Zur Wohnungsfrage

by Friedrich Engels

Die nachfolgende Schrift ist der Wiederabdruck dreier Artikel, die ich 1872 in den Leipziger "Volksstaat" schrieb. Damals ergoß sich grade der französische Milliardenregen [49] über Deutschland; Staatsschulden wurden abgezahlt, Festungen und Kasernen gebaut, die Bestände von Waffen und Militäreffekten erneuert; das disponible Kapital nicht minder als die zirkulierende Geldmenge wurden plötzlich enorm vermehrt, und das alles grade zu einer Zeit, wo Deutschland nicht nur als "einiges Reich", sondern auch als großes Industrieland auf der Weltbühne auftrat. Die Milliarden gaben der jungen Großindustrie einen mächtigen Aufschwung; sie vor allem waren es, die die kurze, illusionsreiche Periode der Prosperität nach dem Krieg, und gleich darauf, 1873/1874, den großen Krach [372] zuwege brachten, durch welchen Deutschland sich als weltmarktfähiges Industrieland bewährte. Die Zeit, worin ein altes Kulturland einen solchen, obendrein durch so günstige Umstände beschleunigten Übergang von der Manufaktur und dem Kleinbetrieb zur großen Industrie macht, ist auch vorwiegend die Zeit der "Wohnungsnot". Einerseits werden Massen ländlicher Arbeiter plötzlich in die großen Städte gezogen, die sich zu industriellen Mittelpunkten entwickeln; andrerseits entspricht die Bauanlage dieser älteren Städte nicht mehr den Bedingungen der neuen Großindustrie und des ihr entsprechenden Verkehrs; Straßen werden erweitert und neu durchgebrochen, Eisenbahnen mitten durchgeführt. In demselben Augenblick, wo Arbeiter haufenweis zuströmen, werden die Arbeiterwohnungen massenweis eingerissen. Daher die plötzliche Wohnungsnot der Arbeiter und des auf Arbeiterkundschaft angewiesenen Kleinhandels und Kleingewerbs. In Städten, die von vornherein als Industriezentren entstanden, ist diese Wohnungsnot so gut wie unbekannt. So in Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Barmen-Elberfeld. Dagegen in London, Paris, Berlin, Wien hat sie ihrerzeit akute Formen angenommen und besteht meist chronisch fort.

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Economics, Theory, History, Urbanism

Paperback

First published January 1, 1887

About the author

German social theorist Friedrich Engels collaborated with Karl Marx on The Communist Manifesto in 1848 and on numerous other works.

With the help of Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848) and Das Kapital (1867-1894).

Friedrich Engels, a philosopher, political, historian, journalist, revolutionary, and also a businessman, closest befriended his lifelong colleague.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedri...

Reviews

[Stan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Through reading enough of Marx & Engels' work you eventually get to understanding what a communist society might look like based not on utopian statements, but instead because you learn what it cannot be. This, I think, is a very useful polemic because it criticises both Proudhonian and bourgeois solutions to housing problems, and through this criticism you get a rough outline of what a communist urban space might look like (abolition of the antitheses between town and country). For any David Harvey fans out there like myself this is also a good read to see where he gets a few of his ideas.

[altagracia · Rating 5 out of 5]

mi perfecto Engels, es divertidísimo...
me encantan sus interpelantes apuntes [!] que parece que dicen 'señoras y señores, están ustedes leyendo esto?'
el mejor mejor mejor, cuando dice:
"Y aquí tenemos que reconocer —y, por tanto, no podemos negar [audaz deducción!]—"
sassy

"La misma necesidad económica que los había hecho nacer en un lugar los reproduce más allá; y mientras exista el modo de producción capitalista, será absurdo querer resolver aisladamente la cuestión de la vivienda o cualquier otra cuestión social que afecte a la suerte del obrero. La solución reside únicamente en la abolición del modo de producción capitalista, en la apropiación por la clase obrera misma de todos los medios de subsistencia y de trabajo."

sobre dar respuesta:
"No se trata, en general, de saber si el proletariado, cuando esté en el poder, entrará violentamente en posesión de los instrumentos de producción, de las primeras materias y de los medios de subsistencia, o bien si pagará indemnizaciones inmediatamente o rescatará la propiedad mediante un lento reembolso a plazos. Querer responder por anticipado y para todos los casos a tal pregunta, sería fabricar utopías. Y yo dejo a otros esta tarea."

sobre si nos inclinaremos por una cosa u otra:
"Es ciertamente exacto que la población laboriosa no nos preguntará, ni a Mülberger ni a mí, «si se inclina por el rescate o por la expropiación inmediata», cuando llegue la apropiación efectiva. Preferirá, sin duda, no «inclinarse» en absoluto."
que no nos inclinaremos

y también algo que viene a cuenta en cuanto a algo que me ocupa el pensamiento lately:
"Una descripción es una cosa; una reivindicación, otra distinta"

"¿No sé yo leer, o Mülberger no sabe escribir?" es una expresión que me voy a agenciar

[Sammie · Rating 4 out of 5]

A decent analysis on the ways capitalism affects housing for the working class. Amazing that this came out in the 1870s, and yet not much has changed, aside from an increase in rent and an increase in homelessness. Engels argument proves to be right to this day; capitalism does not provide safe, secure, or affordable housing for the working class. A good read while working hard in my own local housing movement. Just a reminder how long this has really been going on for. In abstract, yes, you have to evolve this reading from the 1870s to today. Some things are different, but when you think of it more broadly, you can grasp the fact that the things that have changed are so minor as we still live in a society where profit is always worth more than people. This means we will continue to be overcharged for rent. This means there's a lack of housing because nobody can afford the prices. This means gentrification will push out poor, marginalized, and Black + Brown people from their neighborhoods to make room for rich, white people, who in a few years decide they don't want to live there anyway. This means the homelessness crisis will continue to worsen. While many of us fight for local wins in housing, Engels alludes to the fact that only the overthrow of capitalism will stop these housing problems, and he's not wrong. The working class has to take power from the ruling class, and only then can we solve these problems.

[Alicia Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is essentially a group of articles in which Engels criticizes both Proudhonian and bourgeois solutions to the housing question. It's interesting that the Proudhon et al people of today continue to hate this book as, it seems to me, a nihilistic, go-nowhere answer. Yet this (and criticisms that Engels was himself bourgeois) hardly makes his words ring any less true today. Americans and others who've never tried Proudhon and bourgeois solutions think they'd work, while those living in countries where they've been tried know otherwise.

The gist is that while communes and home ownership can work, for a time, on an individual basis, they do nothing to solve the bigger issue of for-profit housing. Home ownership turns even the most progressive thinker into an ally of the landlord class because property values matter to him/her (even more so today, when pensions are scarce and one's home is one's biggest asset for surviving retirement). Home ownership also typically ties one to a particular place and its range of employers. Ownership is also a financial impossibility for many people. Transitionally, communal spaces are great. But they, too, fail under the weight of private property laws which act against group ownership.

Engels was right. The truth he describes sucks. But attacking him on the basis he was bourgeois--while Proudhon was merely petit-bourgeois--is rather silly, considering that Engels offers a far from bourgeois answer to the problem. Pretending that solutions which have already been tried and which have failed for precisely the reasons Engels states will suddenly work is likewise silly. Home ownership fosters political and social conservatism (evidenced by the large percentage of homeowners in the United States compared to European countries like Switzerland).

I'm not at all opposed to coops, communes, or private/group ownership of one's own home today. Honestly, what other options are there for someone living today under this economic system? But they are not long-term solutions for the vast majority of people. They fall apart when faced with the harsh realities of private property laws. They don't even exist as options for those with low wages, bad credit (caused by low wages), etc.

So long as there is money to be made by being a landlord, there will be landlords working the system to maximize the profits from their properties with no concern for the people who live on their properties.

[Flavia Alejandra]

Deberes del curso de vivienda que meto porque voy mal en el reto de lectura

[Rob James · Rating 5 out of 5]

In true Engels style, he absolutely eviscerates Mülberger in Part 3.

[anna · Rating 4 out of 5]

not so much a remedy to the housing question (though that is also mentioned, of course), but a discussion on why the proudhonian and bourgeois ideas wouldn't ever work (and don't make sense). not exactly groundbreaking in 21st century, but still insightful and unfortunately largely relevant.

also engels is an extremely sarcastic writer, amazing

[Jacob Wilson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This brief read must have been a revelation when it was first compiled and published. Today, however, while it remains lucid and insightful, it is not novel. Engels demonstrates the nature of the rentier class, the basic economic truth of the 'housing question', and the unsuitability (and undesirability) of bourgeoise homeownership for all. While Engels doesn't offer boilerplate suggestions for addressing housing crises, he gestures towards the necessity of state action (including expropriation of empty homes) and worker housing co-ops. Moreover, he acknowledges that concrete conditions in each locale will determine the realistic and appropriate actions needed to address insecurity of tenure etc.

All in all, a good, quick read. An excellent introduction to the disheartening but evergreen realisation that housing has always been bad, and that the problem is not a temporary one, but inherent to capitalist social relations.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

A short work, but quite dense and advanced — I will definitely return to it in the future.
Its relevance today is unrivaled.

One thing is certain: there is already a sufficient quantity of houses in the big cities to immediately remedy any real “housing shortage,” provided they are used judiciously. This can naturally only occur through the expropriation of the present owners, by quartering homeless workers or workers overcrowded in their current homes in those houses. As soon as the proletariat has won political power, such a measure, prompted by concern for the common good, will be just as easy to carry out as other expropriations and billetings conducted by the present-day state.

These words, written in the 1870s, could have been written today in exactly the same form, and they apply perfectly to our current situation — especially in countries like Canada, where I live. It is estimated that there are over 1.3 million empty homes in the country, with around 10,000 in Montreal alone. The measures explained by Engels, accompanied by a massive investment program in social housing construction, could resolve the issue entirely. Capitalism has created the material conditions to solve the crisis, yet it refuses to do so because of the limits imposed by private property.

I could say much more, but since it is a short text, just go read it yourself. :)

[Göksal Caner Malatya · Rating 5 out of 5]

Kapitalist kentleşmenin yarattığı barınma krizine ve işçi sınıfının konut sorununa, Proudhoncu (küçük burjuva) "her işçiye bir ev" ütopizmine karşı Engels'in yazdığı devrimci bir polemiktir. Engels, konut sorununun ahlaki veya mimari bir mesele olmadığını, bizzat kapitalist üretim tarzının bir sonucu olduğunu ve ancak özel mülkiyetin ortadan kaldırılmasıyla çözülebileceğini kanıtlar. Bugün kentsel dönüşüm ve rant ekonomisiyle evsizliğe itilen kent yoksullarının durumunu açıklayan ve geçerliliğini koruyan muazzam bir tahlildir. Reformizmin pansuman tedavilerine karşı, sorunun kökünü kazıyacak olan Leninist sınıf siyasetinin öncül metinlerinden biridir.

[Benjamin Solidarity · Rating 5 out of 5]

It is sort of amazing how much of this books is till relevant to today. So many of the root causes of the housing crisis today (inadequate under supply of housing in rapidly growing urban areas, caused by a lack of incentive for profit seeking developers to build housing for the the poor, and unplanned economic growth overall) are near identical to the issues of 150 odd years ago. Also many of the false solutions touted today (made everyone a home owners or more deregulation) are identical to the false solutions raised then. Great read.

[Diego · Rating 4 out of 5]

Se llama «Contribución al problema de la vivienda» porque llamarlo «Pero vamos a ver, imbécil» era demasiado fuerte para la época. Lo que me gusta un buen beef.

[Javi · Rating 3 out of 5]

No está mal. Viene a contar, a través de la crítica a otros autores, lo que todos sabemos: que para acabar con el problema de la vivienda hay que acabar con el capitalismo

[Harith A · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this with a lovely reading group comprised of people far smarter than me. Specifically the second edition. I found it entertaining but for the most part quite tough.

The text consists of Engels' responses to three people, or more specifically their arguments, in terms of how they answer the housing question (which is essentially: who should get to own a house?). Part 1 is against unnamed Proudhonist, and more broadly Proudhonism in general. Part 2 is against the bourgeois in the form of Herr Sax. Part 3 is against the Proudhonist again, but who has now been revealed as Mulberger following a whingey article he wrote complaining that Engels misunderstood him.

Without getting in too deep, there are some common features in both the primary arguments and Engels' responses to them. Engels approaches the quandary from his position of historical materialism, the effect of which means he finds it easy to dismiss the Proudhonists' and bourgeois' proposals because they fail to engage or transform the economic conditions of capitalism which give rise to the housing crisis in the first place. In Engels' eyes, you cannot solve the housing question without solving the social question; any attempts to do so are based on a lack of economic understanding, or to fraudulently satisfy petty bourgeois desires.

Engels notably takes issue with the Proudhonist's tendency to retreat into legalese by appealing to immaterial concepts of "justice". In the same way, he takes issue with Herr Sax's tendency to appeal to moralism. For Engels, if they truly understand the material conditions that give rise to specific economic roles and relationships, they wouldn't need to resort to these fluffy, arbitrary, and ultimately relative notions. I was surprised with this because I had assumed I too held a concept of justice, which I would deploy to explain why things should be the way that should be. The experience of reading this book will therefore hopefully be useful to me, for as long as it encourages me to question my own blind moralism and try to adopt a more materialist approach to politics and history.

The biggest stumbling blocks were definitions of ground rent, profit, interest and so on. Engels believes he understands the economic reasons why a landlord or landowner is entitled to certain monies, but he doesn't explain it too well to a dummy like me. Also we found he contradicts himself a bit, for example in terms of whether he sees land/housing as a commodity or capital. In Part 1 he says that the landlord-renter dynamic is fundamentally different from the capitalist-worker relationship because no surplus value is created and exploited in the former, and the renter deals with the landlord as the buyer deals with the merchant: it is a commodity exchange. What is clear, however, is how little issue he has with rinsing the arguments he is replying to, and the authors themselves. There is some humour here (which became more apparent when I read it all out loud).

Reading The Housing Question as a group was more productive than reading it alone, because it allowed us to use the text as an entry point in to more basic bitch questions that my mind could more easily encounter. What kind of commodity is land? How does land create surplus value? To what extent does Engels consider a landlord a capitalist, or a house capital? I have a notebook of notes that I will hopefully skim through from time to time. This is my vague brain dump for now.

[Burak · Rating 5 out of 5]

Konut Sorunu, Engels tarafından 100 yıldan fazla bir zaman önce kaleme alınmış olmasına rağmen 2022'nin İstanbul'unda yaşayan bizler için fazlasıyla güncel bir tartışma konusunu ele alıyor. Son zamanlardaki astronomik kira artışları, beyaz ve mavi yakalı emekçilerin yaşadığı konut sorununun çok farklı bir zamanda ve coğrafyada olsa bile aynı sosyo-ekonomik kökenden kaynaklandığını bizlere gösteriyor. Engels, bu sorunun kökenlerini ustaca kaleme alırken o dönemde önerilen küçük burjuva (Proudhoncu) ve burjuva (Emil Sax) çözüm önerilerinin ortak yönlerini ve ikisinin de ne kadar "ütopik" olduğunu gösteriyor. Konut sorununu burjuvazinin çözemeyeceğini ve çözmek istemeyeceğini anlatırken tek ve gerçek çözümün, sorunun esas kaynağı olan maddi üretim ilişkilerinde yani kapitalizmde aranması gerektiğini söylüyor. Aradan geçen bir asırdan fazla zamandan sonra İstanbul başta olmak üzere dünyanın bütün büyük şehirlerinde benzer bir sorunun emekçi sınıflar için en az o zamanki kadar katlanılmaz bir durumda olması, Engels'in bu tespitinin ne kadar güncel olduğunu bize bir kez daha hatırlatıyor: "Çözüm, kapitalist üretim tarzının ortadan kaldırılmasında, tüm geçim ve emek araçlarına işçi sınıfının kendisi tarafından el koyulmasında yatıyor."

[Valdemar Gomes · Rating 3 out of 5]

His critique, and this book has very little more other than criticism to theories that "wish" to solve the housing question, is summarized in the last four pages. The majority that is the rest of the book is basically Engels, bourgeois, meaning to offend Proudhon by calling him petty-bourgoeois again and again. Although entertaining at times, it is a corrosive and counter-productive method of discussing. Kinda goes to show where the most pestilent marxists got their discussion tactics inherited from.

[Ekin Aksu · Rating 2 out of 5]

Fena degil, ancak kitabin tamami Engels'in baska textlere yanitindan olusuyor, ve konut sorunu uzerine kendi fikirlerine cok girmiyor. Ozeti, konut sorununun ancak kapitalist uretim iliskilerinin kaldirilmasiyla cozulebilecegi, pratikte luks ve surekli kullanilmayan evlerin halka acilmasi ile olacagini savunmus.

[Pedro · Rating 5 out of 5]

what a great book!! withstands very well the test of time. It's still a very good argument on how to deal with the housing question! The criticism on anarchist theory is spot on as was proven in the interior of Portugal since the XIX century.

[Jason Holt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great work. Short, and I'm not sure I would agree with all of the conclusions, but definitely worth reading.

[Steven Blom · Rating 5 out of 5]

Additional reading: http://www.isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=7...

[Murat · Rating 4 out of 5]

Engels'in sosyalist ve anarşist bakış açılarını tartıştığı kitap.

[Sam · Rating 3 out of 5]

Another day and another reason to hate petit-bourgeois revisionist scum who seek to pervert the words of our forefathers. Fuck the Proudhonists, fuck the Kautskyists and fuck the social democrats!!!!

[zach · Rating 4 out of 5]

"The so-called housing shortage, which plays such a great role in the press nowadays, does not consist in the fact that the working class generally lives in bad, overcrowded and unhealthy dwellings. This shortage is not something peculiar to the present; it is not even one of the sufferings peculiar to the modern proletariat in contradistinction to all earlier oppressed classes. On the contrary, all oppressed classes in all periods suffered more or less uniformly from it. In order to make an end of this housing shortage there is only one means: to abolish altogether the exploitation and oppression of the working class by the ruling class.
What is meant today by housing shortage is the peculiar intensification of the bad housing conditions of the workers as the result of the sudden rush of population to the big towns; a colossal increase in rents, a still further aggravation of overcrowding in the individual houses, and, for some, the impossibility of finding a place to live in at all."

"The whole transaction is not one of buying the house from its owner, but of buying its use for a certain time."

"The task of the new science of social economy invented by Dr. Sax is therefore to find ways and means, in a state of society founded on the antagonism of capitalists, owners of all raw materials, instruments of production and foodstuffs, on the one hand, and of propertyless wage workers, who own only their labour power and nothing else, on the other hand, by which, inside this social order, all wage workers can be turned into capitalists without ceasing to be wage workers."

"Incidentally, it is in the interests of the bourgeoisie to disguise the fact of the existence of a proletariat created by the bourgeois production relations and determining the continued existence of these production relations."

"In the beginning, however, each social revolution will have to take things as it finds them and do its best to get rid of the most crying evils with the means at its disposal."

"Capital does not desire to abolish the housing shortage even if it could;"

"It is perfectly clear that the existing state is neither able nor willing to do anything to remedy the housing difficulty. The state is nothing but the organised collective power of the possessing classes, the landowners and the capitalists as against the exploited classes, the peasants and the workers."

"As long as the capitalist mode of production continues to exist, it is folly to hope for an isolated solution of the housing question or of any other social question affecting the fate of the workers. The solution lies in the abolition of the capitalist mode of production and the appropriation of all the means of life and labour by the working class itself."

"This regulation, which is at first custom, soon becomes law. With law, organs necessarily arise which are entrusted with its maintenance public authority, the state. With further social development, law develops into a more or less comprehensive legal system. The more complicated this legal system becomes, the more its terminology becomes removed from that in which the usual economic conditions of the life of society are expressed."

[cahit akin · Rating 5 out of 5]

Maurice Cornforth, Marksist Klasikleri Okuma Kılavuzu, s.87.

"Bu kitapta Engels, kapitalizmin ekonomik gelişimi yasasının ikincil bir sonucunu ele almaktadır - konut sorunu. Engels, konutların kötü ve sağlığa zararlı olmakla kalmayıp, konut darlığının ve yüksek kiraların da yalnızca işçi sınıfını değil, orta sınıfın da geniş bir kesimini etkilemesinin, sanayi kapitalizminin hızlı gelişiminden doğduğunu göstermektedir. Konut sorununu çözmek üzere önerilen çeşitli tasarıları ele almakta ve bu sorunun, kapitalizme ayrılmaz bir biçimde bağlı olduğu ve konut sorununun ancak kapitalizme son verilmesiyle nihai çözüme ulaşabileceği sonucuna varmaktadır.

"Bu yapıt, ilkin, 1872'de -Fransa-Prusya savaşının sona ermesini izleyen sınai patlamanın ve kentlerin hızlı büyümesinin Almanya'da konut sorununa büyük önem kazandırdığı sırada- Alman sosyalist basınında üç makale biçiminde çıktı. Bu makaleler -konut sorununu ön plana itmekte olan ve buna karşı önerdikleri sahte çarelerin toplumu değiştireceğini taslayan küçük-burjuva sosyalistlerine (Proudhon'un itibarını yitirmiş düşüncelerini canlandırmaya çalışanlara) karşı yöneltilmiş- güçlü bir polemik niteliğindedir.

"Bu makalelerde ele alınan başlıca sorunlar nelerdir?

"1. Engels, kapitalizmi, birkaç yasal reformla değiştirebileceklerini sanan sosyalistlerin safsatalarını açığa çıkarmaktadır.

"2. Engels, konut sorununu, her işçiyi "kendi küçük evinin" sahibi kılmakla çözme önerisinin, bir ütopya olduğunu, ayrıca sosyalist bir öneri olmayıp bütünüyle gerici bir öneri olduğunu gösterir. Ve bununla ilgili olarak, evsahibi ile kiracı arasındaki gerçek ekonomik ilişkiyi ve ev kirasının doğal özelliğini açıklar. Evsahibi-kiracı ilişkisi, kapitalistle işçi arasındaki ilişkiye benzemeyip, iki vatandaş arasındaki sıradan bir alım satım işlemi üstüne dayandırılmıştır. Evsahibi, evin kullanımını, bir kiracıya satmaktadır.

"3. Engels, kapitalistlerin, konut sorununu hafifletecek birkaç adıma rıza göstermek zorunda kalmakla birlikte, bunu çözmeyi istemediklerini; ve kapitalist devlet tarafından başlatılan konutlandırma planlarının da buna bir çözüm getirmediğini kanıtlamaktadır. Engels, yapı dernekleri, konutlandırma için devlet yardımı, fabrika konut tasarıları, kent planlaması sorunlarına az çok ayrıntılı biçimde değinmektedir.

"4. Engels, iktidarın proletarya tarafından ele geçirilmesiyle, mevcut konutların nasıl işçi sınıfı yararına kullanabileceklerini; ve konut sorununun nihai çözümünün nasıl kent ile köy arasındaki antitezin ortadan kaldırılmasına bağlı olacağını göstermektedir."

[Leo de Vries · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book is strikingly modern and the arguments that Engels refutes are still common today. I recommend this to anyone interested in understanding the housing crisis. Some of it is outdated but I was surprised how much of this holds up and how old some of the ineffective ideas being tried today are.

The book is in three parts: first he refutes the Proudhonists, who think about the housing crisis in terms of abstract "justice" instead of economic principles. Engels would be happy to know that Proudhon is rightfully almost forgotten, but I see ideas like his repeated often when talking about the housing crisis. This is a great book for understanding why simplistic ideas like "rent-to-own" programs, housing cooperatives, or credit union mortgages are not at all suited to solving our modern housing crisis. Engels also totally undermines the idea of romantic "back to the land" solutions which involve everyone owning a plot of land in the countryside.

The second part describes the bourgeois solutions to the housing crisis, which you can see repeated by liberal political parties everywhere in the world. Engels demonstrates that you can't have everyone be a homeowner under a capitalist system, and even if you could, this would not improve the living conditions of workers, nor would it reduce their living expenses. The idea of company towns was also very popular around this time and a lot of this chapter is devoted to that. This idea has basically lost all its appeal in the Global North due to workers' movements and the legislation governments have been forced to pass banning things like scrip and mandatory company housing.

The third part is a response to one author Engels writes about in part 1. The author takes issue with Engels and Engels takes the opportunity to completely destroy his ideas again. This contains a nice little summary which I enjoyed because the book is quite dense and moves through a lot of different topics. In addition to being very insightful, Engels is a great writer and it always makes me laugh the way he insults his opponents.

The main idea of this work is that the housing crisis is inherent to capitalism. A dismal thought, but it's true nonetheless. There's no better time than now to start organizing.

[Luis Almeida · Rating 4 out of 5]

A primeira metade do livro foi extremamente boa. Linguagem clara em que Engels dá o contexto da situação da habitação na Europa Central e também dá as criticas a Proudhon e a sua "resolução" da questão da habitação. A partir da segunda metade, não sei se é por culpa de Engels ou da tradução, mas a leitura tornou-se extremamente complicada. Tive de reler várias vezes vários parágrafos porque ou a linguagem era complicada, ou esse parágrafo contradizia algo dito pouco antes. Não sei se é uma questão do Engels usar mal a ironia ou se é a tradução da Edição Avante que não conseguiu transmitir isso da melhor forma mas pronto. Achei também que as criticas a Proudhon eram muito mais fundamentadas e muito melhores do que as criticas a Mülberger. Mesmo nas citações que Engels apresentou, não achei justo chamar de Mülberger de Proudhiano porque Mülberger realmente tocava na questão da habitação e a ligava ao modo de produção capitalista de forma mais fundamentada. Honestamente, se o livro fosse só a segunda parte eu não daria mais de 3 estrelas e isto é se eu não desse 2. Mas se fosse apenas a primeira parte, daria com bastante facilidade as 5 estrelas

[ª · Rating 3 out of 5]

na está loco este tío. muy interesante de leer en los tiempos que corren, aunque muchos ejemplos son difíciles de seguir porque pillan ya lejos. a veces da rabia que tenga razón porque las soluciones "proudhonianas" que critica se parecen bastante a las únicas propuestas que parece haber ahora mismo encima de la mesa (aparte de las que abogan por simplemente aplazar el problema). por otra parte, tampoco es q ofrezca una alternativa muy clara que no consista en remitirte a los tres tomos del capital, q es un poco fiarlo demasiado largo pienso.

[Evan O · Rating 3 out of 5]

The polemic about housing production and conditions under capitalism are worthwhile, as are the treatment of proposed reforms such as building societies, but they’re probably 25% of the length, the rest of which consists of Engels refuting a “bourgeois socialist” contemporary. The background on Proudhon has some value, as does the discussion of transition of Prussia and France from an aristocratic to bourgeois ruling class, but there’s a lot of sifting and tedium involved in reading this.

[Swantje · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found this hard to read at times. I think it being an answer to somone else’s writing, someone whose writings and views I didn’t know in advance made it somewhat cumbersome.
The consideration that home ownership cannot always be the solution, because people need to be flexible to move where work is available was interesting. I would have liked more possible solutions, in the end it was pretty vague.

[U.]

"Sermayenin üretkenliği" denen şeyin, sermayeye içkin olan, ücretli emekçilerin karşılığı ödenmemiş emeğine el koyabilme özelliğinden (bugünkü toplumsal koşullar altında, yokluğunda sermayenin de var olamayacağı özellikten) başka bir şey olmadığını daha en başta görmüştük. (48)