We did have a micro struggle session once here whether if even owning your own singular house was petit bourgeois (one poster saying the state or collective should own it)
I think at a certain point of communism whether you “own” your home or whether it’s technically owned by the Housing committee with full rights devolved to you while you live there is irrelevant. The only real risk is of the collective going Home Owners Association on you because you keep a tin boat in the front yard or something.
Pretty much what I said in the thread that under communism eventually you’d start to resolve the contradictions between renting and owning a house and hopefully end up with the positives of owning your house (lifetime security, being able to modify it) with the (few) positives of renting (not being responsible for unexpected repairs and being able to dispose of the housing if you want to move to another city etc).
one poster saying the state or collective should own it.
Lmao some people on here are unreal. “Well in my imagined perfect succesful communist utopia, this is how things should be, so since you’re not doing that now, you’re a reactionairy”
Yes, that’s infringing on other people’s freedom to own exactly 1 house. While that one person’s freedom gains nothing beyond the first 50 or so houses, very generously speaking.
Unpopular opinion you shouldn’t be able to own 30,000 houses.
actually unpopular opinion: you shouldn’t be able to own more than one house
You should be given one house and be allowed to own one second property for personal use.
Gotta have my dacha.
I can concede this point, but only if dachas are things almost or absolutely everyone has. Soviets did have a pretty good system for it.
That’s what I thought the second property for personal use was!
multiple people can use it at different types of the year perhaps? I’d hate for a house to go to waste for most of the time.
I’ll be there every weekend. People can come over while I’m grilling.
This sounds good
We did have a micro struggle session once here whether if even owning your own singular house was petit bourgeois (one poster saying the state or collective should own it)
I think at a certain point of communism whether you “own” your home or whether it’s technically owned by the Housing committee with full rights devolved to you while you live there is irrelevant. The only real risk is of the collective going Home Owners Association on you because you keep a tin boat in the front yard or something.
Pretty much what I said in the thread that under communism eventually you’d start to resolve the contradictions between renting and owning a house and hopefully end up with the positives of owning your house (lifetime security, being able to modify it) with the (few) positives of renting (not being responsible for unexpected repairs and being able to dispose of the housing if you want to move to another city etc).
Lmao some people on here are unreal. “Well in my imagined perfect succesful communist utopia, this is how things should be, so since you’re not doing that now, you’re a reactionairy”
The analogy I use is going on a road trip from NY to LA, and getting in a fight over which LA restaurant to stop at before you’ve even left NY state
Great analogy!
deleted by creator
For non Pell Grant recipients
Counterpoint: Freedom
Yes, that’s infringing on other people’s freedom to own exactly 1 house. While that one person’s freedom gains nothing beyond the first 50 or so houses, very generously speaking.