https://lemmy.ml/post/4046515
Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com's original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
https://lemmy.ml/post/4046515
Repost because @Zuberi@lemmy.dbzer0.com's original post got removed from !chapotraphouse@hexbear.net for dunking outside the dunk tank
Removed by mod
To give a serious answer, landlords have a material class interest in conducting the unearned expropriation of rents from workers/tenants (and to be honest, literally everyone who isn't a landlord). Even from a classical liberal perspective (i.e. Adam Smith) landlords have done nothing to merit these rents, they've simply partaken in the principal expropriation (that is, the expropriation of what once was and ought to be the provenance of all people, the land and nature more broadly). Landlords do not merit the revenues of their property, since any revenues they obtain are generated from the value of the property itself: all the landlord does is own it (i.e., "passive income"), and that ownership was/is established by a system of violence. In the modern day, landlords rely on the state system of violence to protect their property and force others to fork over rents to use it, which is a change over the original landlord system, where the landlord and their armed flunkies would have to do it themselves. So, an individual landlord can preach liberal platitudes, but when it comes to the fundamental economic relationships, their existence as a class is predicated on the preservation of a fundamental/primordial injustice and the deprivation of their fellow human beings.
In summary:
I appreciate the explanation! These communities are interesting.
You can but it's exceedingly unlikely because your own material interest is tied to these things:
Ever-increasing land values (largely financial speculation and the creation of housing-limiting regimes).
Private ownership of housing as a profit-generating asset (commodity) rather than a human right.
State violence in the form of the police, who function to protect private property interests.
The direct extraction of working people's money simply because you have more than they do. You could afford the down payment, they could not. Now they pay for your mortgage and more simply because they are poorer.
Landlords are traditionally shitty people that think of others, particularly their renters, as trying to pull one over on them.
People are more complicated then that, you really think this is an accurate point of view?
You ever seen someone get evicted, or get evicted yourself?
That's a landlord showing you how much humanity corroded by those material intersests.
It kills people.
Two issues I have with what you're saying, this is a generalization being used to judge an individual, and materialism isn't incompatible with being left leaning. Do you not have possessions or income?
Around these parts, when you see the word "materialism", it's being used in the philosophical sense, rather than the common usage.
Taken from the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/thematic/materialism/v-1
There are other meanings for the word material, ha. Material interest means they get stuff that benefits them if they act a certain way. It is in your material interest to own a house so that you can have housing security. It is in a landlord's interest that you rent from them instead, and for as much as you'll pay.
And there's nothing wrong with judging individuals based on what they choose to do with their lives. There are activities and professions (not that landlording is a profession) that are inherently extractive and detrimental and that nobody is forced to do. For example, working as a mercenary.
Removed by mod
Your question was based on a misunderstanding of what I meant by materialism and therefore irrelevent. I would also assumes it was rhetorical.
Did you, at any point, consider engaging with what I said and addressing it? You're going in a bad faith direction.
What facts are incorrect?
It's not an association it's owning housing and renting it to other people to make a profit. That's an economic and social activity. This is obvious, but you seem to be struggling with being wrong.
I think it's relevant, if you don't want to answer that's your choice.
I've engaged with your comments as I've felt fit, if you feel that's taking things in a bad faith direction those are your feelings not something coming from me.
We should just stop here though because I've already gotten the explanations I was looking for, and my goal wasn't up get into a slap fight.
I DEMAND YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION BASED ON MY MISUNDERSTANDING OF A TERM, TANKIE!
Oh yes... My comments are sooooo demanding.
Okay let me know when you're not scared to have an honest conversation, lib
Likewise! 🙌 If you feel like answering my questions let me know!
I've learnt a lot though! Thank you!
Pathetic
Hey.. don't talk about yourself like that...
“Materialism is when you own things, and the more things you own the more materialistic you are.”
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Engels was a dirty blue blood who owned a factory but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that ConfusedAZ's idea of 'left-leaning' is more right wing than Boris Johnson.
being a class traitor takes a lot of work
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
What do you think being on the left means?
I think it's subjective, but this quote seems to align with my perspective:
For the sake of argument, let's run with that. Now, which of those lists does landlording fit into?
lmao gotem
Okay, so I see what you're saying, but from my perspective this would be like saying someone openly gay can't be right leaning.
that would have to also necessarily imply that being gay is a choice, similarly to landlording, and that you have no choice but to be a landlord regardless of your political beliefs
A person can only be openly gay and right leaning if they're more racist than they are gay
There are also capitalist gay people. I was going to point to Pete, but he's not a good example of not hating black people.
No, Pete is actually a perfect example of capitalist gay people.
being gay doesn't say anything about personal beliefs or political alignment. it's just one personal feature that might or might not influence your political thinking. people in privileged possitions tend to lean right because they tend to benefit from the current system regardless if they are part of a generally opressed minority
Removed by mod
not really - you can be gay and own a major corporation, which necessarily moves you rightward. these personal identity markers are subsumed by material interests and therefore class. it's, for example, why so many white, wealthy gay people are significantly to the right of where they were 40 years ago - cf Peter Thiel. when the state was turned against their existence they were nominally left and as that violence abated, class interests dominated. it's also why so many trans people are communists right now - the state is trying to murder us.
Exactly. And you can be openly gay and a white supremacist, and you can be openly gay and pro-gun, you can be openly gay and a Christian nationalist.
You can be an openly gay, white supremacist, pro-gun, Christian nationalist. You could have 99.99% republican values, but spend your weekends furthering LGBTQ rights. The class structures that subsume indenty aren't as stringent as you present them to be.
Like without even looking it up I bet there are trans Republican groups, do you disagree?
yeah of course. no one is saying class traitors don't exist. but it's on them to prove it. Engels himself was one such person.
Dudette.. your perception and whether or not it's accurate is entirely on you.
being a class traitor requires action. it's not something that exists in the mind. I can't take action on someone else's behalf.
How do you know what actions they've taken?
they wrote about them extensively
Are you talking about them detailing how they act as a landlord?
you make no sense
You said they've extensively detailed their actions... Where?
You should be able to follow what I'm saying by the context of the conversation.
Generally you would not expect a gay Republican to be very proactive in furthering gay rights (Dems don't either most of the time, but w/e). They would spend their time role-playing as "one of the good ones" and get accused of being a subversive is they actually collaborated with queer groups that were anything but "Gays for Trump" type PR campaigns.
This is not just hypothetical, we can see many people of different minority identities who support horrible reaction and only use that identity as a shield from left criticism. Milo Yianopolos (forgot the spelling) publically gave lectures on how lesbians "don't exist" and "need a good d***ing" and defended pedophilia, but never seemed that interested in actually furthering rights even for relations between gay men. Candace Owens famously defended Hitler's domestic policy in public and speaks on black issues mainly to launder conservative talking points using her identity.
I've kind of figured out how you guys function. Thank you for the conversation.
This is borderline (and in my opinion flies right past it) homophobic rhetoric. I would read the responses you get and do some self crit.
You think believing someone can be openly gay and Republican is homophobic?
Or maybe you just don't like the political implications of what I'm saying, and how that effects the practicality of your ideology.
Replace 'openly gay' with 'supports universal healthcare. Better?
Uhhh, yeah I'm sure people who support universal healthcare have that hardwired into their brain from childhood. Totally the same thing.
it's totally not a conclusion based on analysis of material conditions.
Ugh.. I'm kind of tired of clarifying this. I didn't say 'gay' I said 'openly gay', keyword 'openly', you understand the distinction do you not?
No, I think it's fairly bigoted to compare an open existence to a political act. To say the dignity to exist without hiding one's nature is a political act is pretty fucked up. It's not a political act for straight people to exist.
This exact argument is why people get away with bigotry, calling it all political, implying the non political thing would be to hide and make sure no one sees you.
Perhaps if you're tired of clarifying this, you should rethink your stance.
Well the fact of the matter is open existence is a political issue. It shouldn't be, but it is, and I referenced it because it was appropriate to the topic of discussion. Like the whole fact that this is a contentious subject is why I referenced it.
Just to be clear, are you denying that the right has traditionally been anti-lgbtq?
Rethink it how?
Sorry that's your implication not mine.
Also... None of this makes me wrong. I kind of understand now you guys view everything through class structures whereas I'm a pretty staunch individualist. We really don't have common ground for a discussion.
This has been interesting.
The left/right distinction is to determine if something is pro or anti capitalism. If you like capitalism or think it can be "reformed" then you are right wing. If you want to see capitalism destroyed, then you are left wing.
The 2 main classes of people under capitalism are the proletariat (working class, 99%, people who make a living by performing labor and receiving a wage), and the capitalists (bourgeois, ownership class, 1%, people who make a living by owning shit). Landlords are firmly in the capitalist class, which means their entire livelihood is based around capitalism continuing to exist in it's current form. It's nearly impossible for a landlord to be left wing because it goes against their own self interest. I guess class traitors exist, but I doubt the person in question is one since they're trying so hard to downplay being a landlord.
TL;DR:
I don't agree.
From what I see there's a strong effort to redefine terms like left and right to shame people into adjusting their values.
no, that happened ages ago. for most of the twentieth century leftwing meant anticapitalist.
Sorry what year is it again?
Hey liberal, I see you're running afoul of our "Post"-based posting rules here. If you'd like I can explain them so fewer of your comments are removed.
Also, just because liberal hegemony brutally suppressed the left in the west for the last ~150 years (including the present day) doesn't mean that liberalism magically became left wing as a result. Liberalism hasn't been left-wing since the mid-19th century. So now it's our turn to ask you, sorry what year is it again?
Sorry I'm an anarchist and don't respect your rules, I'm not going to adapt or adjust the way I speak to appease some moderator with a control complex.
No that's ok! I'm an anarchist too. We just need you to post your hog as verification in order to be allowed to continue posting here.
In other words, hog out or log out
Also lmao no gods, no masters includes landlords you insufferable radlib.
bad troll.
you have until this timer expires to comply with our verification rules by posting a picture of your penis
My dick won't fit in frame, please advise.
just post what does. our posted-hog verification system uses machine learning to determine uniqueness from as little as 150x150 pixels of verification evidence
Dont be too hard on yourself
Year of the pig
liberals can insist they're left all they like. it doesn't make it true.
Removed by mod
I don't think you know what that term means. also, my meaning of left connects me with historical movements while yours infinitely atomizes. which meaning is more useful?
Or is that just want you want me to think!?!
I think trying to grade political ideology on a left/right axis doesn't really make a ton of sense, and really only servers to muddy the waters, and create a sense of consensus that isn't really there.
What's the significance of feeling connected to historical movements?
I get to analyze possible actions based on the works and results others have produced. it makes it more likely that I'll succeed. to atomize oneself away from history is to destroy the possibility of progress.