socialistic housing

chasingspace  asked:

Hey, so I have been researching socialism and other leftist ideologies and I agree with many of their ideals. I agree with the idea of not focusing on profit/materialism as is seen in capitalism but I wondering what would be the place of money and private property under socialism. I don't want to live in a society without possessions, money, and where everyone has the exact same things. Is there a way that we can have a system not built on profit and exploitation that still allows money/things.

So the key here is not to confuse personal property with private property. Private property refers to the means of production (factories, etc. where goods are produced) not possessions of individuals. Marxism seeks to transfer ownership of the means of production from the capitalist class (individuals who own factories, corporations, etc that produce goods that people need) into the hands of the working class (those who actually work in those factories and establishments to create the goods we all need). What is being abolished is the idea that private individuals should have control over the production and distribution of goods that all people need. We as socialists argue that the workers who make the goods should collectively take ownership of the means of production.

This does not apply to “personal property” which is things like your books, clothes, toothbrush, etc. Under socialism people would not be forced to “share everything” as many pro-capitalism folks like to claim. Workers would still exchange money for goods and services, the main difference from capitalism being that 1) workers would be paid fairly and 2) the goods generally available would be based on the needs/wants of the working class. It’s also important to note here that the idea of a Spartan bare-bones existence for workers in a socialist society is false- goods and services for leisure/pleasure would still be made and sold.

Housing is an issue people often bring up when discussing property. It may seem that many people are “homeowners” in our capitalist society, while others sleep on the streets as apartment buildings and homes remain empty. In a socialist society, housing would be owned collectively by the working class, and would be distributed as needed so that everyone has a place to live. No one would “own” a home, but they would certainly have access to a home to live in. Besides, the idea of owning a home in a capitalist society most often consists of paying a mortgage to a bank that actually owns the home. There are a few people that own homes outright, but that’s quite unusual.

Though the ultimate goals of socialism is communism (a classless, stateless society where all people cooperate freely), socialism itself definitely still involves exchanging money for goods and services. Communism seeks to abolish wages and currency, but Marxists believe that socialism is a transitional step to help us make the leap from capitalism to communism.

The key here is that goods and services are produced directly to fill human need, rather than to generate profit for a ruling class. The nitty gritty details of how money works in a given socialist state varies- it can in fact look somewhat similar to a capitalist society, where workers are paid a wage for their labor. The difference is that wages in a socialist society would be based on the quantity and quality of the work done + what amount of money is essential to sustaining the livelihood of the worker. Because the socialist economy would be planned according to human need, this wage would have to be sure to provide a sustainable life for the worker. The general idea is that workers take home the amount of value they create.


Under capitalism, the bosses hide the fact that workers are not paid for all the work they do. The concept of workers producing surplus value for their capitalist employer is central to the capitalist system; without this injustice, the ruling class would not be able to dominate the working class so effectively. This “surplus value” goes directly into the pockets of the capitalist class.

I hope this explanation clears up some of your concerns about money and property under socialism!

 'Red’ Hearts: most ex-Soviet citizens long for USSR

December 22, 2013 - Two decades after the collapse of the Soviet Union, most of the citizens of the former republics of the former USSR believe this geopolitical shift was negative for their country.

A poll conducted by Gallup in 11 post-Soviet republics of 1,000 participants raised the question of whether they consider that the disintegration of the USSR , which occurred 22 years ago, has damaged or benefited the population of the newly independent countries that emerged from that collapse.

Approximately 51% of respondents, especially in Armenia, Russia and Ukraine, believe that the disintegration of the communist bloc has not proved beneficial , triggering violence and ethnic conflicts in the former Soviet Union, while 24 % rate the disintegration of the Soviet Union as positive. As regards Russia, 55% believe this geopolitical change damaged their country and only 19% of Russians believe that the collapse of the USSR improved their lives.

Via Communist Party of Cuba

Sanders proudly calls himself “a socialist”. So why is a lover of communism – an evil socialist hell-bent on the destruction of good-and-proper capitalism – doing so well in a political contest in America? Are we finally gearing up for a violent uprising of the proletariat?
 
Not quite: even the word “socialist” just isn’t that terrible anymore. Remember when we were told that passing Medicare would create a socialist dictatorship? Now, after all the Alinsky scare-mongering and promises that electing Obama would mean getting a socialist in the White House (and ending up with a centrist), the public has become more sophisticated about the language of manufactured moral panic. Calling someone a socialist these days is like calling someone a Roosevelt Democrat (before the rightward drift of the whole political spectrum).
 
Socialism in 21st century America is a government that exists to serve the common people, the working people, the middle class, not an arm of the richest and most powerful segment of society. It’s a government that creates and nurtures policies that promote the best possible conditions for every citizen to have a healthy, prosperous, peaceful and productive life.
—  Bernie Sanders: There’s something refreshing about a politician who doesn’t triangulate nor change his positions as the polls change.