18.104.22.168. Use of Real Property
The individual needs real property in order to meet their existential needs, and also to accomplish more conveniences. The use of real property leads to great advantages, and that is why the individual ensures it by ownership. Ownership easily assumes the subjective features by which the individual attributes to themselves a power greater than the one they objectively have in nature. Such ownership then becomes alienated from its nature and alienates the individual from their nature. In an alienated society, in a society that develops possession, the ownership of real estate becomes a simple, efficient and recognized form of presenting the individual's power. In such a society, the individual becomes what they have. The alienated needs of people are insatiable, which results in merciless exploitation of natural resources that the planet Earth will not be able to stand for a long time. The limited natural resources increase the alienated value of the resources, which contributes to the fight for the exercise of the right to ownership of real estates.
Inhabitants who have not acquired an apartment or house in their ownership are forced to enter into a rent relationship with real property owners. They pay a rent according to the supply and demand market principle, which generates income to the real property owners. Although the market rent contributes to a rational construction and to a rational use of real estate, it is not socially acceptable because it glorifies alienated values and thus creates alienation in society.
The known alternative to private ownership of real property is social property. Social ownership would need to understand the equal right of all inhabitants to the use of real estate. However, the society has not gained knowledge to bring it into being. Besides that, the society has not found an acceptable way for socializing private ownership, and it used to take away real property from private owners. It is actually a seizure of the accumulated value of past labour of the real property owners and represents, as such, the injustice committed in the name of equality among inhabitants. Such injustice brings numerous inconveniences in the society.
Furthermore, it needs to be noted that the society has not managed to resolve the problems related to the distribution of apartments in social ownership. The administrative bureaucratic apparatus carries out real property building and use. As a general rule, candidates wait for years to acquire the right to use a flat. The bureaucratic structure is not able and skilled to monitor the changes in the housing needs of the tenants and even less so to meet such needs. The result of such social policy is the irrational distribution and disproportion in the distribution of real estate, which always results in privileges of some members of the society. Certainly, that develops alienation and antagonism in the society as well. It has to be noted that users of the housing facilities in social ownership are not owners and, therefore, they do not have the need to maintain them, and do not have a responsible attitude toward the same.
The right to use real property in social ownership is less efficient than private rent-based distribution. An efficient policy of the use of real property in social ownership can be enabled by a new social policy of real property utilization.
In the new system, the right to use manufacturing assets is determined by work competition. Analogously, the use of individual housing needs to be provided by the rent competition of the people’s bids.
The rent-based competition of real property users requires associated ownership of real property by all of the inhabitants of commune. This is possible to achieve by replacing the private ownership of real property by past labour points, which would set up a communal shareholding, or humanistic ownership of real property. Past labour points form the voting power of the people. All properties, whether private or not, present value to society. Therefore, the owners of private property should get voting power on the basis of their private property. But if the ownership remains privately owned it cannot affect the height of incomes of people in the community of the communes. In other words, if the owner does not surrender their ownership to society their income past labour points will be lower than their voting past labour points. If property owners surrender their private properties to society, these points will have the same value and will be called only past labour points.
Owners of real estate do not have, if they do not wish so, to sell their ownership to the commune. In such a case, they can use the real estate by themselves and pay tax as they do now. However, the real estate ownership will no longer represent the broadest form of presenting the power of the individual. Instead, past labour points will have this role. The sale of private ownership increases the quantity of past labour points. That will increase income, the power of real estate use, the power of choosing the job, etc. As past labour points are inheritable, it may be highly interesting for real estate owners to sell real property to commune.
The real property value is assessed freely in accordance with market value and under administrative control. Real estate owners whose residences are in other communes cannot be assigned past labour points, because the past labour benefit would remain in one commune, while income-based burden would be shifted to another. For this reason, real property owners from other communes need to sell their properties to their communes for money collectively owned by the commune's inhabitants. Then the inhabitants may exchange that money for past labour points in their communes.
The rent-related policy needs to ensure in a simple and efficient way a rational and socially acceptable use of the real property, of the dwelling and office premises in the first place. The society needs to ensure a free insight into real property value. In the commune's information centre records can be maintained of all real estates, with the technical description, position and the rent level.
The individual is an individual being, with individual feelings for the conveniences and inconveniences. This means that one and the same real estate may bring to one individual more and to one another fewer conveniences. Each inhabitant will auction up in the commune's administrative centre for the real estate that represents their largest personal interest, in accordance with their income possibilities. The inhabitant offering the highest rent acquires the right to use the real property.
The procedure for acquiring the right to use real estate is very simple. The highest stated rent becomes effective immediately and is subtracted from the income account of the user of the housing premise or of another privately used real property. In the case that a user of real property can afford the rise in rent and wishes to continue using it, they will remain a user of this property. A competing party that did not manage to occupy the desired housing premise will further compete for another housing premise.
Each stated rent obliges the user of the real estate to use it for a certain period of time at the stated price. After such time expires, the real estate user may lower the rent level if they will be allowed to do so by a potential competitive user of the real estate.
The user of real estate (apartment or house) who cannot afford or does not wish to accept the highest stated rent will have to state their view promptly, and surrender within a reasonable time period the used real estate to a stronger competitor. They will during that time seek a cheaper home to rent. Leaving real estate is inconvenient; however, it will be accepted in the name of achieving greater collective conveniences.
Any space that may serve for housing and business purposes is subject to the competition of real property utilization. If enterprises offered a higher rent than tenants, such real estate would then become a business premise, and vice versa. In this way the market will determine the best utility of real estates for society.
Real property such as public farming land and industrial facilities are subject to work competition and, therefore, it will not be necessary to pay any rent for such property as another form of competitive establishment for the right of its use.
The specifically intended purpose of utilization of the premises and facilities of a social nature, such as administration, courts, schools, health-care institutions, clubs, is set by the decision of the delegates of the commune's assembly or council. Such facilities are used by the whole society for specific purposes and they, therefore, are not subject to competition of the users.
The new form of social relations does not need rent in the classical sense as a form of income, because real property is owned by the whole society. It does not need rent as cash assets for the construction and maintenance of real property, because such assets are appropriated from the collective consumption fund. The new system needs the rent only for regulation of the rights to real property utilization.
The amount of money intended for rents of all real estates in the commune is established by the sum of direct statements of all real estate users. Such an amount needs to be added to the amount of money intended for income of the commune's population, and distributed to it proportionately to the level of individual incomes. This means that each worker will realize from the amount of money intended for all rents, a stake that is proportional to their income. A worker realizing a higher income has contributed more to the development of the society and thus has a greater right to use real estate. They exercise this right by getting a larger amount of rent-related money. The amount of money intended for rent will be directly collected in full from the income accounts of tenants and will thus not hamper payment transactions in the commune.
Distribution of real property will depend on the differences in the levels of income of the inhabitants of commune, the rent levels and on the value or, more precisely, on the necessity, of the real property. Larger differences in income levels will allow larger differences in the power of rent paying and, accordingly, larger differences in using real estate.
More valuable real property will realize larger rents, and vice versa. A worker who with a relatively low income would wish to use a relatively more valuable real estate would set aside for the use of real estate the money intended for rent and a part of money intended for their own consumption in favour of the worker who uses a less valuable real property. The latter would in this way retain the entire income and a part of the money intended for rent, which will increase their consumer power.
Family communities rent housing spaces. Each family member realizes income in the commune. In this connection, larger family communities or groups of people realize a larger income and a greater possibility of using real estate.
The proposed system of real property distribution represents the most efficient, most just and most acceptable real estate distribution, regardless of the ratio of the quantity of housing premises and the number of tenants, because the competition of the real estate users on the market of real estate directly balances the distribution. Such a form of rent will accept all positive characteristics of private and social renting, and reject all negative aspects, which will contribute to the prosperity of the society.
The competition of real property users would form an objective value of real property. Where the rent value of a real estate is higher, there is a greater interest on the part of the population. This is a good indicator for earmarking cash assets for the construction of a real estate. New construction of needed real property will create a larger balance between the supply and demand for immovable properties within the income possibilities of inhabitants. The construction, demolition and adaptation of immovable property are carried out against the fund of collective commodity consumption.
The life in such a system will allow each inhabitant to examine on the basis of practice the real need for the immovable properties and to demystify the alienated premises of perceiving the real property value. Such an orientation may diminish the circulation or sales value of real estates and reduce it to usable value. The society can then ensure the meeting of all inhabitants' needs of real property.
Copyright protected at Consumer and Corporate Affairs
November 13, 2013