Even if producing a record supply of housing units could guarantee solving the affordability issue, actually building that much housing with viable density comes with a steep price tag. Even advocates of mass housing admit as much. If we don’t go after the land value itself, we are essentially trying to deflate a balloon by blowing on it.
That seems like a very… capitalistic approach to it. The idea that if someone could improve their situation more with those resources, then you can’t be allowed to use it. Zero-sum calculations aren’t healthy for anyone. Sometimes there’s going to be inefficiency in the system.
Holding resources in excess of what you need to live comfortably is one thing… but just having a home to yourself (and/or your family) is not a horrendous leech on society. Honestly that kind of rhetoric, where you’re forced out of your dwelling just in case someone might be able to use it to better themselves, is exactly the kind of thing that vocal critics of communism and socialism claim of it.
I don’t know where you’re getting the idea of forcing anyone out of housing comes from. The idea is that housing should be available for everyone, and land usage should be to provide for the good of the people, since land is limited. Obviously people still need housing.
Single family housing is a pretty big leech on society though, regardless of your stance. That’s what this post is about. As well as costing more for utilities, it takes more space and creates more traffic. It isn’t a good thing.
(By the way, Proudhon is an Anarchist, not a Communist or Socialist, though they share many of the same philosophies, and I think is better.)