this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
113 points (96.7% liked)
Slop.
748 readers
477 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
From an initial metropolitan perspective, as in imagine for a moment we accomplished to install a communist govt. Quickest expropriations that can be done in a metropolitan area such as New York city proper would be empty houses in the burbs - depending on how big they are you can house multiple families temporarily - damn near all the skyscrapers can be converted into temp housing, and that's not even touching the zones that feed into or out of Manhattan via rail.
Surplus homeless or other temp housed people seeking better accomidations can be relocated via rail to additional expropriated housing across the east coast, and that same rail allows for ease of moving people out to temp housing as well whenever more dense housing projects begin that requires radical redesigning of urban cityscape.
i dont have major disagreements. the only thing is i don't think skyscrapers or empty burb houses count as adequate housing, but if you count it as temporary then sure.