"hooks said that she suffered from patriarchy as a landlord b/c the men she employed to work her properties didn't show her the proper respect sometimes"
When I say you gotta look after class issues first this kinda thing is why
more proof that anyone who intentionally has their name lowercase is annoying.
only example to the contrary seems to be crimew
It was lame when e e cummings did it, it's so old and busted now. Such a pretentious affectation.
She's always opposed social democracy to capitalism. She never said socialism.
Being a landlord really is a perfect metaphor for Social Democracy.
:capitalist-woke: I've suffered because the workers didn't show me proper respect sometimes.
We are reaching levels of girlboss previously thought to be impossible
Surprise surprise, systems of subordination beget more systems of subordination.
Land Lord I wonder if this structure has is roots in patriarchy?
bell hooks writings are still valuable but like, yeah, not so great as a person
The comments mention George Jackson a few times - is there some sort of Jackson/Hooks discourse going on?
She has criticized the BPP for upholding white supremacist patriarchy, which is fair (there was a lot of structural misogyny is the party), but also becoming a landlord and criticizing tenants for being part of the patriarchy is quite a twist
I don't know or care much about bell hooks, but I'm curious to know what comrades think she should have done with her wealth.
AFAIK she made her money from selling popular books, and it seems to me that creating something so engaging that many people want to voluntarily part with their money to consume it is one of the least exploitative possible ways to become wealthy.
So what should she have done with it? It's not like investing is much better, then you're just collecting rent in the form of increments of surplus value instead.
I just wonder to what degree we're continuing the right-wing "Bernie has three houses so is a hypocrite" logic.
Is the only ethical thing to do with wealth earned primarily off your own uniquely valuable labour to fund revolutionary movements and eat lentils? That feels like such an easy opinion to hold when I'll never have to be in that position myself.
Not becoming a land lord is not difficult. You simply don't do it.
Be happy about the fact, that whatever you do happens to make money, share whatever you're comfortable with your comrades and friends, don't exploit other people and for the love of god shut up about it.
No one's criticizing her for becoming rich for writing books lol. The twitter post says she's complaining about how hard it is being a female landlord. The average worker is probably making a measly amount from 401ks and index funds. To complain about owning multiple properties and how it's oh so hard under the patriarchy just makes you seem like an out of touch asshole. It's not different than the liberal "we need more female CEOs and drone pilots"
If she wants to keep getting money then she can keep writing books, or keep doing talks cause I imagine that also pays thousands of dollars for a popular person like her.
There's nothing in the video about her being a landlord, but even if she was why is that worse than having investments? You're correcting unearned rent from the working class either way.
(Edit: Unless you define owning investment property alone as being a landlord, independent of charging tenants rent - I guess I usually think of landlordism as the latter)
owning investment property presupposes collecting rent. it wouldnt be an investment if you didnt collect rent
investments in the stock market are more abstracted, sure its still extracting surplus labor value, but landlordism is much more direct.
yeah good point. but thats a very generous interpretation of something as vague as "i have bought a lot of real estate"
she could have just consumed it or yes donated it to good causes? no one ever makes you use your wealth to expropriate others. that's why people complaining about :azan: being rich is so funny. for better or worse, he makes his money from his subscribers primarily. that's his labor. and he's not out there owning real estate to make even more money. you don't have to confuse "socialism is a poverty cult", a right wing anticommunist shtick, with having a problem with a feminist theorist who was also a landlord.
There is no intrinsic demand for stocks. I don't need stocks to survive. You don't need stocks to survive. Most stockowners are not even getting dividends from the company, save for a buyback, for the stocks they own. It's people on the stock market trading back and forth on pieces of paper that are at best partially tied to a company's actual financials.
She is buying up a commodity that people actually need and directly extracting excess profit (rent) from the people who need to actually use that house. Not just that, but it is one of the most demand price inelastic expenses that people have to pay, meaning that she is directly sucking their wages that could have gone to cover other things.
Being a landlord is uniquely vile among the capitalist class activities.
Not only is it uniquely vile, but it also is an exploitative relationship that predates capitalism, being complained about the lack of value added by Adam Smith within the Wealth of Nations, where he very directly says that the power of landlords has to be curtailed because they, more than any other type of ownership, 'love to reap what they did not sow'. Industrial capital is exploitative of labor, but it at least creates incentives to create a product, landlording doesn't even have to create a product, it just hoards it.
Investing in companies won't lead to eviction if someone can't pay. If the company does not do well the value of of your investment goes down
She should have purchased large amounts of firearms/ammunition/medical supplies and distributed them to local homeless and trans people. I'm not joking.
