this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2024

291 points (94.5% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

174 readers

69 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' etc.

founded 1 month ago

MODERATORS

anticolonialist

K1nsey6

291

Landlords are parasites on society (lemmy.world)

submitted 1 month ago by anticolonialist to c/latestagecapitalism

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 13 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] DarkCloud 37 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

If only there was an entity large and powerful enough to like... govern over these things.

[–] ArcaneGadget 15 points 1 month ago

Hhhmmmm... Smells like communism infringing on muh freedom, boy!

/S in case it wasn't obvious.

[–] Anticorp 1 points 1 month ago

Illegal immigration is not without its problems, but the groups you described are responsible for that too. They benefit from illegal immigrants in the workforce, and then publicly rage against it. Make no mistake, the owner class does not want to curtail illegal immigration, they just want people mad at the immigrants instead of them.

[+] finitebanjo -25 points 1 month ago (2 children)

This would be a great argument if it didn't smell like Mao.

[–] rockSlayer 20 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Housing is a human right, and therefore should be provided at-cost to everyone for virtue of existing. Fuck for-profit housing.

[–] kSPvhmTOlwvMd7Y7E -2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I lived in USSR/ Russia, and these free housing thing didn't work out well

People had to wait for years before being assigned an apartment, which was never in the place you wanted. In the meantime, you d live with your grand- family in the same 30sq meters

This could be, maybe, improved somehow? But definitely not straightforward

[–] LouNeko 2 points 1 month ago

I could see this being improved by processing paperwork through computers instead of humans. But I can also see how dragging this process out is beneficial to the government, the longer it takes to assign a apartment to somebody, the more likely they will jump ship and find another solution and the less the government has to pay.

[+] mohammed_alibi -15 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (4 children)

To build housing requires massive amounts of labor. Labor is expensive. (Thus DIY is a thing to save money).

If there is no opportunity for some profit, no one is going to build housing, because that profit is also generated from work (by a general contractor or builder). It requires finding and buy land, conception, designing, permitting, inspecting, financing, sourcing, selecting architects, engineers, designers, and contractors, etc. And not to mention taking a big financial risk to borrow a loan or pay upfront for all the materials.

If you take away the potential to make profit from all that effort, then what you will end up with is that any housing will be built with very low effort. You will basically end up with complexes like old, spartan Soviet apartment blocks.

Edit: Basically what you're saying is "other people should work for free or very low wage, so I can enjoy cheap or free housing, because 'human rights'". Which is pretty ironic.

[–] Mango 11 points 1 month ago

Wrong. You don't need profit to build housing. The people getting the profit aren't doing any building to begin with.

[–] rockSlayer 10 points 1 month ago

That's a lot of assumptions about my thoughts on who and how the housing will be built and maintained.

The US federal government has monetary sovereignty, and therefore is only limited by the amount of labor and resources available to the US. The government could produce and provide high quality housing wherever it's needed, and then transfer the property through an interest-free loan to the residents through a housing cooperative.

This does a few things:

It democratizes housing
It creates an enforcement mechanism for paying housing dues without replicating some of the actual mistakes of Soviet housing
It ends homelessness
It recognizes housing as a foundational part of our survival

[–] nickhammes 9 points 1 month ago

I would say the bigger problem isn't the workers who build houses being compensated for their labor, but the high price of houses being driven by rent. A huge federal program to build millions of houses with deed restrictions that make it unprofitable to ever rent them would go a way to help lower the price of homes to be driven by materials and labor again, and could potentially help end homelessness in the US.

Pay workers for making the world better, don't pay people for owning things.

[–] Tagger 8 points 1 month ago

Having lived in former society countries, there was genuinely nothing wrong with society apartment blocks that are well maintained. They were very pleasant, well proportioned apartments.

[–] Viking_Hippie 3 points 1 month ago

This would be a ~~great~~ valid argument if it didn't reek of the John Birch Society