3.1.2.7.                      Use of Real Property 

The man needs the real property in order to meet his existential needs, and also to accomplish more conveniences. The use of real property leads to great advantages, and that is why the man ensures it by ownership. Ownership easily assumes the subjective features by which the man attributes to himself a power greater than the one he objectively has in nature. Such ownership then becomes alienated from its nature and alienates the man from his nature. In an alienated society, in a society that develops possession, ownership of real estate becomes a simple, efficient and recognized form of presenting the man's power. In such a society the man becomes what he has. Alienated needs of men are insatiable, which results in a merciless exploitation of natural resources that the planet of 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 the 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 glorify alienated values and thus creates alienation between owners and tenants that easily develops to antagonism among them from which the alienated society has not found a satisfactory way out.

The known alternative to private ownership of real property is the 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 how to bring it into being. Beside that the society has not found an acceptable way to all for socializing the private ownership, and it used to take away the real property from private owners. It is actually the seizure of the accumulated past labour of the real property owners and represents as such the injustice committed in the name of equality among inhabitants. Such injustice establishes numerous inconveniences in the society.

Further, it needs to be noted that the society has not managed to resolve the problems related with the distribution of apartments in social ownership. The administrative bureaucratic apparatus carries out the 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 the 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 the manufacturing real estate is determined by work competition. Analogously with that, the use of the facilities of individual standard needs to be made by the rent-based competition of the real property users.  

The rent-based competition of the 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 income-related points, which would set up a communal shareholding, or humanistic ownership of real property.  

Owners of the real estate do not have, if they do not wish so, to sell their ownership to the commune. They in such case use the real estate by themselves and pay the tax as they are doing it right now. However, the real estate ownership will no longer represent the broadest form of presenting the power of the man. Instead, past labour income-based points will have this role. The sale of private ownership increases the income-based 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 income-based points are inheritable, it may be highly interesting for real estate owners to sell the real property to commune.  

The real property value is assessed freely in accordance with the market value and under the administrative control. Real estate owners whose place of residence is in other communes cannot be assigned past labour income-based 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 be compensated for the real property value with the money that is collectively owned by the commune's inhabitants. Then the inhabitants may exchange that money for past labour income-based 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 the 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 man is an individual being, with individual feeling for the conveniences and inconveniences. This means that one and the same real estate may bring to one man more and to one man fewer conveniences. Each inhabitant will auction up in the commune's administrative centre for the real estate that represents his largest personal interest, in accordance with his income possibilities. The inhabitant offering the highest rent acquires the right to use the real property.  

The procedure for acquiring the right to use the 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 of rent and wishes to continue using it, he will remain in his flat or house. 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 he will be allowed to do so by a potential competitive user of the real estate.     

The user of a real estate (apartment or house) who cannot afford to himself or does not wish to accept the highest stated rent will have to state his view promptly, and surrender within a reasonable time period the used real estate to a stronger competitor. He will during that time seek a cheaper home rent for him. Leaving the real estate utilization is inconvenient; however, it will be accepted in the name of achieving greater collective conveniences.     

The problems relating to the take-over of real property will be resolved peacefully on the basis of the needs and renting capability of the tenants, as any conflict would be detrimental for the conflicting parties. The detriment would be manifested in excessive competitive increase of the rents and in mutual negative income-related assessments. In such a system each tenant will accept the limitation of his own power of using a housing premise, as will accept also the limitation in the work distribution, which will contribute to overcoming the narcissi features of the character and, consequently, of alienation. Tenants will become aware that such system allows an optimal social distribution of real property.  

The real property user has to surrender the real estate in the condition in which it was taken. The responsibility by past labour income-based points will oblige the population to behave responsibly toward collective ownership or, more precisely said, to maintain it permanently in good order.   

Further, any space that may serve for housing and business purpose is subject to the competition of real property utilization. If enterprise offered a higher rent to pay than tenants, such real estate would then become a business premise, and vice versa. The market will determine the best utility of real estates for society. 

Real property such as 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 of the right of utilization.  

The specifically intended purpose of utilization of the premises and facilities of social nature, such as the 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 the rent in the classical sense as a form of income, because real property is owned by the whole society. It does not need the 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 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 his income. A worker realizing a higher income has contributed more to the development of the society and thus has a greater right to use the real estate. He exercises this right by getting a larger amount of rent-related money. The amount of money intended for rents will be directly collected in full from income accounts of tenants and will thus not hamper the payment transactions in the commune.  

Distribution of real property will depend on the differences in the level 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 giving and, accordingly, larger differences in using the 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 utilization of the real estate the money intended for the rent and a part of money intended for his 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 money intended for the rent, which will increase his consumerist power.  

Family communities rent the 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 the 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 directly balances the distribution. Such 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 the 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 the cash assets for the construction of a real estate. New construction of the needed real property will create a larger balance between the supply and demand for immovable properties within 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 orientation may diminish the circulation or sales value of real estates and reduce it to the usable value. The society can then ensure the meeting of all inhabitants' needs of the real property.

  Back to Top