I keep getting into arguments about personal vs private property and the other side brings up houses and I don't know...

I keep getting into arguments about personal vs private property and the other side brings up houses and I don't know how to fucking respond!

Are they personal or private? How long do you have to leave for them to become unowned? What if you live in two different houses at different times of the year? What if I'm a home builder and I build houses I don't plan on living in? What if I currently occupy a house but I want to move so I decide to sell it? This area is the weakest part of my ideology and the little fuckers keep focusing on it when I'm arguing against theirs, and I don't really know how to answer these questions.

Other urls found in this thread:


Hello Fellow bernie-bro. It seems you missed the memo: everyone gets to live in your house, just like everyone will get to fuck your wife, and 15 people will have to share the same toothbrush. now go back to Holla Forums and tell them what you've learned here.

Houses are the biggest meme of Burgerland ideology. Imagine basing your worldview on whether or not you got to own an overpriced hunk of flimsy plywood.

You own the living space you currently occupy. You lose it when you stop residing in it. No, you don't get to live in two different houses. If you need to move between two different locations, accomidations will be made for you, but you don't get to sit on empty housing for 6 months.

If you're a builder, you're simply accommodated for your labor and that's that. Builders don't typically own the houses they build anyway. The companies that employ the builders do.

I'm not falseflagging you fuck. I'm genuinely having trouble responding to these arguments.

tbh maybe I could've written OP to look less like a false lag.

By who though? If ownership is gained through occupation, then who pays the buyer if you don't have to buy a house to live in it?

you don't because you didn't build it and you don't own the land it's on

no one because there isn't one

No one. The buying and selling of housing will be abolished. You will be compensated by the state/municipality/building cooperative. You don't sell the house.

What you pointed out there is a good reason why marksoc is a dumb meme, though.


But hypothetically I did buy the house.

I-I meant builder.

What if I'm just a fag that wants to live alone? What if I built the house for myself, and it's a really nice one: who compensates me for my labor when I no longer live in it?

read this

there are 6 empty houses for every homeless person in America. Commisar Cleetus isn't going to move 6 families into your home because it would be completely pointless. houses work the same all other material works: Do you use the property to generate surplus by wage labor or rent? if yes, we cut your head off and make your daughters dance with black children.
Then you get compensated the full value of your labor for building a house. jesus christ, if you're going to pretend to be a socialist, at least read the wikipedia introduction for socialism.

user pls, could you be more specific?

I know housing isn't a big problem, but it's one ancaps keep bringing up whenever I discuss personal property.
By who? Do all houses just become housing cooperatives where all residents pay rent to compensate the builder, and then the people who compensated those people, and so on and so forth?

Don't know why you're having such a hard time.
and why is it so hard for you? a house is personnel property if you live in it and not if you rent it.

The builder gets compensated by the construction co-op he's part of, that get's revenue from building contracts and sales. the proles buying houses get their labor vouchers from their place of work, that generate revenue from their productive labor.

It's easy to fix the problem if you keep private property and just make the state the sole owner.
So ownership is not through occupancy, but from buying it from the constructors?

Yes, This applies to Market Socialism, btw.

that's not how things work you tard


Do I have to?

tl;dr: socially-recognised ownership is a spook, what matters is control, actual autonomy and use

If I own two houses, one in which I live, the other I rent out, then the one I live in is personal property and the one I rent out is private property.
Do you really need two houses? There's enough people who own zero houses, they would love to live there. In a society where we distribute based on need, why would we treat houses any different than food or medicine?
Why do people always imagine that we'd have complete chaos without capitalism?
Don't you think that if people squatting in your home due to no muh property rights is a real issue, there wouldn't be some system put in place to make sure it doesn't happen?

It's a bit complicated. Q: Why do you make the distinction between personal and private property to begin with? A: The distinction is between owning a thing as it directly makes the owner happy or owning as a means to indirectly make the owner happy. Indirect here does not simply mean delay, that the thing in question is an ingredient to some physical production process that only delivers a consumable end product with a delay by physical necessity, but indirect in that the ownership of the thing is used to control people, to squeeze something out of them.

I may legally own some weapon, but I may not legally use it for just about anything I could, physically speaking, use it. In what sense do you or I need to own a house? I need access to shelter, of course. So I may own a house in the sense of having access to some space. In the society I live in today, as in French society back in the days of Proudhon, owning is usually not just the right to use something, but the right to deny other people access to that thing. It is this second aspect of ownership that will be reduced.

So, who knows, maybe the individual will have the right to "own" several houses in the socialist future, but likely that will be ownership in a more narrow sense and not include the right to indefinitely lock out people everywhere. I suspect it will work like this: You have a protected private core of space you can lock (the unit for that is not an unchanging cubic meter, but something regulated to be smaller in urban space than rural) and if you "own" several houses, you don't get a bigger core. You can move the core between the houses you "own" (and even divide it up between several houses), but other people can use the non-core space and you have to make an announcement some time in advance when you move the core. (There also need to be some regulations to prevent shenanigans like owning access points to a building to effectively control the entire thing, some similar rules actually already exist with respect to private ownership of land.) This doesn't mean that the non-core space will be literally never locked (there needs to be a way to narrow down the list of suspects when something gets damaged), just that somebody will get keys since you don't have the right to forever prevent that anybody else occupies some of that space.

this, your problems are far more critical than not being able to answer questions about house ownership; you don't understand the fundamental concepts of a socialist economy. You are trying to fit socialism into a capitalist framework - while presumably these are questions of a post-revolutionary society where capitalism has been overthrown.

I've seen absolutely horrible posts on Holla Forums meanwhile I've seen absolutely terrific [though still reactionary] high-quality posts on Holla Forums. Though the level of discourse is still higher on Holla Forums because Holla Forums is too diluted for the creation and maintenance of an intellectual and erudite community.


this post got much more retarded as it went

Look up Marinaleda, Spain, and their housing and house construction practices. While not pure Socialism, it's a practical model of what can currently be accomplished.

Thanks for your valuable contribution. I am deeply sorry that I'm not as entertaining as some anti-social deranged basement-dwelling ex-Muslim Stalin the Hedgehog who has recently ascended to admin status on an undead forum started by an online che-shirt store and who worships the meme philosopher-king of twitter retards who has supported Syriza and ran for a neoliberal party himself (but only ironically, so it's okay, sniff). Though I have to ask: The regulation proposed would put unused housing space to use, so what's bad about it, aside from it being boring (again, sooo sorry)?

If this is Communism, I'm a Communist.

Ask them if they have a mortgage. If they have, then they don't fucking own their house. Under communism, everyone will own the house they live in

How does market socialism handle owning many houses and renting them out though?

this cant be what you lefties actually believe right?

People can have houses. In fact, with communism you'd be more likely to have a house.
But renting out a property is wrong. If you don't live in it, who are you to charge somebody to use it?

Why wouldn't we?

Shelter is an essential human need that everyone has a right too. Much like food and education, the central aim of communism is to establish circumstances where everyone is assured of and secure in a shelter that's made to the best possible specifications, at least in terms of housing quality, if not luxury.

Who decides what is an essential human need?

No one will own fucking anything. It's like one of the main things we want to abolish

Your fat ugly momma

Oh, shit. My zombie mama is coming back!!!