Don’t liberals love to joke about wanting political assassination? See any comment section about Putin for example.

What are you talking about? Liberals post about the people they want to die all the time, you’ve just normalised them. Go mention homeless people in the San Francisco subreddit and watch all the liberals turn into hitler in seconds. Don’t get me started on what happens when you mention Roma people to european liberals. Or what happens in literally every single thread on China.

Besides, we’re not talking about assassinating people. We’ll put the billionaires through our courts beforehand just like you guys put poor people through your courts don’t worry.

I can literally see the post on my feed. It’s not brigading.

Also the admin hasn’t said that this is an exclusive thread for lemm.ee users so we have the right to defend ourselves against accusations some of which are false.

I would be upset if people in our instance started spamming random shit here with no intention to engage in a conversation and agree that they should be reprimanded by the servers admins/mods.

I was already having a conversation with Sun over PM when he made the post. Which is why I was one of the first here. We’ve been talking for several days and generally having a nice time.

there’s no such thing as brigading on lemmy, this post pops up at the top of our feed by default

there have been half a dozen hex users in this comment section so this accusation doesnt feel warranted

If you’re going to cry about “brigading” like a redditor then you don’t understand what federation is and should go back to reddit.

This isn’t appropriate for this post, the OP asked that conversation stays on topic

Clearly you missed the “or”? Or is the choice to redistribute resources (rather than having billionaires like Bezos accumulating wealth by theft) odious to you on the merits? I don’t mind if Bezos were to turn Amazon into a worker-collective, for instance, rather than accumulate wealth extracted from his workers. Indeed, I would prefer this outcome (and it is in fact the original Marxist approach - the dialectical aufhebung of capitalism into communism).

This is highly offtopic flamebait that will trigger a protracted argument of little substance.

lots of big words there sir that don’t really have relevance besides dictionary waving

I mean ironically, the guy who kicked us out’s mother was totally fine. Just an old lady who needed the rent to supplement her fixed income. When she died, 6 months later the “I’m selling the place, you need to be out by X day” email came.

deleted by creator

This is the kind of thing I really hate to see. It’s the reason I’m going to be leaving

I’m sorry. I do hope you come around to at least tolerating leftist perspectives before you leave for an echo chamber. That all wealth is created by labor is one of the core leftist beliefs, you’ll find anarchists, communists, democratic socialists, etc all agree on that.

where are you expecting people to live?

In houses. There’s dozens of vacant homes for every homeless person. Just as capitalism requires some people be hungry to maximize profit of food, it requires some people be homeless to maximize profit of landlords.

These homes are owned by someone- they worked/paid/built them themselves.

The people who build houses deserve to be compensated for their labor. Owning a house on the other hand, is not labor.

Why do you think these people who have toiled for 40+years should just give you there invested money/work for free?

Rent isn’t compensation for the construction of a home, otherwise the renter would own the home after 20 years of renting paid off the mortgage.

Why are they evil for using something they have worked for to help themselves?

I’d categorize the parasitic relationship as evil, but as for judging individual people for the poverty and homelessness caused by that relationship, it’s more complicated as we live under capitalism.

Inevitably someone like you comes along and just shitposts this same rhetoric you just did with no logical backing behind it other than “evil landlords must die and be redistributed”

Are you talking about the description of the cultural revolution in that one province in China people post? In the context of generations of peasants seeing their children die of starvation-related disease or conscripted never to return, the people were more merciful and practical than just. It’s easy to criticize any change if you ignore the violence of the status quo. To quote Mark Twain:

THERE were two “Reigns of Terror,” if we would but remember it and consider it; the one wrought murder in hot passion, the other in heartless cold blood; the one lasted mere months, the other had lasted a thousand years; the one inflicted death upon ten thousand persons, the other upon a hundred millions; but our shudders are all for the “horrors” of the minor Terror, the momentary Terror, so to speak; whereas, what is the horror of swift death by the axe, compared with lifelong death from hunger, cold, insult, cruelty, and heart-break? What is swift death by lightning compared with death by slow fire at the stake? A city cemetery could contain the coffins filled by that brief Terror which we have all been so diligently taught to shiver at and mourn over; but all France could hardly contain the coffins filled by that older and real Terror—that unspeakably bitter and awful Terror which none of us has been taught to see in its vastness or pity as it deserves.

How is a house different from a farm? Or a rail system? Or a insert anything created by someone and used for personal gain?

It’s not.

Why do you think these people who have toiled for 40+years should just give you there invested money/work for free?

Amazing logic. I worked so hard to buy this minigun, surely it’s perfectly ok to unload it into a crowd. Don’t tell me what to do with MY money!

Most of those questions are full of tacit assumptions, but I’d like to answer the general question “Why do you commies dislike landlords so much?” You may restate any of those questions or present new ones if you feel them to be relevant in response.

You complain about people citing Marxist literature, so let’s try citing the central figure of classical liberal economics, Adam Smith:

Obviously, Smith here is discussing a different type of landlord here, one who rents land for farming (etc.) rather than just habitation, but this contrast is largely to the detriment of the modern landlord as they leave it up to the geographic location of the rented property (i.e. availability of jobs within commuting distance) rather than have the possibility of issuing improvements to the farmland or otherwise assuring that rent can be paid by that individual.

The apologetics around landlords would have a chance if not for the basic fact that they operate on the principle of monopoly, as all of the land has been “accounted for,” it is all publicly or privately owned, and there are extensive efforts to keep people from sleeping on public land. There’s often no camping in a tent, there are specific “public awareness” campaigns encouraging private citizens to report those for destruction, and the settlements that remain are at any time liable to be cleared out by a police squad for the crime of existing. Sleeping on benches, when the benches aren’t specifically designed to prevent this, is “loitering” or “trespassing” (many public sites are officially considered to be closed at night), and in any case is immensely dangerous even if one only considers things like precipitation. Landlords make their profit from the fact that renting land and buying land are the only possible options for someone who doesn’t want to die of exposure or state violence. If there was land open for grabs and it wasn’t being bought up by land sharks, there would be very few homeless because they could at least have little shacks on such land.

Without the power of monopoly, rent would be drastically less, in proportion to the actual maintenance and management labor performed by the owner (or their property manager). We communists have nothing against paying for maintenance or management, but merely owning a vital resource that is monopolized is not a job.

If someone’s living in their own home, I don’t have a problem with that at all. The problem is purchasing a home just to extract rents and profits.

And btw, I think all those things should be collectivized and socially available. Landlords contribute no value (as shown by their unwillingness to do maintenance/repairs), and merely extract. After all, what really is the benefit, to society, of a landlord? They serve no purpose (hell, even a CEO has more purpose than a landlord, and they – as Elon shows – don’t really contribute much either). It’s entirely extractive. Your “why are they evil for using something they have worked for to help themselves” is because of how they’re using it. Just like how if you own a gun and defend your home, we consider that moral, but if you own a gun and shoot a person on the street, we consider it immoral. If you build a house and live in it, that’s moral and fine(though, in a perfect world, this would be produced through the government/taxes rather than individual accumulation, but we’re not talking about utopia, we’re talking about moral judgments on our world as it exists). If you build a house or purchase a house, then use it to extract ever-increasing rents from people for a thing we require to live (shelter), that’s immoral.

I think it’s a pretty simple distinction actually.

To return to the starbucks example, the company “produced” that material. Is it “moral” of them to throw it away rather than donate it? After all, they made it - just like your example of houses.

Finally, I’ll just note, the very idea of private property when applied to land, etc. is odious to me on philosophical grounds.

where are you expecting people to live?

Houses and apartments. Like they do now.

These homes are owned by someone- they worked/paid/built them themselves.

Nope. Not worked/paid/built themselves. The vast majority of homes are made by people paying others to build homes for them. Labor is the source of value, not investors. This is like billionaires claiming to be job creators. You’re extracting the value of their labor to make your investment property. You’re paying them a fraction of what it is worth to you because you happen to live in a society where that is normal. Your lack of imagination beyond your current circumstances is not my problem.

Oh yeah, and even if you happen to build the house with your own hands, it is owned by someone, the bank where you got your construction loan.

Why do you think these people who have toiled for 40+years should just give you there invested money/work for free?

Why do you think people who work and toil away should pay your mortgage on an investment property and then some?

Why are they evil for using something they have worked for to help themselves?

Because helping themselves comes at the cost of someone else, and everyone else.

Inevitably someone like you comes along and just shitposts this same rhetoric you just did with no logical backing behind it other than “evil landlords must die and be redistributed”

You can say what you want about the rest of Hexbear but I can actually explain myself. Yeah, I’m one of those who have actually thought about stuff. In fact, I know more about real estate investing than you do.

How is a house different from a farm? Or a rail system? Or a insert anything created by someone and used for personal gain?

It’s not. They all belong to those who actually made them, the workers.

Why don’t you go build your own house? Why aren’t you giving these unfortunate souls your own place?

I can’t. Investors have inflated the cost of construction and increased the barrier to entry. They snuff out competition. Capitalism is built on lies. They don’t actually like competition. The whole idea is to consolidate and monopolize. If I did try to build low income housing I’d be ran off by all the investors who own everything. Housing poor people next to their investments lowers the value. This is multi-family 101 kiddo. Read a book.

To cap it all- you follow each other around in groups and rather than actually discussing you strawman, point people to communist propaganda, and generally troll anyone who disagrees with you. No one wants to join your club, no one wants to read your Marxism books etc. If you have a point- state it. Don’t point elsewhere and act like you won because we arent interested in your echochamber

The arrow of history disagrees. You probably should study the past sometime. Capitalism creates the conditions that make people want to join our club. It’s pretty much a law of human society.

I don’t think you make a bad point, but it takes years to develop a leftist, collectivist, anti-imperialist world view. Vulgarizing leftist theory to anyone who will listen is a colossal waste of time when 95% of you are not interested in interacting in good faith to begin with. As much as loaded political slogans, easy gotchas and plain old derision suck from a debate-fan point of view, they are too useful to ignore. Even more importantly, you are doing the exact same thing when you talk about “kremlin propaganda” like there’s ever any substance or truth behind that accusation.

Well the Communist argument is that the government will provide all of the infrastructure and services. In real life, a good chunk of infrastructure are provided by the government. However, as far as services are concerned… It can be a pretty mixed bag depending on how functional your government is.

When I was young, edgy and anti-business I used to believe that government was absolutely the answer to all of our problems. Did I voted for something like 15 tax increases and saw my quality of life and the city itself just go down the drain. Wait no, it became a dumpster fire. Cost of living has skyrocketed about 500%, crime and homelessness are up 300 to 1,000%, and there hasn’t actually been enough housing constructed to house people. We still don’t have a social safety net and medical prices are astronomically high as well.

The fact is that the world is a complex place and whenever there is a disproportionate amount of economic disparity between classes, it doesn’t matter who’s running the show but there’s going to be a lot of unhappy people.

In both cases those people have the same rights as anyone else by default.

Go on any pro-Ukraine thread and you’ll find tons of bloodthirsty comments calling for the killing of Russian soldiers (you’ll often find variations of horrible stuff like “any Russian who isn’t in open revolt is a fair target,” too).

Do you disagree with this? Have you not seen all the pro-Ukraine threads on reddit and here the last few years?

And when a type of conduct is common but punished selectively, that’s a sign that the ones swinging the hammer don’t care about the conduct so much as they care about harassing the target. It’s like the War on Drugs.

“Your parents should have beat you” – classy

stinky

should have spanked you

🤮

edit: Less than a day old account I see.

Oh boy, wait until you find out what the bourgeoisie and landlords are fine with doing to us.

What’s the GitHub issue for it?