developed nation

Also I forgot to add mass migration, which compounds this (as immigrants seek to live around existing, similar communities of immigrants - who overwhelmingly tend to be located in major urban areas)

It's not a left/right thing. Cities can't cope with those problems. It's outside of their scope. The only thing they can try to do is punish developers and corporations for contributing to the problem (Sawant has been trying to do that in Seattle and the business community fucktards as well as the amazombies are freaking out.)

This is total bullshit and you should feel bad for peddling it.

Attached: sawant head tax.png (677x823, 390.54K)

Well considering neither side wants to address the problem, that's true.


Its common knowledge that - outside rural areas with immigrant farmworkers - immigration generally concentrates in major urban areas first . But please, give me your explanation for why major cities are hotbeds of diversity, while the countryside generally tends to be white as hell

...

...

Well if you can pay traffickers to smuggle you across a border…

never been into an immigrant community have you? They have their own bourgs and their own classes. Someone has to own the liquor stores.

Is This The Boomer Hate Thread
Stupid Kids Cry More LOL

i'm sure they'll be quite convinced to downsize once they see the killdozer in the window

I know this is about the legacy and consequences of commodifying housing.
But goddam as someone who does landscaping and lawn work for a living there’s noting more disgusting than seeing McMansions in gated communities. The style of housing, the up front emphasis on the garage, the blatant disregard for architectural cohesion even in the lawns is astounding to me. Not to mention the suburban lifestyle of endless driving, hour long trips just driving to an everyday location, and the disregard of neighbors. I ducking make money doing this shit but these houses and this lifestyle fucking disgust me. I grew up and and currently live in inner ring suburbs built in the 60s but they ain’t got shit compared to the new social alienation machines currently on the outskirts of cities

Attached: ECB077EF-1586-49F3-A10A-251534BFB531.jpeg (640x427, 156.11K)

Terrible post. Petit bourgs are not people whose "cosmopolitan" lifestyle you dislike. A 300k house is not affordable, except for two young professionals putting money together and taking out a 20+ year loan. Commuting between the countryside or suburbs and the site of production (which because of the low density will likely require personal motor vehicles) is an unjustifiable waste of precious resources.

Dumb burger ideology.

This. So much.

REEEE muh real estate values muh investments

Under communism our regime will strip ALL middle class and above individuals of any and all housing, then have all of those sectors of land will be scraped and turned into dirt lots by the state. That’s how we end homelessness, and oppression.