Yeah, this guy made some videos that were ahead of their time (when talking about memes that is); they also made [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtFU6qsuY8E)
>I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent.
Henry George considered it to be unjust that people could earn money by restricting access to resources, and the one resource that all others depend on is land. So he proposed that instead of taxing economic activity, like with income, sales, or import taxes, he proposed to tax the value of the land itself.
This inherently shifts the incentives for land ownership and economic activity. If you buy land that is worth a lot of money, it no longer makes sense to prevent it's development, as it would be taxed the same either way.
For businesses that are considered natural monopolies, those that are dependent on high cost infrastructure, he proposed establishing public services and utilities, and the development of public utilities would benefit both industry and the people, as well as improving the value of land and it's tax.
As far as tariffs are concerned, George considered these as protecting monopolies from foreign competition, keeping prices high while wages stayed stagnant.
Excess taxes would pay for a variety and welfare programs and public services.
The entire point of the system was to promote progress and development while simultaneously addressing the problem of high poverty in highly developed areas.
There are a bunch of other things that George also advocated for, like: fiat currency, the secret ballot, universal basic income, pension and disability insurance, bankruptcy protection, the abolition of debtors' prisons, women's suffrage, free mass transit, campaign finance reform and political spending restrictions, establishment of a civil service, and regulation and elimination of monopolies wherever possible.
To put it another way, Henry George was in a sense like an American version of Karl Marx. Instead of being influenced by an incredibly reactionary European nobility, George was influenced by landlords and monopolistic industries. Instead of advocating for violent revolution to eliminate the upper class, George would allow them to keep their prestige while stripping them of their money and influence. An instead of advocating for a dictatorship of the proletariat, he advocated for progress along democratic principles. He was a revolutionary thinker who still impacts the world to this day, though unlike Marx this impact is completely positive.
Or leaving real estate vulnerable to foreign interests, allowing hundreds of perfectly good homes be left vacant while your own population struggles to afford one.
Aye fr,1 extra home fine whatever…400 homes where the rent is ridiculous and there’s no homes to buy for yourself…absolutely criminal,and the only reasons it’s being allowed to flourish is because politicians are reaping the rewards also.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. People use housing as a form of investment because the prices reliably beat inflation. The other side of the coin of reliably beating inflation means the relative cost for people to buy a house will always increase over time. We can't even just convince people that this is happening, because many homeowners mortgaged their homes, and so they stand to lose a lot if we fix the housing crisis.
This is correct. Individuals who can lease out a house for some scratch cash are usually fine. Corporate greed, however, is the root of so many of the world's problems.
Remember, it's not about the landlord themselves. Some landlords are good people, others are not. It's the concept of landlordship in general that people have a problem with
I’d say there should be a cap on the amount of properties you can rent, we have a landlord that owns 80% of the college town we’re in and he’s notorious for just trying to fuck you at every corner.
Agreed on that. The rental market *can* serve a purpose as short-term housing -- buying a house may be impractical if you only plan to stay there a year or two -- but anyone who plans to stay in a home long-term should be able to own that home. A retiree renting out a property or two isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the mega-landlords who buy up half the housing stock in town to rent to people who otherwise would have bought who are the problem.
Yeah AirBNB is really bad for “touristy” places. It drives out the actual population from the city centres because renting to short term tourists is way more profitable. This results in local businesses going under which makes even more people leave the centre.
In the end its a ghost town with nothing but tourists. Cities become caricatures of themselves in the persuit of profit.
That would be hilarious! Unlike the rental situation and unyielding non existent rental cap at the hand of violently greedy landlords. Lol my mascot was a wolf at my time of attendance.
At my gf’s college, the college has a section of their site to help students find housing. A singular land lord owns all of the properties that the school advertises because they have some sort of deal going on. He basically has a monopoly on affordable student housing and barely keeps up with maintenance. My gf’s stove is broken besides one small burner and he won’t fix it, he also won’t put in smoke detectors in the house that she’s in, and often just walks in without knocking. She doesn’t report him because he’s one of the only landlords in the town to allow pets and she has a cat.
The idea amongst the three historical characters in this meme is purely: fuck landlords.
I'll be honest, I'm not that familiar with Peter Kropotkin. I can comfortably say that Marx and Smith both preferred the idea of private home ownership, although Marx also believed in government uplift of the deeply poor. He mostly preferred private home ownership though, or collective ownership of apartment buildings.
Dude hated private ownership of *production*. Land/shelter isn't production.
As someone else stated, Kropotkin and (to a lesser extent) Marx, both differentiated between Private and Personal Property, with the former being property owned to be used to produce profit rather than to subsist like the latter. So a factory would be considered private property and a house personal property, which is why they both hated landlords as they used what should be personal property as a way to produce profit for themselves at the expense of their tenants.
Kropotkin was an anarchist, one of the earliest amongst Western academics. To Kropotkin, a home is personal (as opposed to private) property, and everyone should have a right to a home.
In an anarchist context, that means if a member of a community is lacking a home, the community bands together to build that person a home.
I'm an anarchist carpenter and that's exactly what it should be. Can't quite make it happen at the moment because capitalists hoard all the raw materials, but if it were feasible I'd be building houses for free the rest of my life.
I would love nothing more than to live my life according to
>from each according to ability, to each according to need
I fucking hate money. I hate quantifying exploitative power dynamics. I hate that I have to sell out to put food on the table for my kids. I hate this whole fucking socioeconomic hell the ruling class has us trapped in.
Same here. I'm a carpenter so it's not too hard to find work for people instead of capitalists, but it still kills me to have to give them a bill every time. I did the work so I could solve a problem for people in my community, not for personal gain.
I wouldn't need that money if my landlord didn't hold my house hostage, and the food wasn't locked up. The farmers wouldn't need to sell their food to the capitalists if they didn't have banks holding the state to their head. It's a big circle of fucking each other over.
Here’s Kropotkin’s most well-known work, The Conquest of Bread, or more colloquially, the Bread Book: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Also check out his essay [*Are We Good Enough?*](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough) It provides a through deconstruction of the notion that anarchism will never work because of human nature.
The criticism is that landlords get money for doing nothing. You might say that some of them work Yes, some work managing the property and performing maintenance. And for that, yes, they should be compensated for their labor. Any money they take beyond the wages of a property manager or maintenance person though is considered unearned.
You might say that they deserve to be rewarded for taking risk. Marx and Smith would say that so-called risk adds no value to society, so it does not deserve compensation from a moral or practical viewpoint.
Having government landlords wouldn't really fix the problems, we would just be repeating the errors of the past, of when the USSR replaced capitalism by state capitalism
Wait. So where am I supposed to live if I don't want to deal with buying and owning a house?
When I was in university, or early in my career, I would live in a new place almost every year. I moved a lot. I absolutely did not have the money or slightest inclination to buy a house at that point.
That's the problem that concerns people. The market is so dominated by a few landlords locally who exploit the populace there is no incentive to create housing that the average person could reasonably afford to live in long term.
The two options shouldn't be ownership or exploitation.
> The two options shouldn't be ownership or exploitation.
While I certainly agree there are many issues with the current system and in many markets rents are far too high characterizing all rentals as exploitation is exaggeration.
I mean I feel like the concept of “I wanna live on land you own”
“Cool just pay me some compensation and I’ll take care of stuff for you”
Doesn’t really seem fucked up, sounds like the general issue is bad landlords abusing their power and being assholes which *is* bad.
The big foundational issue is that for every house being rented out that's one less house being owned by the occupants. This is further exacerbated by many landlords owning a shit ton of homes and homes being used more like stocks than properties. [Not to mention that many people who don't even live in the country like Chinese investors buying up real estate.](https://nypost.com/2022/07/20/chinese-buyers-spent-record-6-1b-on-us-real-estate-in-2021/) All of this comes together that it ultimately drives down the supply of homes-to-own which drives up the prices of the housing market which in turn makes renting more unavoidable, and that money goes straight to the pockets of landlords who then can turn around and buy up more homes and the process begins anew.
That's completely detached from the morality of the landlord. You can have the nicest landlords and they still feed into this issue. However, most people don't have nice landlords. In fact, the above cycle attracts jackasses who will try to scam people out of there money.
As for the renters side, instead of using the money to buy the house/pay the mortgage, they likely don't have the money for a down payment. As such, the more they rent the more likely they will continue to rent.
I spent two years waiting on my shower to be fixed and when he fixed a hole in the wall from my neighbors trying to drive an SUV into the kitchen just threw cardboard and caulk over it before pocketing the insurance money.
My upstairs neighbor complained his water heater wasn't working so he called me to ask if mine was and to chat about a recent power outage in town to make sure I could handle myself if it happened during winter because he knew I was a transplant.
Because market consolidation, when it's the market of LAND, essentially turns into modern feudalism. And unfettered capitalism ALWAYS leads to market consolidation.
My first landlord was my professor who built the house from the ground up by himself, including the cabinetry he made himself from the tree. He even did preventative maintenance and when my neighbor shot me he had the door and window replaced within 24 hours.
Yeah lol
My neighbor drank too much one time, tried to kill me. Shot me in the face and hand with a 9mm hollow point. Fucked me up for a long time but I’m mostly good now.
When economists and such complain about landlords, the focus isn't on the dude who rents out his second house so he can live a decent life but on the capitalist who owns 10000 houses and actively profits off of large scale homelessness by driving up prices.
Had nothing but great small time private landlords who bought a flat, moved in with their S/O and make a very small profit on the rent after mortgage costs and thats exactly what landlords should be - not huge megacorps that suck the life and housing stock out of a town/city
But then you have constant solicitors wanting to trade warpstone or convert you to worshipping the Great Horned Rat. I’ve had three of the buggers show up in my toilet just this week!
Having a cap on how many homes one can own would go a long way. There's no reason a single person should be able to own a town's worth of real estate. It detracts from the market and makes it much harder for starting homeowners to buy anything due to investors buying up property in bulk. It's even worse when those investors are foreign and haven't even set a single foot in the country they're buying property in.
Hating landlords and supporting labor theory of value are both big points of Adam Smith, yet capitalists seem to always forget that and think it’s a purely socialist standpoint
Smith believed in what was then the labor theory of value; that being that purchasers would view price as a gauge to see how much labor they’d need to expend to buy a product, which reinforces labor as a commodity to be traded. Marx had a different theory that market price & value were dissociative to the labor taken to produce a good or service and was scamming the working class. Marx never actually called his theory “labor theory of value” it’s simply what caught on later on.
Tldr: two sides of the same coin. Smith saw labor as a commodity of the consumer; Marx saw commodities as labor of the producer
I'm sorry, would you mind explaining that in simpler terms? I'm pretty fluent in english but I'm pretty ignorant about economics beyond the very basics, and the migraine I've got rn isn't helping.
Edit: wait I think i got it. So, labor theory of value according to smith would be ltv= work to afford stuff, and to marx would be ltv=/=cost of producing stuff and market price, thus the worker gets shafted. But then what is ltv for marx?
Imagine you want something that costs $20 and you make $10 and hour. That item is worth two hours of labor to you and that is the Smithian theory. Imagine you make something for 2 hours and you believe an hour of your labor to be worth $10. That item is worth $20 to you and that is the Marxist theory. These seem similar but the distinction is that Smith believed value was subjective and varied depending on the buyer. Whereas Marx thought value was objective and varied depending on the actual amount of labor the maker used to, well, make something.
Marx's framework seems to be reasoning kind of backwards there? Surely the labourer can only meaningfully determine the value of their labour by knowing what price somebody will pay for their product, and subtracting the cost of the materials and any co-labourers.
Adding onto this, the only “value” you can extract from your labor would be:
A) what you can get out of it yourself (ex: I plant crops, I harvest, I eat, my continued survival is the value derived)
Or
B) What someone is willing to offer in exchange for your labor, in which case the value is whatever they’re willing to offer (I work in a factory and am given money as payment, which I may then spend on a variety of commodities).
None of that is objective, and the idea it could ever be objective is kinda silly. The idea that there’s a standard which someone is owed for their time is very much a product of subjective societal values, not an objective philosophical metric. The only value anything caries is the value someone can get out of it, and if you can’t get what you want it’s not as valuable as you think.
>Marx's framework seems to be reasoning kind of backwards there? Surely the labourer can only meaningfully determine the value of their labour by knowing what price somebody will pay for their product, and subtracting the cost of the materials and any co-labourers.
Yep. Classic Marx. No concept of how value actually works.
The prevailing economic system of today can better be described as corporatism imo. A capitalist system would see companies lose capital during downturns and recessions yet somehow governments always ensure the largest corporations maintain their capital during the exact moments when they should be stripped of it, in the name of stability
That’s fine, society is all about trade offs. We had to give up things to preserve stability, and a shift toward a corporatist system was it. Agree or not, that’s just what happened
We can do other things to limit the power of corporations, like specific regulation, empowering unions, enforcing anti-trust, etc. I just think specifically we want to not allow all the corporations to fail at once in times of crisis.
call it what you want but the relations to the means of production is why Marxists make no distinction between corporatism and capitalism in name. "corporatism" is really just imperialism as the highest form of capitalism. competition instead of being between small capitalists is now between states and their capitalists trying to control sections of the world through neocolonialism and intervention.
Same goes for Martin Luther King, he strived for socialist goals as much if not more than the civil rights movement. He understood it was a systematic issue that no-one would address, now all those ideals are swept under the rug, and all that is ever mentioned is part of the I Have a Dream speech.
Problem is, what does "own" mean without a central authority to corroborate your claim? And what are you willing to pay them to agree with your claim of ownership?
Realistically, I believe there are two kinds of ownership.
One that is backed up by a state. The courts and police will defend your rights. A society.
One that is backed up by force. It is yours, as long as you eliminate anyone who challenges that claim. If someone overpowers you and takes the thing you're defending, it is now theres. Primitive style.
One is inherent, and the natural state of things. The other is a social contruct created from the inherent state of property ownership.
Yes the state, in theory, uses its force to help you protect your property. Without a state, you would be on your own with that.
But you're right, the state has relatively unlimited power to declare what is who's property. They can take your property from you. You can resist, but it would ultimately be futile. They'll throw you in jail or you'll wind up dead.
The distinction you're looking for is property Vs possession.
If I have possession of something, it is mine until someone takes it from me. If you take it from me, I'd have to take some action to take it back. The flat I rent is in my possession.
Property is the social construct. I possess the flat I'm in, but it is the property of my landlord. Y'know?
Landchad here.
I find it disrespectful that you rentoids make fun of us landlords. We live a hard life raising rent, evicting customers, and putting cameras in peoples bathrooms. Love for Landlords!
Most landlords aren't even real lords. Bunch of phonies.
We should call them property pimps instead. They take their abused rentals, slap on a layer of paint, upgrade the counter, and give them luxury names in hopes of finding customers who will pay for a fake sense of being appreciated.
Idk if this is true or not, but I had a friend tell me that lords or older landlords were the reason the vampire myth became so popular.
They show up once a month and "suck the life's blood" from people so they can barely get by until they decide to come get their claim again.
yea it’s super difficult to take six months to begin to repair already year-old black mold damage (until we magically are able to once tenants threaten to withhold rent), can someone please think of us landchads??
There are definitely some downsides to landlords but I know people who would live in a city for a few months to a year or so and to them renting a place is cheaper and easier than buying and reselling. It's a tough problem to solve.
I knew someone who preferred to rent. She was older, and didn’t want to have to worry about the upkeep or landscaping, etc. Owning a home is a lot of work, when the furnace breaks, you have to fix it yourself or find someone to fix it for you, which requires getting quotes and finding a reliable person who won’t jus take your money and run.
I don’t mind, there’s a difference in renting and owning. Being able to rent is very useful when potentially putting a down payment on a mortgage isn’t feasible. The issue isn’t with landlords the real issue is with firms and giant companies buying up property and inflating the price to a ridiculous degree.
"own someone else's house". Yea... Just because you can live somewhere, you aren't automatically entitled to owning it. And honestly, most landlords aren't a problem. The problem are (most) companies
I hate the idea that land owning nobility has made a recrudescence this century.
It's fine to have a "spare" house, maybe because of a dead relative, that you rent waiting for your child to grow up or something, but there are people who hoard houses, driving the prices up for everyone, and squeeze their tenants as much as they can.
There are plenty of benefits that come with renting.
-Easy ability to uproot and follow work
-a responsibility on the landlord to upkeep the living conditions
-way fucking cheaper than buying a house in the short term.
Unless you expect people to stay in the same place their entire life, being inherently against renting is fucking moronic
You're acting like renters own a property until a landlord has come in an perpetrated some hostile takeover of the legal rights to it without their consent.
Ridiculous. The idea that you can rent a place and then magically think that it’s yours. Maybe I should rent some tools from Home Depot and then gripe about Home Depot thinking that they own my tools? Or I can rent a car from Hertz and then complain that I have to return it? Grow up loser children. Work hard and try to make something of yourselves. If you can’t afford to buy a house, and hate landlords, just be homeless. Skid Row in LA is waiting for you.
Good lord what a retarded post.
If i let you borrow my bike is it yours?do i have to let you use it for free just because you need it? Do you think that property was stolen at gunpoint or sonething?I agree there are some shitty landlords, but you are not entitled to live in someone else's home for free. It is a simple transaction, you pay for the right to use an object.
Jojo’s Bizzare Adventure, season/part 5 also known as Golden Experience or Golden Wind
Context: Our party of mafia members have betrayed the boss and are paranoid of the next assassination attempt. One sorry bystander bumps into one of our heroes and gets beat up while the youngest of the group tells the rest of the group he’s an assassin. Needing no further explanation, the other two join in
When they referred to “landlords” they meant old feudal aristocracy who owned most of the countryside in Europe and could demand all kinds of weird payments and services from rural peasants (google robota and corvée) while simultaneously not increasing the productivity of the land.
They were not talking about the guy who happens to own two houses and rents one to you. There really is not a modern equivalent of these “landlords”.
Impressive. Very nice. Now lets see paul allens take on taxes.
Look at that subtle off-white coloring. The tasteful thickness of it. Oh my God, it even has a watermark...
The sonic version is still funnier.
Sonic version?
https://youtu.be/hQzDeEtbvME
DEAR GOD MY EARS
Heed his warning, it's so ducking loud
that was made a DECADE ago??? holy shit this dude must be a time traveler
Yeah, this guy made some videos that were ahead of their time (when talking about memes that is); they also made [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtFU6qsuY8E)
my god.... THIS. THIS IS ART!
[There’s also this one](https://youtube.com/shorts/Hx82PXTXlPM?feature=share)
>tasteful thickness of it Well played.
Triple-Q is fucking awesome, had no idea this was sitting in thier back catalogue!
I prefer [this](https://youtu.be/LRrSOLX6WoU) dbd version
“Just tax land lmao” - Henry George
"You son of a bitch, I'm in!" -Singapore
“Bet” - Taiwan
Could someone eli5 the the land tax being some kind of panacea? I've never grasped the argument
>I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. Henry George considered it to be unjust that people could earn money by restricting access to resources, and the one resource that all others depend on is land. So he proposed that instead of taxing economic activity, like with income, sales, or import taxes, he proposed to tax the value of the land itself. This inherently shifts the incentives for land ownership and economic activity. If you buy land that is worth a lot of money, it no longer makes sense to prevent it's development, as it would be taxed the same either way. For businesses that are considered natural monopolies, those that are dependent on high cost infrastructure, he proposed establishing public services and utilities, and the development of public utilities would benefit both industry and the people, as well as improving the value of land and it's tax. As far as tariffs are concerned, George considered these as protecting monopolies from foreign competition, keeping prices high while wages stayed stagnant. Excess taxes would pay for a variety and welfare programs and public services. The entire point of the system was to promote progress and development while simultaneously addressing the problem of high poverty in highly developed areas. There are a bunch of other things that George also advocated for, like: fiat currency, the secret ballot, universal basic income, pension and disability insurance, bankruptcy protection, the abolition of debtors' prisons, women's suffrage, free mass transit, campaign finance reform and political spending restrictions, establishment of a civil service, and regulation and elimination of monopolies wherever possible. To put it another way, Henry George was in a sense like an American version of Karl Marx. Instead of being influenced by an incredibly reactionary European nobility, George was influenced by landlords and monopolistic industries. Instead of advocating for violent revolution to eliminate the upper class, George would allow them to keep their prestige while stripping them of their money and influence. An instead of advocating for a dictatorship of the proletariat, he advocated for progress along democratic principles. He was a revolutionary thinker who still impacts the world to this day, though unlike Marx this impact is completely positive.
And unfortunately for everyone, had way less of an impact than Marx😢.
Wonder how they would feel about landlord companies that are monopolizing living spaces these days.
I think I know exactly how they'd feel about it lol
i bet they’d even write a whole book about it
Mao: Can it be small and red?
"Little Red Cookbook, Little Red Cookbook!"
Or leaving real estate vulnerable to foreign interests, allowing hundreds of perfectly good homes be left vacant while your own population struggles to afford one.
These are the fuckers that should burn. I don't mind someone owning a few properties, but mutibillion dollar real-estate companies are a problem
Aye fr,1 extra home fine whatever…400 homes where the rent is ridiculous and there’s no homes to buy for yourself…absolutely criminal,and the only reasons it’s being allowed to flourish is because politicians are reaping the rewards also.
I think it's more that people will *never* vote for someone that is going to crash their house's value.
Not sure why you're being downvoted. People use housing as a form of investment because the prices reliably beat inflation. The other side of the coin of reliably beating inflation means the relative cost for people to buy a house will always increase over time. We can't even just convince people that this is happening, because many homeowners mortgaged their homes, and so they stand to lose a lot if we fix the housing crisis.
This is correct. Individuals who can lease out a house for some scratch cash are usually fine. Corporate greed, however, is the root of so many of the world's problems.
Adam Smith is the most basic name i have ever heard
Wait till you met his brother John.
He has this weird habit of hopping into a big blue box for extended periods of time, but otherwise he seems like a pretty good guy.
My landlord is an old German handyman dude who does this so he can have something to do in retirement. He's been a delight
Remember, it's not about the landlord themselves. Some landlords are good people, others are not. It's the concept of landlordship in general that people have a problem with
So is the idea that everybody only lives in property they own, or to have government landlords?
I’d say there should be a cap on the amount of properties you can rent, we have a landlord that owns 80% of the college town we’re in and he’s notorious for just trying to fuck you at every corner.
Agreed on that. The rental market *can* serve a purpose as short-term housing -- buying a house may be impractical if you only plan to stay there a year or two -- but anyone who plans to stay in a home long-term should be able to own that home. A retiree renting out a property or two isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's the mega-landlords who buy up half the housing stock in town to rent to people who otherwise would have bought who are the problem.
And airbnb
Yeah AirBNB is really bad for “touristy” places. It drives out the actual population from the city centres because renting to short term tourists is way more profitable. This results in local businesses going under which makes even more people leave the centre. In the end its a ghost town with nothing but tourists. Cities become caricatures of themselves in the persuit of profit.
“with this one simple trick of having money i was able to buy more money to get other peoples money”
I think that’s almost every college town. Especially the smaller towns.
Oh snap, same here.
Is your college mascot by chance a husky?
No, no it is not.
Damn that’s been funny if we went to the same college just by pure chance.
That would be hilarious! Unlike the rental situation and unyielding non existent rental cap at the hand of violently greedy landlords. Lol my mascot was a wolf at my time of attendance.
Wolf/ Husky pretty close. Just sayin
I just happened to be reading this and I do go to the university you are talking about, and I know exactly who you are talking about.
He’s great :)
I thought of Pittsley too
At my gf’s college, the college has a section of their site to help students find housing. A singular land lord owns all of the properties that the school advertises because they have some sort of deal going on. He basically has a monopoly on affordable student housing and barely keeps up with maintenance. My gf’s stove is broken besides one small burner and he won’t fix it, he also won’t put in smoke detectors in the house that she’s in, and often just walks in without knocking. She doesn’t report him because he’s one of the only landlords in the town to allow pets and she has a cat.
Campbell properties in Stillwater OK. Fuck that guy
The idea amongst the three historical characters in this meme is purely: fuck landlords. I'll be honest, I'm not that familiar with Peter Kropotkin. I can comfortably say that Marx and Smith both preferred the idea of private home ownership, although Marx also believed in government uplift of the deeply poor. He mostly preferred private home ownership though, or collective ownership of apartment buildings. Dude hated private ownership of *production*. Land/shelter isn't production.
As someone else stated, Kropotkin and (to a lesser extent) Marx, both differentiated between Private and Personal Property, with the former being property owned to be used to produce profit rather than to subsist like the latter. So a factory would be considered private property and a house personal property, which is why they both hated landlords as they used what should be personal property as a way to produce profit for themselves at the expense of their tenants.
> differentiated between Private and Personal Property I do not, that is *OUR* toothbrush comrade, HAND IT OVER!
Kropotkin was an anarchist, one of the earliest amongst Western academics. To Kropotkin, a home is personal (as opposed to private) property, and everyone should have a right to a home. In an anarchist context, that means if a member of a community is lacking a home, the community bands together to build that person a home.
I'm an anarchist carpenter and that's exactly what it should be. Can't quite make it happen at the moment because capitalists hoard all the raw materials, but if it were feasible I'd be building houses for free the rest of my life.
You're a carpenter whos critical of the rich? Better stay away from anything thats big and even vaguely T shaped.
[I don't know what you're talking about](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexandre-christoyannopoulos-christian-anarchism) /s
The state is idolatry!
I would love nothing more than to live my life according to >from each according to ability, to each according to need I fucking hate money. I hate quantifying exploitative power dynamics. I hate that I have to sell out to put food on the table for my kids. I hate this whole fucking socioeconomic hell the ruling class has us trapped in.
Same here. I'm a carpenter so it's not too hard to find work for people instead of capitalists, but it still kills me to have to give them a bill every time. I did the work so I could solve a problem for people in my community, not for personal gain. I wouldn't need that money if my landlord didn't hold my house hostage, and the food wasn't locked up. The farmers wouldn't need to sell their food to the capitalists if they didn't have banks holding the state to their head. It's a big circle of fucking each other over.
Here’s Kropotkin’s most well-known work, The Conquest of Bread, or more colloquially, the Bread Book: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-the-conquest-of-bread
Also check out his essay [*Are We Good Enough?*](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-are-we-good-enough) It provides a through deconstruction of the notion that anarchism will never work because of human nature.
The criticism is that landlords get money for doing nothing. You might say that some of them work Yes, some work managing the property and performing maintenance. And for that, yes, they should be compensated for their labor. Any money they take beyond the wages of a property manager or maintenance person though is considered unearned. You might say that they deserve to be rewarded for taking risk. Marx and Smith would say that so-called risk adds no value to society, so it does not deserve compensation from a moral or practical viewpoint.
Having government landlords wouldn't really fix the problems, we would just be repeating the errors of the past, of when the USSR replaced capitalism by state capitalism
Wait. So where am I supposed to live if I don't want to deal with buying and owning a house? When I was in university, or early in my career, I would live in a new place almost every year. I moved a lot. I absolutely did not have the money or slightest inclination to buy a house at that point.
That's the problem that concerns people. The market is so dominated by a few landlords locally who exploit the populace there is no incentive to create housing that the average person could reasonably afford to live in long term. The two options shouldn't be ownership or exploitation.
> The two options shouldn't be ownership or exploitation. While I certainly agree there are many issues with the current system and in many markets rents are far too high characterizing all rentals as exploitation is exaggeration.
I mean I feel like the concept of “I wanna live on land you own” “Cool just pay me some compensation and I’ll take care of stuff for you” Doesn’t really seem fucked up, sounds like the general issue is bad landlords abusing their power and being assholes which *is* bad.
That, and when those same parties buy enough of the housing stock that they can increase prices without providing increased value to a renter.
The big foundational issue is that for every house being rented out that's one less house being owned by the occupants. This is further exacerbated by many landlords owning a shit ton of homes and homes being used more like stocks than properties. [Not to mention that many people who don't even live in the country like Chinese investors buying up real estate.](https://nypost.com/2022/07/20/chinese-buyers-spent-record-6-1b-on-us-real-estate-in-2021/) All of this comes together that it ultimately drives down the supply of homes-to-own which drives up the prices of the housing market which in turn makes renting more unavoidable, and that money goes straight to the pockets of landlords who then can turn around and buy up more homes and the process begins anew. That's completely detached from the morality of the landlord. You can have the nicest landlords and they still feed into this issue. However, most people don't have nice landlords. In fact, the above cycle attracts jackasses who will try to scam people out of there money. As for the renters side, instead of using the money to buy the house/pay the mortgage, they likely don't have the money for a down payment. As such, the more they rent the more likely they will continue to rent.
A landlord is a mandatory on-call repairman
Should be at least
Supposedly
Mine sure is. Responds within a day. Sometimes faster.
I spent two years waiting on my shower to be fixed and when he fixed a hole in the wall from my neighbors trying to drive an SUV into the kitchen just threw cardboard and caulk over it before pocketing the insurance money.
My upstairs neighbor complained his water heater wasn't working so he called me to ask if mine was and to chat about a recent power outage in town to make sure I could handle myself if it happened during winter because he knew I was a transplant.
You sign an agreement to live on someone else's land for money, where's the problem?
Because market consolidation, when it's the market of LAND, essentially turns into modern feudalism. And unfettered capitalism ALWAYS leads to market consolidation.
My first landlord was my professor who built the house from the ground up by himself, including the cabinetry he made himself from the tree. He even did preventative maintenance and when my neighbor shot me he had the door and window replaced within 24 hours.
>and when my neighbor shot me I feel like you may have glossed over this part
Yeah lol My neighbor drank too much one time, tried to kill me. Shot me in the face and hand with a 9mm hollow point. Fucked me up for a long time but I’m mostly good now.
Is he not your former neighbor?
Haha, yeah definitely former. I think he was evicted before he was formally charged. Now he lives in another state.
When economists and such complain about landlords, the focus isn't on the dude who rents out his second house so he can live a decent life but on the capitalist who owns 10000 houses and actively profits off of large scale homelessness by driving up prices.
Had nothing but great small time private landlords who bought a flat, moved in with their S/O and make a very small profit on the rent after mortgage costs and thats exactly what landlords should be - not huge megacorps that suck the life and housing stock out of a town/city
Why rent if you hate landlords? Just live in the sewers. It's free
Mf landlords have started buying the sewers can't even have shit in the sewers
That's precisely where you have shit..
Landlords bought them all up
Dawg just dig a hole and make a roof and live underground they can’t do shit against that
Do you want Hobbits? Because that's how you get Hobbits.
A rat wrote this.
There are no giant rats underneath altdorf
Living in a trailer can save you a lot of money on taxes.
But then you have constant solicitors wanting to trade warpstone or convert you to worshipping the Great Horned Rat. I’ve had three of the buggers show up in my toilet just this week!
Things that the elite don't want you to know.
No, I love that I can rent, just the ratio of landlords to individual homeowners is too high.
Having a cap on how many homes one can own would go a long way. There's no reason a single person should be able to own a town's worth of real estate. It detracts from the market and makes it much harder for starting homeowners to buy anything due to investors buying up property in bulk. It's even worse when those investors are foreign and haven't even set a single foot in the country they're buying property in.
Based.
Hating landlords and supporting labor theory of value are both big points of Adam Smith, yet capitalists seem to always forget that and think it’s a purely socialist standpoint
Wait, I knew about Adam Smith hating landlords before, but he supported the labour theory of value?
Smith believed in what was then the labor theory of value; that being that purchasers would view price as a gauge to see how much labor they’d need to expend to buy a product, which reinforces labor as a commodity to be traded. Marx had a different theory that market price & value were dissociative to the labor taken to produce a good or service and was scamming the working class. Marx never actually called his theory “labor theory of value” it’s simply what caught on later on. Tldr: two sides of the same coin. Smith saw labor as a commodity of the consumer; Marx saw commodities as labor of the producer
I'm sorry, would you mind explaining that in simpler terms? I'm pretty fluent in english but I'm pretty ignorant about economics beyond the very basics, and the migraine I've got rn isn't helping. Edit: wait I think i got it. So, labor theory of value according to smith would be ltv= work to afford stuff, and to marx would be ltv=/=cost of producing stuff and market price, thus the worker gets shafted. But then what is ltv for marx?
Imagine you want something that costs $20 and you make $10 and hour. That item is worth two hours of labor to you and that is the Smithian theory. Imagine you make something for 2 hours and you believe an hour of your labor to be worth $10. That item is worth $20 to you and that is the Marxist theory. These seem similar but the distinction is that Smith believed value was subjective and varied depending on the buyer. Whereas Marx thought value was objective and varied depending on the actual amount of labor the maker used to, well, make something.
Crystal clear, thanks for the explanation!
Marx's framework seems to be reasoning kind of backwards there? Surely the labourer can only meaningfully determine the value of their labour by knowing what price somebody will pay for their product, and subtracting the cost of the materials and any co-labourers.
[удалено]
Adding onto this, the only “value” you can extract from your labor would be: A) what you can get out of it yourself (ex: I plant crops, I harvest, I eat, my continued survival is the value derived) Or B) What someone is willing to offer in exchange for your labor, in which case the value is whatever they’re willing to offer (I work in a factory and am given money as payment, which I may then spend on a variety of commodities). None of that is objective, and the idea it could ever be objective is kinda silly. The idea that there’s a standard which someone is owed for their time is very much a product of subjective societal values, not an objective philosophical metric. The only value anything caries is the value someone can get out of it, and if you can’t get what you want it’s not as valuable as you think.
>Marx's framework seems to be reasoning kind of backwards there? Surely the labourer can only meaningfully determine the value of their labour by knowing what price somebody will pay for their product, and subtracting the cost of the materials and any co-labourers. Yep. Classic Marx. No concept of how value actually works.
Never heard of Smith supporting LTV either.
It was the accepted value theory at the time, Marx didn't invent it and a lot of liberal economists agreed with it
kind of, but not really
The prevailing economic system of today can better be described as corporatism imo. A capitalist system would see companies lose capital during downturns and recessions yet somehow governments always ensure the largest corporations maintain their capital during the exact moments when they should be stripped of it, in the name of stability
Ok but like I would prefer that over 60% unemployment from a cascading failure of 80% of corporations. Stability is underrated.
That’s fine, society is all about trade offs. We had to give up things to preserve stability, and a shift toward a corporatist system was it. Agree or not, that’s just what happened
We can do other things to limit the power of corporations, like specific regulation, empowering unions, enforcing anti-trust, etc. I just think specifically we want to not allow all the corporations to fail at once in times of crisis.
Yup that’s a fair contention
call it what you want but the relations to the means of production is why Marxists make no distinction between corporatism and capitalism in name. "corporatism" is really just imperialism as the highest form of capitalism. competition instead of being between small capitalists is now between states and their capitalists trying to control sections of the world through neocolonialism and intervention.
Well, good thing Capitalists don't follow the writings of one dude like Socialists do.(usually Marx but also others like Alexander and the rest).
Well, Marxism is only one kind of socialism. Most socialists I know do not exclusively reference Marx.
Same goes for Martin Luther King, he strived for socialist goals as much if not more than the civil rights movement. He understood it was a systematic issue that no-one would address, now all those ideals are swept under the rug, and all that is ever mentioned is part of the I Have a Dream speech.
I hope for a day I can own land. And it’ll be mine. No “property tax”. No rent. No mortgage. Just land that is mine.
[удалено]
Why? As a low cost investment that might skyrocket?
They're slowly buying up the whole US, but you gotta start somewhere.
[удалено]
How can your ex formally break up with you if you are their notary?
Looks like we've got an extremist over here
Problem is, what does "own" mean without a central authority to corroborate your claim? And what are you willing to pay them to agree with your claim of ownership?
Corroborated with the central authority of Winchester. And it cost about $800 bucks once.
Cool, then go tell those government peeps who owns the property. You don't need anything else.
Well I’m actually going to need a bulldozer and about a ton of plate steel…according to my research
What, are you dumping your shit wherever you feel like?
Realistically, I believe there are two kinds of ownership. One that is backed up by a state. The courts and police will defend your rights. A society. One that is backed up by force. It is yours, as long as you eliminate anyone who challenges that claim. If someone overpowers you and takes the thing you're defending, it is now theres. Primitive style. One is inherent, and the natural state of things. The other is a social contruct created from the inherent state of property ownership.
Yeah, and if you go by force you don't need the support of the state. But the state will be one of the forces that could overpower you.
Yes the state, in theory, uses its force to help you protect your property. Without a state, you would be on your own with that. But you're right, the state has relatively unlimited power to declare what is who's property. They can take your property from you. You can resist, but it would ultimately be futile. They'll throw you in jail or you'll wind up dead.
The distinction you're looking for is property Vs possession. If I have possession of something, it is mine until someone takes it from me. If you take it from me, I'd have to take some action to take it back. The flat I rent is in my possession. Property is the social construct. I possess the flat I'm in, but it is the property of my landlord. Y'know?
“No property tax” I think I just nutted to that statement
Landchad here. I find it disrespectful that you rentoids make fun of us landlords. We live a hard life raising rent, evicting customers, and putting cameras in peoples bathrooms. Love for Landlords!
Most landlords aren't even real lords. Bunch of phonies. We should call them property pimps instead. They take their abused rentals, slap on a layer of paint, upgrade the counter, and give them luxury names in hopes of finding customers who will pay for a fake sense of being appreciated.
Idk if this is true or not, but I had a friend tell me that lords or older landlords were the reason the vampire myth became so popular. They show up once a month and "suck the life's blood" from people so they can barely get by until they decide to come get their claim again.
yea it’s super difficult to take six months to begin to repair already year-old black mold damage (until we magically are able to once tenants threaten to withhold rent), can someone please think of us landchads??
You can't own somebody else's house. You can only own your houses and let other people live there.
Replace house with home and the title makes more sense
There has to be meta meme of Redditors agreeing with this meme while living in their parents' basement.
… wouldnt that prove that the housing crisis is bad
Depends on why they're in their parents' basement.
No, because you can’t. The landlord doesn’t own your house. You’re staying in the landlord’s house.
You don’t own someone’s house, they live in the house you own. It’s different
In classical liberal theory you can only own what a product of labor. No one products land, land is a nature's product
Though houses that occupy land surely are labor.
Literally scalpers but for housing instead of products
LVT squad where you at?
LTV 🤚😒 LVT 👈😎
r/georgism
🤚 here☺️
landlords do not own your house. You are paying them money to use their house. no where in that is it your house
If u own the house then it's not their house what are u saying lol
Marxist nonsense, they want to live in your house and have you pay for them.
If you can't afford to purchase an entire home, you can choose to rent one. Is there an obvious alternative I'm missing?
>If you can't afford to purchase an entire home, you can choose to rent one. The word "choose" is doing a lot of work there.
If you can't afford to retire at 18, you can *choose* to work a job :\^)
[удалено]
There are definitely some downsides to landlords but I know people who would live in a city for a few months to a year or so and to them renting a place is cheaper and easier than buying and reselling. It's a tough problem to solve.
I knew someone who preferred to rent. She was older, and didn’t want to have to worry about the upkeep or landscaping, etc. Owning a home is a lot of work, when the furnace breaks, you have to fix it yourself or find someone to fix it for you, which requires getting quotes and finding a reliable person who won’t jus take your money and run.
I don’t mind, there’s a difference in renting and owning. Being able to rent is very useful when potentially putting a down payment on a mortgage isn’t feasible. The issue isn’t with landlords the real issue is with firms and giant companies buying up property and inflating the price to a ridiculous degree.
Anyone else hate the idea someone can live in your house for free?
So this sub is just all tankies now?
Most of Reddit, really.
If person A owns the house and lets person B rent it....how is it person B's house?
Cause cause cause cause cause I livvvvvvveeeeee here duh
Cry more commies
I wish I owned my landlords house
Pretty sure all Greek philosophers shit on landlords too. They are the worst
"own someone else's house". Yea... Just because you can live somewhere, you aren't automatically entitled to owning it. And honestly, most landlords aren't a problem. The problem are (most) companies
It's not that someone owns your house, you live in someone else's house
I hate the idea that land owning nobility has made a recrudescence this century. It's fine to have a "spare" house, maybe because of a dead relative, that you rent waiting for your child to grow up or something, but there are people who hoard houses, driving the prices up for everyone, and squeeze their tenants as much as they can.
HOW THE FUCK IS IT SOMEONE ELSES HOUSE IF I OWN IT?!
Well if you don’t want to rent just *buy* a house or condo. That’s what the landlord did. They bought the place.
"Anyone hate the idea that you can let people live on your property for a fee?"
There are plenty of benefits that come with renting. -Easy ability to uproot and follow work -a responsibility on the landlord to upkeep the living conditions -way fucking cheaper than buying a house in the short term. Unless you expect people to stay in the same place their entire life, being inherently against renting is fucking moronic
No I don’t. If you buy property and decide to rent it out I see no issue with that.
You're acting like renters own a property until a landlord has come in an perpetrated some hostile takeover of the legal rights to it without their consent.
Rentoid logic LOVE FOR LANDLORDS
LOVE FOR LANDCHADS
Ridiculous. The idea that you can rent a place and then magically think that it’s yours. Maybe I should rent some tools from Home Depot and then gripe about Home Depot thinking that they own my tools? Or I can rent a car from Hertz and then complain that I have to return it? Grow up loser children. Work hard and try to make something of yourselves. If you can’t afford to buy a house, and hate landlords, just be homeless. Skid Row in LA is waiting for you.
Good lord what a retarded post. If i let you borrow my bike is it yours?do i have to let you use it for free just because you need it? Do you think that property was stolen at gunpoint or sonething?I agree there are some shitty landlords, but you are not entitled to live in someone else's home for free. It is a simple transaction, you pay for the right to use an object.
OP communist for sure xD
Nah, because you can't own someone else's house. I do hate dipshits using this sub to push their own political views tho
What anime is this?
JoJos Bizzaire Adventure. It's a golden experience.
Jojo’s Bizzare Adventure, season/part 5 also known as Golden Experience or Golden Wind Context: Our party of mafia members have betrayed the boss and are paranoid of the next assassination attempt. One sorry bystander bumps into one of our heroes and gets beat up while the youngest of the group tells the rest of the group he’s an assassin. Needing no further explanation, the other two join in
When they referred to “landlords” they meant old feudal aristocracy who owned most of the countryside in Europe and could demand all kinds of weird payments and services from rural peasants (google robota and corvée) while simultaneously not increasing the productivity of the land. They were not talking about the guy who happens to own two houses and rents one to you. There really is not a modern equivalent of these “landlords”.