deleted by creator
no
Even if that meant that you get tons of free time to dedicate to the communist party and organize?
If your well-being is dependent on extracting rents from others, you’re not going to stay a communist. Material conditions create ideology, and becoming bourgeois will inoculate bourgeois ideology.
But Engels was bourgeois and he was a communist
Are you Engels? Did you literally edit Capital? Come up with a different example.
Lol you’re getting all worked up over reality in a post about a hypothetical. Weirdo. What’s next? “Name a single Marxist Leninist detective in real life”?
In his defense, he is talking to someone who wants to be a landlord
I think when people fantasize about parasitism against their fellow workers we can call them out.
i think they were doing a communist “would you rather” and trying to make compromising of ideals sound attractive so its a compelling question
That is not the point. The point is that bourgeois can be communists.
Name one other example of a bourgeois communist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhou_Enlai
It is said that, just before the Sino-Soviet split, Nikita Khrushchev had a tense meeting with Zhou Enlai at which he told the latter that he now understood the problem. “I am the son of coal miners,” he said. “You are the descendant of feudal mandarins. We have nothing in common.” “Perhaps we do,” murmured his Chinese antagonist. “What?” blustered Khrushchev. “We are,” responded Zhou, “both traitors to our class.”
That being said, I don’t think you could realistically be a bourgeois communist while still maintaining your wealth and exploitation. But really, is there such a huge difference between a landlord collecting income out of their tenants’ pockets, and politicians living off taxes? Genuine question, my best answer is that the difference is the landlord is directly placing themselves in a position where they provide no value at all to society and still leech off of people who need housing, while politicians at least nominally are civil servants.
deleted by creator
yes
Be a landlord and actively organize a tenants union for your own tenants lol
I love when my boss is really nice and organises a union for his employees 😊
id like to say no. morally i know its bad.
but, im also just a lazy stupid man so who knows.
we all have the potential to be the thing we hate.
kind of wild that some landlords dont even do that. talkin about the bastards who “need” the rent to cover the mortgages on properties—they’re still doing something else for their personal expenses, i think. just immiserating strangers on the side to maybe in a decade be able to rent a property they would own.
the not working a real job is the only proposition for landlordism that remotely makes sense “yes im doing evil, but it enables me to have such fun!” or whatever. certifiably insane to imagine doing that vile shit and not seeing the actual dividends for years and years. ought to be illegal to rent something which you only “own” through a loan
Kinda, if setting up transfer of partial property rights every month was easy. Then, when i die people will have fun with 10 partial ownerships of my place.
Sitting with 300 k or whatever my imaginary property cost otherwise is enough so why be a piggie. Don’t have kids tho.
Why no kids?
I mean i dont have kids, thus not leaving any property/assets behind is not some hard question.
You can donate it to the communist party so they can re-purpose it to something useful for the revolution once you die?
Taking a broad view on history of unions and communist parties, they more than likely to set small bureaucracy dealing with properties which will survive active party politics by 50 years.
And again, being a piggy is warping to the soul, i can’t deal with nonpaying tenants. Just flat out, i can’t throw people on the street. If i were to rent a property, that situation would come up sooner or later, and then doing moral calculus “well, i’ll make someone homeless, but thats okay cause i fund
charitycommunist party” is bullshit
The only way I would consider it is if it were like actual luxury condominiums in some building that working class people could never afford, but still probably no.
I have been thinking for a while about if it would be possible to leverage the cash from such a scenario into buying and leasing out more affordable condos in a “rent-to-own” scheme for working class people, but I’m not sure if it would work. Obviously that is a very controversial topic in and of itself.
I’d rather die than be a landlord
Death to America
Probably. It depends on what kind of landlord. If it’s one that owns multiple properties and apartment blocks? No. But if it’s just a house next door I can easily work on in person? Maybe. And no that doesn’t make me a good landlord. I just would feel 10% less evil.
Not selling my soul like that, thanks
Most of the reason why I have to work is to pay rent!
To cover utilities, property taxes, transportation, food, clothing, and entertainment would cost me maybe $1000 a month, possibly less if I had even better sharing arrangements. I would have no issue working for that amount, and never retiring.
No I’d just live on the property or if it’s multi-unit sell it unit by unit
It would be nice to say no, but broadly speaking living in the core means the family is the only thing capable of reproducing a social structure different than the wage labor for continued existence and treats regime I live under.
So without an alternative form and assuming this “becoming a landlord” hypothetical is just a sudden influx of real property I’d say yeah, I’d do it.
To talk in clearer terms, if a bunch of houses plopped down in my backyard tomorrow I wouldn’t spend more than a day thinking about it before advertising them as rentals at cost privately to the dozens of people I know who either can’t find housing or are struggling under the housing costs they have.
Things aren’t as bad as they could be here, but they’re bad enough that I would feel pressured not to wait and figure it out first.
yes, im working from bed sick with covid because of my boss.
There’s no state of the world in which yes is an acceptable answer. If you had enough housing to live off the rents, you would always have the option to work and give housing away for free.
Probably. I’d justify it by not evicting people who can’t pay rent until my savings is exhausted. Or in other words, being less evil than most landlords. Not the pure answer, but truthful.
