In your opinion, is a house PERSONAL property (akin to a toothbrush) or PRIVATE property (akin to a factory)?

In your opinion, is a house PERSONAL property (akin to a toothbrush) or PRIVATE property (akin to a factory)?

In other words, would people's homes be confiscated in the revolution?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qRGuQKv4gPU

It should be PERSONAL property

But its more PRIVATE property since the faggy gov lays claim to the literal ground.

and to answer, yes they would be confiscated

Considering we are confiscating both toothbrushes and factories I don't see the problem here.

Landlords and people using houses as cash made of bricks will likely lose them

no, we seize the houses. And the wives and children.
Fucking bourgouise think they can keep theyre petty lil fiefdoms of opresion, no we will take their wives and daighters and house them with blacks! trhat'll show their racist asses!

it's personal property.

It's personal, but only if you're actually there, living in it. Otherwise, get the fuck out.

It's personal property as long as you use it (if you live in it, it's yours)

landlords get fucked though

The personal/private split does not categorize the objects a priori, but rather according to their relationship with the owner. Thus a house can be personal if it is used personally and private when used as a method of gaining wealth.

To those who say private: what about mineral rights? Do I own every last bit of dirt down to the center of the earth, or could the government dig under my house to get at some oil, cause it to collapse, and be left up shit creek without a paddle?

The fact is, with global warming we are going to have to force lots of people to give up their homes and relocate. The Cuban government is already doing it to start building sea barriers. The liberal Netherlands government is doing it too, they have no choice. Further down the road, the socialist state will need to seize all of the farmable land and use it to make up for food shortages. And city-dwellers will be forced to allow local farms and gardens in their yards.

I am in favor of a "personal property" approach to houses, but even porkies believe in limits to it (eminent domain). People should be compensated and assisted with moving, but there is no way around it, the socialist revolution will demand a forceful approach to all forms of land use.

What about gardens?

People with multiple homes would have all but their primary residence confiscated. Living spaces become yours as long as you maintain and live in them , and none of that "I spend one day a year there so I live there" shit.

But otherwise its yours for as long as you're living there. You can't sell it though or otherwise generate revenue from it. If you transfer ownership, say, to a relative or family member, they have to give up whatever residence they are currently living in.

While it might be your personal property, because its presumably built and maintained with communally produced goods and services (lumber, shingles, electricity, etc), it also is communal property, which is why it can be occupied and used, but cannot be sold or arbitrarily transferred.

...

It must take, comrade. TAKE

shit bait fam

Clapistan? Watch this video if you want to see some real porky delusion:
youtube.com/watch?v=qRGuQKv4gPU
06:20 is particularly amazing.

how about really huge extravagant houses tho

That's kinda bullshit, even the USSR had dachas. Having a nice little vacation shack should be a common luxury for the masses in communism. Timeshares aren't quite as nice, since the other families use different decorating, cleaning habits, etc.

Those get distributed to really big families, or just turned into communal housing.

Mods should purge the board using this thread

This.

Tho we should also consider how the land will be managed.

Mods should purge the board using the board.

Clapistan yeah. Luckily I'm inland, but the people on the barrier islands? Totally hosed, and the state government isn't going to lift a finger to help them.


The USSR wasn't communism first of all, but the central problem is that once you allow that sort of property accumulation then we're right back in capitalism where we started. A time share would be one thing, but letting people have multiple housing properties that they aren't using doesn't make any sense.

You might not get personally flooded, but if you live near a big coastal property bubble, you'll still suffer from the economic crash that happens. Ultimately we're all going to experience the climate crash.

Having a couple houses isn't a process of accumulation. As long as it's impossible to rent them out, and people aren't able to get rich enough to buy a ton of houses in the first place, it's really a non-issue.

None of you faggots have read anything even vaguely resembling socialism, have you?

pls explain

Well you can't PROFIT off the mineral rights but you can probably say "hey don't mine under my house fucknuts"

why do you people talk about toothbrushes so much, is this some kind of meme

lol we┬┤re so fucked
and the most hilarious thing is the people who caused this problem will live happily ever after with their billions of dollars while everyone else suffers

basically yeah, iirc there was a pasta about commissar tyrone kicking in whitey's door to take his toothbrush

coincidence?

They can still prevent those houses from providing shelter to people. Where's the public interest in that?

Second homes should all be seized

It's possible to solve this problem and still have vacation homes for lots of people.

The notion of having multiple homes is bourgeois. Rent a hotel suit like the rest of us, snob.

The question is why under socialism should anyone lift a finger to produce for bourg snobs instead of breaking their necks? Justify your property.

I have never owned two homes, and at times I have lived in other people's homes. But one day, under full communism, I would like to be able to have two homes if it pleases me. Again, a little shack in the countryside never hurt anyone. It's not obscenely expensive or wasteful, and there's precedent in the fucking USSR. If THAT doesn't satisfy you, your tankie levels are off the charts.

Utility.

Having two homes is not particularly more bourgeoisie than having a home at all.

When there are enough homes to go around, we can worry about your bourgeois need to exclude others. Until then, you get a motel room and the opportunity to be laughed out of the building when you try to explain why you in particular are worth alienating others' labor for.

everyone should have a private dwelling that they do not have to pay rent or a mortgage on.

Landlords and Banksters should not exist. Houses should be built to need by the community for the community.

Okay but we have enough homes to go around already capitalism is just shit at distributing them. Ending homelessness is like the single easiest thing communism can do so a vacation home for everyone that wants one is something we can start on right away.

You don't need to own it to use it.
A cabin in the mountains of Arizona is not of the same utility to all people at all times. During the summer, some people (particulalry inhabitants of the lowlands) may like it for its cooler air and greater moisture. During the winter, people who like nearly freezing their asses off and postholing and generally being Rugged REAL MANLY MEN may enjoy the cabin more. By making it communal, everyone can enjoy the vacation property.

Follow up to this. How would you define "living in it?" Obviously, I would assume you can take vacations and not be there. What if, on the other hand, you decide to go study abroad for a few years, maybe your dream in life is to learn a foreign language, would you then come back to nothing?

People also like to have their own spaces that they can decorate and furnish how they like. Some people will prefer communal vacation properties that they don't have to worry about responsibility of upkeep, but it'll also be easy enough for some people to have their own if they take a hunting or ski or beach trip literally every year to the same place.

Ownership is an overly fraught concept. They don't need "their own" place to decorate or furnish. They need a place they can exclude other people from. There's nothing inconsistent about leasing a personal space inside a public property. It's still not yours to dispose of.

I'd say unless you're employing people through your house, as in, it's like a workshop or a plantation or something, it's Personal Property. That said, anything belonging to the Bank would be the Private Property of the Bank itself, and the issue of rental would complicate things even further.


I think he was referring to rentals, or people who own like 16 houses, 15 of which are just empty properties that they're doing nothing with. More than likely, there would be a limit on the amount of personal land properties an individual could legally own, since land is very much a finite resource, that very much belongs to the nation at large, and on some level, humanity as a whole.

I mean they could rearrange the communal place every time they came but it would be a huge fucking hassle and it's seriously easy to house everyone and have enough left over for a few people who really want one to have a personal vacation home. Really to some degree this reminds me of "under socialism there won't be any more Mercedes-Benz" when I think we should aim for "under socialism EVERYONE will drive a Mercedes-Benz.

Again, how are their desires to distinguish themselves compatible with de-bourgification and the end of absentee control? There are better ways to apportion that surplus than by iwanna.
How do "second homes" create allegiance to one's community? They destroy it, if anything.
Fucking liberals have crawled so far up their own Protestant asses that they can't tell the difference between a book of desert proverbs and a world that fucking hates them for what they've done.
Please read up on positional goods.

Because there's nothing bourgeoise about wanting some luxury and there is no rental going on.
Pretty much nobody wants to live in a society with no luxury at all so some degree of iwanna is in fact necessary, if only just to stave off "gee you know under capitalism we could eat things beside bread and drive things besides Yugos."
At WORST you're going to produce a split alliegience where you rather care about where you live and work and also where you spend your off hours. Anyone for whom this isn't the case probably isn't going to care about their community no matter what.
I was raised Catholic not that that has literally anything to do with fucking anything.
I will but based on the competence of the rest of your arguments I sincerely doubt it's going to changed my mind.

Yes, we are taking all of it. Everything is the property of the revolution, now go to gulag

fuck mercedes benz, under full communism everyone will drive an 86 and the national radio will play 24/7 eurobeat

Just kill me already fam

So what's the fucking time limit? If I'm in one house half the year and the other house half the year, it's hardly absenteeism. If not, how far does it go? If I go on vacation for a month, does someone get to move into my house? How about a four month vacation? How can you be so fucking stupid and illiterate that your idealism outpaces the practical implementation of property in almost all M-L states that have existed? Your autistic obsession over someone owning an extra house misses the forest for the trees. As long as it's illegal to extract rent or exploit workers, it is completely irrelevant to the functioning of socialism if there's a worker who decides he wants to use his fair share of labor credits to buy five houses! When he dies they all go back to the commons! If letting a guy buy multiple houses is going to cause accumulation, then you don't have a socialist state in the first place.