In my revolution, we will simply rebuild meemaw and pep pep’s house slightly smaller every night while they sleep until they voluntarily relinquish it to the state because it feels too small.
House of Leaves with Burger characteristics.
We shall collaborate the capricious and perfidious Fey gnomes that live in the spaces outside of our vision to do exactly as you describe while also fixing their shoes so they will be perplexed and astonished by the fortuitous luck of their favorite footwear being fixed while the fly through their dreams!
Lmao “the goal isn’t abstract, allow me to show you how unnuanced this all is. Your parents are basically Feudal lords.”
I mean, they’re right in that most of our parents’ generation treats their homes as a speculative asset, and, in fact, bake that into whatever plans they have to retire, if any, and that’s Kind of a Problem
like my dad talking about getting this stupid swim spa, he was literally talking about how if my mom dies from her cancer he’s sellin’ the house and using the money for this or that, all of which relies on it retaining its value as part of speculation
“we need to take your mom’s house” isn’t really the same but like any actual solution for social housing will essentially involve expropriating them from that “value” by destroying the speculative bubble it relies on
There’s a nugget of truth inside ultras which is why they are ostensibly leftist but their rhetoric is hyperbolic to the point it’s unhelpful. I shouldn’t have to go read like a bunch of books so I can decode the class struggle inside the message telling me meemaw and pop-pop should have to wear barrels on suspenders.
I shouldn’t have to go read like a bunch of books so I can decode the class struggle inside the message telling me meemaw and pop-pop should have to wear barrels on suspenders.
see that’s why I just don’t read, I think I already have good takes and I see the cognitohazardous damage done to the ultras by clearly reading too much of the wrong nonsense
see that’s why I just don’t read, I think I already have good takes
In case this is not ironic, “some people learn wrong things from books” is not a good reason to reject literacy. Reading is useful, you just also have to think about how what you’re reading applies to reality. Theory without practice is useless, but usually not actively harmful. Practice without theory can be much worse sometimes.
he was literally talking about how if my mom dies from her cancer he’s sellin’ the house and using the money for this or that
I mean like I get it though, they had this house built to be their retirement and live to old age together home. If he doesn’t have to stay there and be reminded by all the little things they designed to share together then idk, good for him
the real JFC is that Jesus seems to be his therapist as he deals with her treatment and let me tell you, the man’s not getting any less bigoted thanks to church
If he doesn’t have to stay there and be reminded by all the little things they designed to share together then idk, good for him
That’s completely fair, I hadn’t thought of that.
the real JFC is that Jesus seems to be his therapist as he deals with her treatment and let me tell you, the man’s not getting any less bigoted thanks to church
Damn, that sucks. Sorry you have to deal with all this, it sounds like a tough time.
Thanks, i’m doing okay for someone who probably needs therapy <3
The Goal of Socialism is to Carpet Bomb the First World
Frasnelli spins in his grave with enough force to power a continent
does this “socialist” not know the difference between personal and private property?
Lol
China has over 90% home ownership
Proof of exploitative revisionism obviously
Cuba is 94 and Vietnam is 92.
that’s only after Deng came to the rescue and destroyed socialism. under Mao everyone lived in a shoebox on a collective farm and one toothbrush was shared between 100 cadres
China has a fundamentally different property system from the United States. When you’re buying into home ownership, you’re buying into a global asset market where the Cosmopolitan bourgeoisie puts its money.
I’m sorry, but by comparing China’s home ownership to America’s, you’re as incoherent as this cartoon Twitter guy. I don’t think anybody else has mentioned the asset market either. I don’t really think there’s any framework here for a serious discussion.
None of this change the fact that someone’s full-time residence is personal and not private property. People have the right to their homes.
People are only pointing this out in response to the user saying no one in any socialist state has ever been allowed to own a home. No one is directly comparing the systems of ownership in these states to America, just pointing out that ownership did and does exist.
You are making a direct comparison. I am challenging it. This is like if you all put your money into diamond toothbrushes that have microchips that are backed by the U.S. government. What the cartoon guy on Twitter is failing to elucidate is that yes, Americans like your parents do need to be decoupled from the global asset market. That is a form of expropriation, that doesn’t mean make them homeless, and you’re reading it uncharitably. It seems like you people have no idea where you even are. The Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with you.
You are making a direct comparison.
I am not. I literally said I was not in the comment you are replying to. I am only saying that ownership exists/existed in socialist states (regardless that it wasn’t identical to ownership in America, it was there), therefore the Twitter user is wrong on the facts.
What the cartoon guy on Twitter is failing to elucidate is that
What the cartoon guy on Twitter did is express themselves in an intentionally confrontational and engagement-baiting way instead of just constructively saying what they meant. The result is that if they did have a serious point, it was lost in the controversy because their original comment (in the OP) could easily be interpreted as “evict everyone who owns a house”.
that doesn’t mean make them homeless, and you’re reading it uncharitably
It was written on purpose to be read uncharitably. We are in a thread replying to a second screenshot where the user doubled down and said no one was allowed to own land in any socialist state, which is simply not true. In the very same comment as that screenshot, Alaskaball posted a screenshot of the constitution of the USSR affirming the right to ownership of one’s dwelling as personal property. Whether the nature of that ownership was identical to the ownership a resident has of their home in America is irrelevant, the point is that the Twitter user’s statement is factually incorrect.
It seems like you people have no idea where you even are. The Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with you.
This type of tone is a similar form of engagement-farming to what you see on Twitter. It’s counterproductive to having a good conversation.
It seems like you people have no idea where you even are. The Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with you.
ugh, leave reddit behind dawg. this distracts the reader, reducing your comments impact.
Okay, feel free to ignore it then. I know some people who would love to hang out with you and talk about how Marx said the American Revolution was based.
I’m not seeing how that is less than a pedantic clarification about difference in property rights. The fact remains that in actually existing socialism, people aren’t made homeless (i.e. personal dwelling expropriated) in the name of socialism.
How was that pedantic? Do pedantic quibbles fundamentally change what a statement means? They’re generally used to imply somebody meant something different than what the listener knew they met. A difference in historical context between your situation and the situation described in the Communist Manifesto is not a pedantic difference. Words mean things.
No time for English or manners lessons, I suppose. Where did cartoon Twitter guy say people have to become homeless? You just assumed that’s what they meant because you don’t understand there’s a difference between housing in the United States and other Western countries that is backed by the global dollar system. It seems like a lot of people here are reinforcing each other’s misinterpretations of basic things. The reason why you have homeless people in your country is because the property values of your parents’ homes need to increase. Of course, this is more of a 10% than a 1% of the 1% critique, but I think we pay too much attention to latter and not enough to the former these days. You’re talking about homeowners and comparing them to Laos. You absolutely cannot be serious. Are we going to compare American farmers to Vietnamese farmers next?
EDIT: It may amuse all of you to hear that cartoon Twitter guy is not happy with my replies either.
EDIT: It may amuse all of you to hear that cartoon Twitter guy is not happy with my replies either.
That is pretty funny, actually.
The fact remains that in actually existing socialism, people aren’t made homeless (i.e. personal dwelling expropriated) in the name of socialism.
Pol Pot: “What, am I a joke to you?”
Well, if you’re not interested in land reform in the United States, then how exactly are you going to deal with the homeless problem? Are you just going to mimic Christian charity? Are you going to bring them jars of peanut butter from your parents pantry?
This is reading a lot into my joke that the Khmer Rouge were a “socialist” movement that emptied the cities, making people homeless.
that and the fact that the majority of Soviet citizens had both an apartment and a dacha; the apartment provided by the state/union/workplace and the dacha being family property
It flashed in my head whenever the press stressed how Putin had a “dacha” but it was a palace!
…never elaborating that it stands out because dachas were extremely common among the citizenry that lived in the industrialized cities
Even in Cuba you are legally allowed to own a vacation home but they do put limits on how much real estate a single family can own.
What happened to Soviet and Cuban property law prior to workers en masse gaining the ability to buy a vacation home for their family? Do you think that the US land system can just be loosened up to allow poors into it? That goes contrary to its pricing through scarcity…
Do you think that the US land system can just be loosened up to allow poors into it? That goes contrary to its pricing through scarcity…
Practically speaking, the vast majority of Americans are housed already. They simply don’t own those dwellings. It would be easy (and completely uncontroversial, at least among proletarians) to expropriate those dwellings and turn them over to their residents. Regarding unhoused people, it’s a well-established fact that they are massively outnumbered by empty dwellings being held as speculative real-estate assets, which should also be expropriated. I don’t really see what advantage there is in expropriating personal residences in use by their owners that would further the goal of American land reform.
Toothbrushes are private property because they COULD be used to start a tooth brushing business where you brush customers’ teeth for a fee
Houses are productive property
ok, smart guy, what product is that house producing?
I heard some people make babies in those things
Poop, lots of it
Specifically naming “utensils” feels like they foresaw the
and toothbrush discoursethe soviets, famously never expropriated housing /s
nobody send them home ownership rates in china
Motherfucker never heard of Laos
Think this person just hates their family, rather than any ideological commitment to socialism.
Ironically this person is married into a bourgeois family and is themselves a petty bourgeois lawyer
So they hate the in laws. Understandable, they now have my full support lol
Yeah, repossessing my parents house will definitely be the first act of a socialist administration. Anything else (taxing and/or nationalizing corporations, wealth taxes and seizure of wealth when taxes are evaded, using the wealth from these acts to address basic needs and create jobs for all) is opportunism
I will be seizing your goats first, fuck you
I’m seizing the oats in the kitchen cabinets by the spoonful
All my goats! Gone!!
So, funny thing. The most likely entity to seize a person’s house is a bank, under capitalism.
i love how in this hypothetical you don’t own anything and only the older people you know own shit.
gimme the quilts meemawSocialism is when no possessive apostrophe.
When you think the means are the ends you become the Khmer Rouge.
I mean I think this phrased in a way to cause rage baiting but like wouldn’t better phrasing be
“They’re no longer going to own the house or business, but they’re not gonna be kicked out of the place they live in or work unless they’re using it for purely for profit. Your aunt will still live in her house, the state will just own it and lease it out to her or whatever”
Like I’m sure someone else can word it better but shit like this is made go farm engagement. Everyone needs to get off Twitter it’s bad for your brain.
Weird how they always talk about how we should take over houses of everyone, including your aunts house and your dogs house, but never wanna talk about how I will send them to the great hexagonal (unaffiliated with hexbear) gulag, where they will be building hexagonal housing, for all the ultras to live in.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.
They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
All property relations in the past have continually been subject to historical change consequent upon the change in historical conditions.
The French Revolution, for example, abolished feudal property in favour of bourgeois property.
The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.
In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.
We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.
Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily.
Or do you mean the modern bourgeois private property?
But does wage-labour create any property for the labourer? Not a bit. It creates capital, i.e., that kind of property which exploits wage-labour, and which cannot increase except upon condition of begetting a new supply of wage-labour for fresh exploitation. Property, in its present form, is based on the antagonism of capital and wage labour. Let us examine both sides of this antagonism.
what is your point here exactly
Are you really gonna start shit because you want to share toothbrushes?
i think communal housing is good actually
Then build communal housing. Simple as.
sometimes there is no more place to build
Sure there is. Infill is a thing, brownfield development is a thing, rezoning is a thing. Look at any Rust Belt city, especially the east side or the downhill side, you’ll see plenty of empty lots or boarded up houses.
The average length of homeownership is about 12 years. If you were to choose one city block with detached single-story houses and rezone it as medium density (apartments or townhouses, minimum 12 units per acre or 50 people per acre) with current usage grandfathered in, it would send a message to the owners that the property values would not be rising. Within 6 years you would have at least 30% of the block go up for sale, and a municipality or people’s housing entity could exercise right of first refusal, buying up the properties and putting lots of people in them, without the familial relation requirements, and adding accessory units too. Within a decade your land trust would own half the block, and they could start building on the in-between spaces or doing renovations or even demolishing buildings for larger constructions. And that’s operating within the current framework.
Really, the zoning is what people would push back the hardest against. The 11% of homeowners (and a good chunk of the 52% of mortgagers) do love their R-1 zoning. But if you had expropriation power this wouldn’t be a problem.
The only places where there’s truly no place to build are places that are already at an ideal density.
That’s exceptionally rare in the united states. There’s more than enough empty houses and the lots they sit on to seize from finance capital to bulldoze and build new communal housing without needing to resort to seizing houses people currently live in.
If you’re somewhere that’s a metropolitan area with limited developmental space due to land constraints ranging from literal limited land to natural disaster conciderations, I’d see merit to the discussion, but in broad strokes that’s a groundless justification to seize lived-in housing in relations to the United States.
I suspect that many of those homes - as with many of the currently occupied homes - are in huge, dead exurbs that need to be demolished and rewilded.
If you’re somewhere that’s a metropolitan area
thats mostly the perspective that im arguing from. i also think that the sprawl of the US, while good for lots of ““free”” land, has the downside of being much more difficult to organise public transport, accessible schools, hospitals etc. like if you imagine a future without cars, the US population will have to densify.
my mum have a 2 bedroom flat right above an urban highway
Sorry, but your mom’s apartment is about to be molotovd. Should have thought twice about escaping rent exploitation.
good. burn it to the ground
so she’s a feudal baron, essentially
