How would extremely rare or wholly unique objects be distributed in a planned economy...

you think i give a shit what you hate? Why the fuck would I

Socialism is the negation of capitalism. Not abolishing markets, commoditys, money, exploitation or basically anything else in capitalism makes you not a socialist.

This makes it sound like you're keeping private property. Why the fuck would you ever want to do that?

But what makes for a nice location is very subjective, some people may not like certain weather patterns or even suffer allergies from plants and animals in an area.

because you say so?

How is the question of who gets to stay there decided?

We can all agree socialism is not capitalism right?

Capitalism is a specific economic system with specific defining criteria. Market socialism eliminates the key features of capitalism and is therefore not capitalist.

What key features does it eliminate?

The key features of capitalism is how firms of managed and not the basic logic of market exchange that dominates society?

But we can't agree on what socialism is, that should be obvious from the many threads debating whether the USSR was socialist or not.

Arguing over whether something met certain criteria is very different from arguing over what those criteria are.

Works of art should be preserved in museums so that they are accessible for all. Some houses are works of art themselves, and should also be made museums. What exactly constitutes a work of art should be determined democratically.

Ownership without use and occupation, wage labor, rent. Of course the worker control of the means of production is a reason. Under Market socialism you could still have a government regulating or nationalizing certain areas of economic activity, or it could provide welfare of some sort. Mutualism isn't the only model of market socialism. Titoism and the Lange model are also market-socialism, or at least market-like socialism, of a sort.

Markets are not capitalist just because capitalism features markets.

Another point I forgot to mention was you could have consumer coops in market socialism too. For things like utilities, for example.

...

sure, but we are precisely arguing about what socialism is, what you are essentially saying is that "socialism is when its not capitalism" well, no shit, but levelling everything and going anprim would also not be capitalism either, neither would reverting to feudalism

Museums
Museums
Every location can be nice. Don't fall for the bourgeois money-making scheme

Some spots on this Earth are breathtakingly beautiful. These spots should be made parks, and these homes vacation homes, whee people would win the chance to stay in them in some sort of lottery, so that all can get to experience them.

...

No, arguing commodity production is an argument over criteria.

Why the hell would you have a lottery system? Just let people visit them. It's not like you can't literally drive to those places right now and look at them.

A lottery system for being able to actually stay in these luxury homes, not just for visiting these places.

The point of socialism isn't to come up with an even dumber solution to a non-existent problem than capitalism

So how do we decide who gets to live in the nicest homes, then?

most likely by whoever needs the space and is closest to it,

We don't

Retarded.

We could build more nice homes. Home and apartment coops would also really help.

a queue? Put your name on the list and wait, wew.

Some homes are spectacularly decadent works of art.

Right, ok a queue, but some places would be so popular that a queue might take decades to get through, so I think that a lottery would be better.

not an argument

Not an argument.

People can like, move dude.

Who manages the que? What options are there for waits of over 3 months? How long would people get to stay there?

Says the guy who thinks home ownership should be decided by lottery. It's a completely trivial issue. No doubt urban planners and architects are itching to make nice homes for everyone. All this worry about "muh beachfronts" and "muh highrises" is just bullshit generated by advertising and bourgeois money-making schemes. No one cares about that stuff.

Retarded. Also, the weather in some places sucks.

The only one retarded here is you, famalam. Are you seriously saying we should ration the homes in places with "good weather"? As if that's at all important. If you want to go to a place with good weather, just move there.

What if too many people move into one place? Yes, we have to ration the choicest spots. There's only so many of them. If we encourage people to have fewer children, over time our population will go down, and we won't have to ration as much.

Then they will move out. No one likes to live in an overpopulated area. The problem solves itself.
Nevermind the fact that "good weather" is the least of your concerns. People choose to live in places with horrible weather all the time, because that where they work and grew up and where all the people they know live. If all people cared about were "nice locations" there wouldn't be a single person living in, say, England, not to even mention all the places where the environment is downright dangerous. Again, it's a trivial issue because people don't care about it unless they see some advertisement for a vacation in the Bahamas

What objects are we talking about and who needs them the most?

Here's my take on it:

You file a written request for "ownership" of said item to whatever group of people volunteer to run such a service. You then get placed in a waiting line to receive said item for a limited period of time (lets say max 6 months or so). Organisations like museums or research institutions would obviously get preferential treatment over individuals, since their time limited ownership would benefit a greater amount of people than personal ownership by individuals.
If the items were fragile/needed special care, the organisation taking care of them and assigning waiting list would also need corroborated proof from whatever democratically chosen institution that you have the knowledge and equipment to handle said artifacts.

What do you think?

Then why are areas ever overpopulated?

Art and luxury objects. No one needs them at all.

Something along these lines, yes.

What about specific luxury homes? Who gets to live in the Playboy Mansion? Who gets to live in Hearst Castle?

That's basically the system that's already in place. Call any museum or archive and you can probably convince them to get an exclusive look at, say, their original print of the first edition of Capital (especially if you're a researcher), and even let you scan it and shit unless it's really fragile. Doubt they'll let you borrow it, though.
As for private collectors there's no reason to regulate it unless the thing is extremely precious. Some people just want to collect antique swords and shit

Do you really have to ask that question? Because they can't afford to live anywhere else. People don't live in slums for fun, they do it because they have no alternative but to work in the city.

If you want to live all by yourself in a giant fucking mansion I won't stop you. Maybe you could build a theme park

New York City and Los Angeles and the SF Bay area are all extremely expensive to live in and yet overpopulated.

You are dismissing a serious problem so that you don't have to think about it.

So put them in all museum for all to see, problem solved.

Some objects are meant to be used, not just looked at. Supercars for instance.

Well then the current system is already pretty adequate safe for some democratization that can be done after the revolution. Why fix something that isn't broken? Also OP specifically said priceless artefacts, I don't think anyone particularly cares about some old swords or doodles outside some passionate collectors and I don't think that will change with the transition to commmunism.

Something like supercars would probably undergo a whole cultural change, you could genuinly offer them as rewards to people extremely dedicated to car be it drivers, mechanics or engineers. Currently they're jsut useless wastes for the rich to use as status synbols. Shit like that is one of the most infuriating things about capitalism for me.

Yes, because of gentrification. All that means is that many people end up sleeping on the streets instead of in houses, because you still gotta bloody work in the city

Please explain to me why this very specific thing is such a serious problem? Does the fate of civilization depend on who gets to sleep in Hugh Hefner's fuckden? No it doesn't. Read Marx

Exactly, which is why this thread is pointless.

I think anyone who is capable of driving them should get a chance to drive them. They don't really need to be "owned" by anyone, they can be used for periods of time.

Because people will fight over the nicest shit unless there's fair way to determine who gets to enjoy these luxury objects and locations and homes.

t. Hitler

And you don't think people will figure something out if this actually becomes a problem? There's a reason Marx wrote about stuff like class struggle and not "who gets to live in the 'nice locations' in socialism", not only because it's a non-existent issue (seriously, no one cares), but because he rightfully assumed that anyone with half a functioning brain could figure out some sort of solution that would be way more appropriate than whatever he concocted ahead of time.

It should be decided democratically, of course. Some sort of system should be developed democratically for different sorts of objects, luxury homes and super cars for instance, and then special cases would be voted on individually.

Do you live in a socialist society? No. Then it's not important. All this arguing is just wasted time if you don't actually reach the point where this becomes an issue. "Who gets to live in the big houses" isn't some great contradiction that will kill socialism. It's a speed bump, and it will be dealt with if it ever becomes a problem.

Why would a socialist society produce luxury homes or cars in the first place? They entail a significant increase in the amount of labor spent on them compared to a regular home or car, while not actually being much better in terms of function.

Neither did Marx.

k

First, they already exist. Second, the USSR produced all sorts of special objects, like spaceships for instance. Who got to pilot them was presumably decided by some combination of merit and lottery. That's how we should decide these things.

Except this ain't theory, famalam

Retarded.

Not an argument

Not an argument.

kys

What fucking ever. The point is to get the theory RIGHT, not what name we attach to the theory.

read nigger:
ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf

Each according to their own ability.

Agree.

According to the plan.

whats the next step of this master plan?

Dude what?

whats the next step in this economic plan?

if you have a rare object it doesn't means it's valuable. Maybe if it is a nuclear bomb otherwise not.

If you're the holder of a rare object then you're just the holder of a rare object, thats it.

What does rarity mean here? Is this rarity a situational thing (the amount might be changed later) or is it fundamental and not going to change even if the social system gets retooled from the ground up, like with the antiques you mention? You seem to mostly care about the second type and believe that planning is bad for that, however markets do not work out in some magical way here either, the limitation of quantity is a given.

Legally, currently ownership of a thing entails not just the usage right, but the right to restrict other persons' access to it. Socialist ownership right will be about access to use values, and only inasmuch as that absolutely requires others not having that access allow restrictions. Usage happens in time, so right to access to a use value will be linked to a particular start and end date, and durable things will be rented rather than individually owned. (The durability of consumer items is not something given, but something that will change with a change in property relations.)

To re-allocate homes, something like this can be used: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_trading_cycle

Produce again and distribute again. And repeat. That's the new step.

are you fucking retarded? people move further away from the city and further into the country because it is too expensive all the fucking time, even while destitute, my grandfather is considering a move like this currently and I am worried he will be gone for thanksgiving, he wont be alone at least because he is moving towards other family but still

the obvious answer is that people get different levels of satisfaction from the city, those that like to walk to the grocery store instead of drive, be close to the fire department ect will go to and stay in the city and those extremely bothered by heavy traffic, crime, crowds ect will go to and stay in the countryside

The first two belong in a museum, the third will get rented out for short periods of time with a lottery so everyone can theoretically enjoy the benefit of it.

I'm having some SERIOUS FUCKING CONCERNS with these "someone else will fix it" and "read the book faggot" responses we're getting from the revolutionaries that have visions for a moneyless, weaponless utopia.

The weather in Northern Europe SUCKS but somehow everyone still wants to live here hmmmmmmm

this

Weather is just one factor, and right now, the price system limits where people can afford to live. Without a price system rationing scarce resources, some other system must be devised.

Why not just make them communal?

free distribution based on direct democracy

Could you flesh out exactly how this would work?

When you remove the owner/worker divide the consumer and the producer become one and the same person, the consumer has a say in the direction of production as part of the whole, people vote for what they need, produce it, and distribute it as they see fit

Would this all be done by a central government, or would there be some degree of local control?

its a dialectical process whereby local control replaces central government as local need falls into national or international lockstep based on shared interest after the abolition of capitalism in my conception this will happen in different degrees in different places based on levels of development of the productive forces and doesn't really matter so long as we get rid of capitalism and eventually the lockstep falls into places

But would people be free to move wherever they want?

yes but people tend to move because the state in which they exist is unable to provide for them, when it can, culture and familial ties tend to keep people from moving around

This would be a problem if antiques, artwork, and homes in nice locations appeared out of nowhere. However, all of those things were made, and then kept or bought. We just let the people who own them have them. If some asshole has a house full of priceless artwork, no one should redistribute his art lmao. Same thing with houses, other than property magnates and such, who obviously lose all of their extra houses. Those would be "redistributed" to those that need them, or left empty. They would obviously have to pay for the house though, if not literally pay at least with working.
I really do not understand why so many feel the need to address this with some fancy waiting list or lottery. Although the idea of someone breaking into some "hotel redistributer HQ" to forge the lottery tickets is kind of funny.

Fix what? There's no problem. Society having the possibility to consciously distribute its products to whoever it wants is precisely the point of communism. You are asking for some eternal law of distribution when this is precisely what we are trying to get rid of.

do your an ancap?

What? No I'm not an ancap (if that's your question). What in the world would make you think that?

Committees will elect other committees to decide will will be allowed to vote for the committee whic h will pick the winner.