Comment

Comment on When leftists say "landlord are parasites" or similar dislike of landlords, do they also mean the people that own like a couple of houses as an investment, or only the big landlords?

<- View Parent

Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

My point is, if you read “aunt” as “landlord”, my comment is not about the landlords as much as the system.

Without landlords, we’d not have a housing crisis. There would be enough housing for everyone, we have plenty of resources and land to build them. The US, not to mention the world, is still big enough for everyone to have their own plot of land and housing.

How did people live before Capitalism? I’ve read that housing existed before even banking was invented. Somehow there wasn’t a housing crisis back then, until/unless we had exploitation.

You’re not wrong in what you’re saying though. The basic difference of perspective between you and I, I believe, is that you’re viewing this from inside the capitalist system, where landlords do indeed provide a function. But if we’d not have capitalism, we’d still have housing, and with less value extraction/parasitism.

As for the obscure anecdote, let’s instead use the simile of marketing. They add no value to you as a consumer, and if there weren’t so many marketers finding what you need would be easier and cheaper (as there would be no marketing cost). For the capitalist they add value, for the rest of us they’re an ever increasing drain on resources - a parasite.

source

Sort:hotnew top

FMT99@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

How did people live before Capitalism? I’ve read that housing existed before even banking was invented. Somehow there wasn’t a housing crisis back then, until/unless we had exploitation.

In self-built primitive mud shacks under a very low population density.

source
- Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Agreed.
  
  But also in multiresidential complexes, condos, and palaces for thousands of people.
  
  The world will indeed be different if we have different priorities. Capitalism requires high density to sustain the economic engine, other systems do not.
  
  Under capitalism, capitalisming harder is indeed the only solution. I don’t know how to get you to be able to imagine something without assuming capitalism, but humanity and society did indeed thrive even without it.
  
  source
enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

Without landlords, we’d not have a housing crisis.

Maybe. Or maybe it’s not so simple. Because:

There would be enough housing for everyone, we have plenty of resources and land to build them.

But would they be built? I’m in no way saying this is “right” but for them to be built builders have to know they are going to make a profit. The smaller that profit the more pressure to build fewer. Now maybe we get lucky and all this downward pressure on prices balances out. But I’d guess that far far fewer homes would be built and so the question ends up being is it still enough? Some say there are plenty of houses already and it would be, but that assumes those who paid the inflated prices are willing to accept less money now.

tl;dr we’re fucked.

source
- Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
  
  Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
  
  source
  - enbyecho@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
    
    What exactly do you mean by that?
    
    Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
    
    If you include cedar bark as a major construction material then sure. Not knocking cedar bark here - it’s great. But not quite the same investment in time or durability.
    
    source
    Brainsploosh@lemmy.world ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    
    Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.
    
    What exactly do you mean by that?
    
    In a circular or planned economy, those aren’t really significant measures, neither in a subsistence living context. Which are strategies that have housed all of humanity until the last few hundred years.
    
    In a post-capitalist economy, we might be able to provide the human necessities without exploitation. I don’t know how, but I know it’s not through more capitalism.
    
    Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.
    
    If you include cedar bark as a major construction material then sure. Not knocking cedar bark here - it’s great. But not quite the same investment in time or durability.
    
    As mentioned in the last reply, the Palace of Knossos, as well as the Petra were marvels of craftsmanship and engineering, staggering investments, and have stood for over 2000 years. Would probably have survived longer if maintained properly.
    
    The pyramids, the Mausoleum of Halicarnassos, the Taj Mahal, all are landmark (literally) feats for the contemporary technology and societies.
    
    You comparing them with modern construction methods necessitated by capitalism, and with modern technology seems an unfair comparison, as well as circular reasoning.
    
    source
    -> View More Comments