this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
571 points (94.3% liked)

Lefty Memes

4208 readers
1153 users here now

An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of the "ML" influence of instances like lemmy.ml and lemmygrad. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.

Serious posts, news, and discussion go in c/Socialism.

If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.

Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, upvoting good contributions and downvoting those of low-quality!

Rules

0. Only post socialist memes

That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme)

1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here

Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.

2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such,

as well as condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.

3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.

That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" seen on lemmygrad and more specifically GenZedong (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).

4. No Bigotry.

The only dangerous minority is the rich.

5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.

(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)

6. Don't idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.

Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.

7. Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:

(This is not a definitive list, the spirit of the other rules still counts! Eventual duplicates with other rules are for emphasis.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
571
submitted 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
 

ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they're doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

(page 2) 47 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 hours ago (9 children)

The main driving factor is this "down payment" shit. A person who has a bunch of money can just go get a house and not actually pay for it fully. They can still loose all that money, there's risk there if they can't pay. And that's the difference. Everyone else can't put down that much money. So they can pay a landlord more money than the landlord pays monthly, but they don't have 2 or $300,000 bucks at risk each and every day. I mean, the landlord is payed for the risk they incur.

So a renter only loses a small amount of money if they fail to keep paying rent. However, they pay more each month and also, they loose relatively more when they loose housing and become homeless. So the situation is fucked up. You could for example barely own a house and then stretch and buy a second house with not much left in savings. If you're in that situation, you're a different landlord than a bank who basically only incurs a monetary risk and not a loosing everything you got risk.

Because of this. Maybe we should bring down the "down payment" bar shit. I mean the house could be destroyed by a renter or an owner, but the house will still be there. Banks literally can only lose a little bit of time between ownerships. So if you could purchase a house with just $5000, for example, that would be pretty easy to do for most people who have a job. At least relatively much easier to $300k. You can sell your house to the bank and get yourself a new house. Literally nobody loses if the down payment level is lowered to something reasonable. Ultimately, the banks will always own houses. So why not just state it clearly....you don't own this house but if you had 3 lifetimes, you could. And bring down the payments accordingly to people's income. Keep it locked at 10%. If we did this, what would prevent you from owning a mansion? Okay limit housing to reasonable sizes? Control traffic by only allowing people to own near where they work? So you live 1 mile from work and then you find a new job, congratulations! Now you can be part of the people who can buy near that area.

I don't know nothing. I'm just posting some stupid ass ideas.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 hours ago

It parallels the Vimes Boot Theory. I like where your head is at.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago)

Corporate landlords specifically.

Single Family Houses – The 5 Biggest Buyers In America

As SFH investors and property managers we may find ourselves bidding on the same property as a major fund. You might get a call from a fund that wants to buy your portfolio. You could end up partnering with a fund as its local operator. You never know.

Phoenix was the first city that had just about all the major private equity firms investing in single family houses. Private equity helped drive prices in Phoenix up by 34% as you can read about in this Bloomberg article here. The next city that attracted just about all the major private equity firms was Atlanta GA. Other popular markets are CA, Chicago and Florida. PE firms are looking for markets that have experienced the biggest bubbles that have resulted in the biggest swings in values.

We call those non-linear markets. The goal is to hold properties as rentals and wait for a housing recovery. These funds are averaging about an 8% return on investment where most major multi-family / apartment funds return about 5 or 6%. Linear markets like Tulsa OK, Louisville KY, Indianapolis IN, Fort Worth TX, Columbus OH, and Kansas City have been some what over looked by the biggest players. However, there are plenty of funds coming into the linear markets with up to $50 million (which is considered a small fund) to spend on houses.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

so are you advocating for zero private ownership of houses?

like what's the policy proposal?

I do kind of like that other comment, " nobody gets a second house until everybody gets their first".

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Georgism, distributism, communitarianism.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 hours ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (31 children)

I don't really want to pay for a house and experience all the expenses that come with it. Owning a house involves paying out of pocket for maintenance whereas when renting, you can have the landlord take care of that for you, and it doesn't involve paying whoever comes to fix your stuff.

Additionally, owning a house would basically anchor me to one location, which gives me less flexibility as a digital nomad.

If you value home equity then buying a house is definitely ideal. But this isn't the case for everyone.

...oh, sorry. I forgot this is Lemmy and that you can't have a different opinion under any circumstance. My bad!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (2 children)

You don't need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.

The problem isn't Lemmy, the problem is your insistence on remaining under a boot, and clear unwillingness to explore options beyond your existing and narrow (E: and indoctrinated by capitalism) view of the world.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 hours ago

You don't need landlords for non-ownership and temporary housing solutions to exist.

For example...

[–] [email protected] 6 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

For what its worth, they are not speaking on the same subject as you and I doubt they have even thought about material relationships in the same way you have. They just see buying vs renting and the practicalities of each, but not the implications on the relationship between renter and owner.

I doubt they see themselves as under a boot (I mean, I know I didn't think that when I started renting) or that they are indoctrinated by capital. We all gotta start learning this shit somewhere. I mean I get it: Once you realize that the rat race is bullshit, it's easy to get upset at others who are still running as if it is legitimate. But most of us were running at one point. When you lead people out, it's gotta come from a softer place than "you are indoctrinated and live under a boot."

[–] [email protected] 8 points 9 hours ago

That's exactly my point. Thank you for understanding.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 9 hours ago

Fuck off, landlords don't do shit and look for every opportunity to screw you out of your deposit. sounds like you're defending your own scummy kind.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 9 hours ago (2 children)

Correct, how dare you! Landlord bad! They want something in return for providing something, how dare they!

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 hours ago

Providing what?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Yes, landlord bad for invariably doing a low quality repair job repeatedly, the money they make off multi tenant units is way more than they pay for a lowest bidder service call.

That's some low quality thinking, @[email protected]

load more comments (28 replies)
[–] [email protected] -3 points 8 hours ago

Having no landlords is not a viable option. There are a lot of reasons that people want or need to rent a house for a while. People who know they're only living in an area temporarily exist in pretty large numbers.

The problem is that there's too many people who have made it a business that have over 5 houses on companies with hundreds or more doing it. People having one or two rentals isn't an issue at all in my book. It's the ones who made it a million dollar business that are the issue.

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›