the point is if the steel mill worker has no additional incentive to produce the steel (it may be easier to cut down trees for wood or mine stone and both build sturdy houses) why will he? he still gets the food, shelter, companionship ect from the community but works harder for it then the tree-feller...
Incentive additional to what? Does society need steel? Let's just assume it does. Does it need bread? Again, let's assume yes. Likewise books, food, schools, drainage, electricity, a coastguard, buses, houses and a gazillion other things. How do these
things get produced? By people making and doing them. If people don't, then things don't get done.
Who's going to sit in the dark going "Ha! I may be hungry and cold and not be able to speak a language and have already died of dysentry, but at least I didn't have to work for anyone else!
" because not even the stupidest and most selfish pro-capitalist waste of space and talent is going to be that
stupid. I mean, how much of an asshat do you have to be? I mean, FFS, it's not even that bad now. People do
work for more than themselves. I think they'd be more inclined to do so if they weren't abused and impoverished for doing it, instead as it is their 'hard earned money' (really, socially-useful labour) that they don't even get to see 90% of, is robbed from them by the entire system and crumbs are given back.
and the problem with the building space is this: say you have a hill next to a river and the river is prone to flooding. The hill has space for 5 houses and cannot go above 2 floors, the slope is too unstable for building on and you need 15 houses, who goes at the bottom of the hill? the farmers? the woodcutters? the children?
Don't build a house on the flood plain? "Communism on one hill" is a nonesense. You have a whole planet to chose from. Build it somewhere else. The land doesn't "belong" to a housebuilder. If it's good farmland (meadows, for instance) farm it, and put the houses elsewhere. It's pretty simple really.