Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com’s original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
Removed by mod
To give a serious answer, landlords have a material class interest in conducting the unearned expropriation of rents from workers/tenants (and to be honest, literally everyone who isn’t a landlord). Even from a classical liberal perspective (i.e. Adam Smith) landlords have done nothing to merit these rents, they’ve simply partaken in the principal expropriation (that is, the expropriation of what once was and ought to be the provenance of all people, the land and nature more broadly). Landlords do not merit the revenues of their property, since any revenues they obtain are generated from the value of the property itself: all the landlord does is own it (i.e., “passive income”), and that ownership was/is established by a system of violence. In the modern day, landlords rely on the state system of violence to protect their property and force others to fork over rents to use it, which is a change over the original landlord system, where the landlord and their armed flunkies would have to do it themselves. So, an individual landlord can preach liberal platitudes, but when it comes to the fundamental economic relationships, their existence as a class is predicated on the preservation of a fundamental/primordial injustice and the deprivation of their fellow human beings.
In summary:
I appreciate the explanation! These communities are interesting.
Engels was a dirty blue blood who owned a factory but I’m gonna go out on a limb and say that ConfusedAZ’s idea of ‘left-leaning’ is more right wing than Boris Johnson.
being a class traitor takes a lot of work
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
You can but it’s exceedingly unlikely because your own material interest is tied to these things:
Ever-increasing land values (largely financial speculation and the creation of housing-limiting regimes).
Private ownership of housing as a profit-generating asset (commodity) rather than a human right.
State violence in the form of the police, who function to protect private property interests.
The direct extraction of working people’s money simply because you have more than they do. You could afford the down payment, they could not. Now they pay for your mortgage and more simply because they are poorer.
Landlords are traditionally shitty people that think of others, particularly their renters, as trying to pull one over on them.
People are more complicated then that, you really think this is an accurate point of view?
You ever seen someone get evicted, or get evicted yourself?
That’s a landlord showing you how much humanity corroded by those material intersests.
It kills people.
Two issues I have with what you’re saying, this is a generalization being used to judge an individual, and materialism isn’t incompatible with being left leaning. Do you not have possessions or income?
Around these parts, when you see the word “materialism”, it’s being used in the philosophical sense, rather than the common usage.
Taken from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1
There are other meanings for the word material, ha. Material interest means they get stuff that benefits them if they act a certain way. It is in your material interest to own a house so that you can have housing security. It is in a landlord’s interest that you rent from them instead, and for as much as you’ll pay.
And there’s nothing wrong with judging individuals based on what they choose to do with their lives. There are activities and professions (not that landlording is a profession) that are inherently extractive and detrimental and that nobody is forced to do. For example, working as a mercenary.
Okay, don’t answer my question.
Factually it’s wrong. You’re judging them by the associations of what they choose to do with their lives, not the actuality.
Thank you for the insight.
Your question was based on a misunderstanding of what I meant by materialism and therefore irrelevent. I would also assumes it was rhetorical.
Did you, at any point, consider engaging with what I said and addressing it? You’re going in a bad faith direction.
What facts are incorrect?
It’s not an association it’s owning housing and renting it to other people to make a profit. That’s an economic and social activity. This is obvious, but you seem to be struggling with being wrong.
I think it’s relevant, if you don’t want to answer that’s your choice.
I’ve engaged with your comments as I’ve felt fit, if you feel that’s taking things in a bad faith direction those are your feelings not something coming from me.
We should just stop here though because I’ve already gotten the explanations I was looking for, and my goal wasn’t up get into a slap fight.
“Materialism is when you own things, and the more things you own the more materialistic you are.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What do you think being on the left means?
I think it’s subjective, but this quote seems to align with my perspective:
For the sake of argument, let’s run with that. Now, which of those lists does landlording fit into?
lmao gotem
Okay, so I see what you’re saying, but from my perspective this would be like saying someone openly gay can’t be right leaning.
that would have to also necessarily imply that being gay is a choice, similarly to landlording, and that you have no choice but to be a landlord regardless of your political beliefs
A person can only be openly gay and right leaning if they’re more racist than they are gay
There are also capitalist gay people. I was going to point to Pete, but he’s not a good example of not hating black people.
No, Pete is actually a perfect example of capitalist gay people.
being gay doesn’t say anything about personal beliefs or political alignment. it’s just one personal feature that might or might not influence your political thinking. people in privileged possitions tend to lean right because they tend to benefit from the current system regardless if they are part of a generally opressed minority
Being openly gay does though.
not really - you can be gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward. these personal identity markers are subsumed by material interests and therefore class. it’s, for example, why so many white, wealthy gay people are significantly to the right of where they were 40 years ago - cf Peter Thiel. when the state was turned against their existence they were nominally left and as that violence abated, class interests dominated. it’s also why so many trans people are communists right now - the state is trying to murder us.
Exactly. And you can be openly gay and a white supremacist, and you can be openly gay and pro-gun, you can be openly gay and a Christian nationalist.
You can be an openly gay, white supremacist, pro-gun, Christian nationalist. You could have 99.99% republican values, but spend your weekends furthering LGBTQ rights. The class structures that subsume indenty aren’t as stringent as you present them to be.
Like without even looking it up I bet there are trans Republican groups, do you disagree?
This is borderline (and in my opinion flies right past it) homophobic rhetoric. I would read the responses you get and do some self crit.
You think believing someone can be openly gay and Republican is homophobic?
Or maybe you just don’t like the political implications of what I’m saying, and how that effects the practicality of your ideology.
Replace ‘openly gay’ with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?
The left/right distinction is to determine if something is pro or anti capitalism. If you like capitalism or think it can be “reformed” then you are right wing. If you want to see capitalism destroyed, then you are left wing.
The 2 main classes of people under capitalism are the proletariat (working class, 99%, people who make a living by performing labor and receiving a wage), and the capitalists (bourgeois, ownership class, 1%, people who make a living by owning shit). Landlords are firmly in the capitalist class, which means their entire livelihood is based around capitalism continuing to exist in it’s current form. It’s nearly impossible for a landlord to be left wing because it goes against their own self interest. I guess class traitors exist, but I doubt the person in question is one since they’re trying so hard to downplay being a landlord.
TL;DR:
I don’t agree.
From what I see there’s a strong effort to redefine terms like left and right to shame people into adjusting their values.
no, that happened ages ago. for most of the twentieth century leftwing meant anticapitalist.
Sorry what year is it again?
Hey liberal, I see you’re running afoul of our “Post”-based posting rules here. If you’d like I can explain them so fewer of your comments are removed.
Also, just because liberal hegemony brutally suppressed the left in the west for the last ~150 years (including the present day) doesn’t mean that liberalism magically became left wing as a result. Liberalism hasn’t been left-wing since the mid-19th century. So now it’s our turn to ask you, sorry what year is it again?
Sorry I’m an anarchist and don’t respect your rules, I’m not going to adapt or adjust the way I speak to appease some moderator with a control complex.
Year of the pig
liberals can insist they’re left all they like. it doesn’t make it true.
And likewise you can insist the opposite, doesn’t make it true, it’s just gaslighting.