ReFoRmEd ReAcTiOnArY
That Soviet Union episode of Well There's Your Problem should have prompted some massive introspection. This freak is a judas goat for the same old fascism underlying all anticommunist bullshit.
nothing about the unearned rent-seeking, which is what makes the landlord innately a parasite. Just a little padding around the edges is good enough to make you a "leftist" landlord apparently.
Wonder how much profit a self-proclaimed"non-profiteering" landlord stills makes. Still give me 40% of your income for zero work, but you also can't criticize me on the internet because I give you a week grace period to pay your rent. Always knew this guy was liberal trash ever since he started apologizing for the Hungarian fascist uprising of 1956
Adam Azov is probably getting ready to make some property investments of his own right now. he goes on public trial like all the other landlords.
There is another solution to the problem which is ridiculous. . You would need a benevolent billionaire. They would buy million-dollar properties and then just rent them for the tax/insurance/maintenance. Over time properties build equity. That is they gain value because the bank comes back and says "wow, you've improved this place by painting and doing landscaping and adding a new roof. Now it's worth x-amount more than it was." So if you have a building worth $1M and you put $200k into fixing it up, but it's full of poor people who don't pay rent at market prices, what will the bank say? They're not going to appraise it any higher than it was. So you can't recoup part of the money to put into more property or continue fixing up the building. Meaning you have to charge more or keep dumping benevolent billionaire money into it.
You can do that for a while but eventually the billionaire dies and then what happens to the property? The people living there can't afford to buy it. The banks take it or their children take it and sell it at market prices to normal landlords.
On a fundamental level, the value of a property is, at least in part, its ability to generate future income for someone. Buildings full of people who don't pay rent is not generating future income. This is how capitalism pushes for profit by definition. It's an axiomatic part of the system.
As ridiculous as this scenario sounds, it does put into perspective how a lot of people have an instinct to believe billionaires are generous. Because that level of hypothetical generosity could step around the boundaries of typical profit seeking behavior, so billionaires are capable of changing some people's lives for the better much more than the average person. But they don't because they have no reason other than pure altruism and they wouldn't do that because they're flesh automatons made from concentrated evil.
Theory? Nah, that's just red fash tankie shit. It's actually really simple: all we need to do is replace all the bad people in positions of wealth and power with good people, that's the path toward socialism.
"We put special, ethical, generous people into the upper class. That way the upper class will be full of a select, deserving few."
i knew adam something was a radlib but i wasn’t expecting him to openly support landlordism omg
This means Adam owns property and does not like being called a parasite for owning property.
“Base, Superstructure, material conditions? Sounds like a bunch of redfash tankie bullshit to me.”
My dude, just stop pretending to be a leftist at this point. You should be a landlord and "help" your tenants is such a run-of-the-mill liberal argument. It's not even radlib anymore
we're going full circle, folks why don't we try Entryism in the bourgeoisie, surely no one's ever tried that before
this still implies youre making a profit. even if you only charge to maintain a place, youre still getting the better end of the deal because you are
-
speculating on property
-
gaining equity
-
not taking risk paying for either
ultimately, its the equity that is the liberatory aspect of owning property. it gives you the ability to actually practice freedom of movement and association. otherwise youre forced to be in an area
-
don't threaten to throw out a single mom and her two kids because the rent was 0.2 milliseconds late
This implies that there is a threshold after which Adam Something believes it would become appropriate to throw out a single mom and her two kids for not paying the rent. There is no such threshold, it will always be wrong to throw a single mom and her two kids out onto the street, the only moral option available to you if you have a deed and are renting to a single mom and her two kids is to sign the deed over to her.
