• FireRetardant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    6 months ago

    So is someone supposed to rent a hotel room for 3 years when they move away from their home town to go to college?

    • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      No, all housing should be publicly owned to prevent landlordism and accumulation of capital, so where you will be moving from and moving to will all be owned socially regardless, the way you pick which housing you will use as your personal property for that period of time or any period of time does not have to change at all from how it is now: a website.

      That’s the ideal. For the time being, we should have more social housing and levy massive taxes on landlords, forcing them to either sell and turn that to social housing, taking it off the “market” permanently or pay enormous taxes that: 1) Fund socialized housing, 2) Make purchasing properties as investments unprofitable and 3) Fund building more (alongside nationalizing construction).

      I used the words “socialize”, “nationalized” and “publicly owned” interchangeably here. The answers differ on who you ask, but the above is what we should be doing, IMO.

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        So who builds the houses when an area expands? And how do you assign nicer houses in nicer areas to people?

        • spacesatan@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago
          1. Fund building more (alongside nationalizing construction).

          Fancy houses will still cost money as long as money exists, after communism it would likely be lottery or waitlists. The 8 bedroom with a coastal city view is probably turned into a short term vacation spot rather than a personal residence.

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Lol you have fun with that. You’re going to need a dictator to keep people in line.

                • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Tankies? I don’t see you posting any socdem or anarchist rhetoric, just neoliberal stuff and arguing against socialized housing which is as leftist unity as it gets.

                  • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    Why because I know human nature? Most of the people here who are for communism, are the ones who think they’re going to be running everything.

            • spacesatan@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              OoooOOOoooo democratic management of property is sooo tyrannical. The people who would have otherwise inherited a car dealership are going to have to enact a vengeful counterrevolution against the masses.

              Sorry for pretending you were engaging in good faith at first.

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                6 months ago

                I am, you’re the one who is being delusional and thinking people inherently will work together to provide for each other without any sort of reward system. You seem to be under the impression that we would need a whole new system of gov. To accomplish this. When it can be done today already but isn’t happening because no one wants to do free labor for each other. You seem to think everyone who has something nowadays hasn’t worked for it and has inherited it…

        • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          The government awards construction contracts to those who can do it well in a tender, same way as social housing is built today in cities like Vienna?

            • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              6 months ago

              From each according to their ability to each according to their need. I.e. if you move to study at a university in a particular city, obviously you have more reason to live in the vicinity than someone who does not, same goes for work etc. It’s really very simple.

              Before you or some other poster ITT proceeds to go on about how this is limiting freedom and lack of personal choice, I will pre-emptively shut it down by pointing out that under capitalism most people have absolutely zero choice as to where to live, they can either afford it or they cannot, hence being “priced out” of even renting in cities if not entire areas of the country, and even if you argue that those people always have the freedom to switch to higher paid jobs, that leads to obvious societal problems where no one wants to work minimum wage jobs which are still valuable and need to be done, i.e. cleaners, teachers etc.

              And lastly, I think that with all that idealistic theory in mind, the actual reality of the matter here in the UK for example is that there are more empty houses than people, and we could end homelessness tomorrow by simply letting people live there instead of having those be “lol line goes up” for Russian oligarchs to fund war.

              I think that’s a better use of assets, don’t you? Hasn’t capitalism failed us here?

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          6 months ago

          Well, obviously you assign nicer properties to those who did you favours in the past

          Also, you can make all the houses equally undesired so that a true equality is achieved

          • LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 months ago

            I’ll live in a soviet bloc flat and travel by cool green electric tram anytime over being a rentoid in some mcmansion in bumfuck nowhere and rent out a ford f-150 to go to my job at Walmart, lmao.

            • lad@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              Ok, don’t know about the rest, but with the electric public transport I totally agree

    • Rivalarrival@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      We call it a “dormitory” instead of a “hotel”, but yes.

      Alternatively, they can buy a house, or a share of a house, and sell that house/share when they leave.