Not sure if this is just ingrained "American Dream" mentality but I want to get away from landlords and buy my own house. Partly this is so I can have my own space to work on my own projects, be messy, grow weed, walk around naked, etc. Lately this is looking like a real possibility since I've paid off my college debt and started saving money for a down payment. I'm also expecting house prices to fall in the next year as the economy implodes.
Despite all that, housing is still really expensive where I live and I probably wouldn't be able to afford a house without a partner or a roommate paying part of the mortgage. My romantic prospects aren't looking too good and I really don't want to be a landlord. And I don't know how I would feel buying a foreclosure. Not to mention I'd be locked into a 30 year mortgage that won't be paid off until after climate change has forced us all to migrate to Nunavut.
Tell me chapos, what's the moral thing to do here? Should I keep renting? Buy a house and try to be an "ethical" landlord? Move in with the next woman I meet after the 2nd date? Go join a commune/cult?
Western leftists love to obsess over the ethics of their personal consumption choices, financial decisions and their relationship with the broader system of capitalism. The fact of the matter is you live in capitalism. Nothing you do with your money can be ethical. Just existing in the US is unethical because you're unwittingly benefiting from the mass exploitation of the global south.
I'm pretty sure I'm definitely going to get downvoted for saying this, but owning property and even owning a business or landlording do not make you reactionary or counterrevolutionary. Back in the 20s it wasn't uncommon for there to be Communist bars and cafes in parts of Berlin where the owners were members of the KPD and they would host meetings and events for actual revolutionaries. They weren't worker owned co-ops either, just normal businesses with normal employees. Engels literally owned a factory, Marx liked to gamble his money away on the stock market. It really doesn't matter what you do with your money as long as you're not literally trying to fund fascists or whatever. Tbh we could really benefit from professional revolutionaries who don't need to work to sustain themselves.
Marx liked to gamble his money away on the stock market.
Wait, so Marx was an OG WSB poster? This... actually makes a a ton of sense, now that I think about it.
He probably did. He apparently made like £400 in one instance, which is something like $50,000 today. Of course he was still broke for most of the rest of his life lmao
There are communists who own bars and businesses and shit here, too. But there's definitely some weird discomfort from the left about actually controlling means of production.
Because deep down, they know they're not going to change the existing order so the only thing that really matters is their own personal purity.
I'll admit it right now, I would 100% buy my 3-unit apartment building if I had the money and continue renting to the other tenants. The idea that you wouldn't because landlording is unethical is honestly pretty fucking funny. As if we are all just supposed to wear barrels on suspenders and eat out of trash cans so as not to be heckin capitalists. Like do these people not invest in a 401k because it is extracting surplus value from other workers?
As if we are all just supposed to wear barrels on suspenders and eat out of trash cans so as not to be heckin capitalists
you can survive without being a landlord mate
Becoming a landlord is vastly different than owning a pub.
Landlording absolutely is unethical unless you are not making a profit and are giving equity to the tenants.
How is landlording any less ethical than directly exploiting the surplus labor of workers? And does it really matter if you do revolutionary praxis or use your class position to finance revolutionary activities? This is all hypothetical for me anyway, I don't own shit and probably won't ever anyway lol.
In your hypothetical situation, you’d be OK with evicting someone if they couldn’t meet their rent payments?
This right here. There's a material difference that's pretty obvious.
In your hypothetical situation of owning a bar, would you be okay with laying off an employee if sales were down?
As if we are all just supposed to wear barrels on suspenders and eat out of trash cans so as not to be heckin capitalists.
Oh... you guys aren’t?
In your hypothetical situation, you'd be OK with evicting someone if they couldn't meet their rent payments?
Also, it's one thing to talk about means of production, and another thing to talk about that in relation to the ambiguities of something like housing. Many major cities have housing run by landlords that are effectively engaging in rent seeking behavior.
Like seriously... buy the housing unit, but make that shit a co-op. Like what the fuck, "I'm doing praxis by making my income from other peoples' need for housing"?
All landlording is rent-seeking in the most literal sense. Idk why people act like I'm saying landlording is ethical or praxis.
Question: I'm just a worker. I install security cameras in retail establishments pretty often for my job, and they 100% get poor people put in jail for stealing. Does that make me reactionary? Of course I could get a job as a cashier or warehouse worker, but I would likely have to work more than one job and forego any irl organizing I do currently out of lack of time. Which is the more "leftist" choice to make?
Under chud economics, being a landlord doesn't necessitate rent seeking, since depreciation exists, and doing upkeep on your real estate returns value that was lost with depreciation. In a purely ideal sense, it isn't so bad if you are a very good landlord, but those tend to be far and few in between, especially under the current system.
As far as your job installing security cameras is concerned, that's a much better example of not being so hung up on personal purity tests, since you're clearly stuck in this capitalist mode, and you still gotta live. The issue of personal purity tests would come into play here, but I don't really think any general ideas about that go anywhere, since every individual has to deal with that internal struggle in different ways.
It could be zero sum, or maybe it won't be. I think it's different from something like being a landlord, considering housing is an absolute necessity that is being artificially depleted in order for some to profit.
Marx liked to gamble his money away on the stock market
Didn't he make some decent money? Like at least £400 which was quite a lot then. Although there are no records of how he fared after that according to this article so he may have lost it all.
Yeah he won a lot but considering he was always asking Engels for money, he probably drank it all away lol. There's a letter out there where Engels writes Marx about his lover dying of some illness and Marx replied with his condolences...and then asked for more money lmao
owning a business or landlording do not make you reactionary or counterrevolutionary.
Your initial points were spot-on, but you lost me here. Being a landlord is by definition reactionary, and unless you're a solely self-employed worker, so is being a "business owner". In both instances, you're extracting surplus value from the people under you in the hierarchy.
What do you think reactionary means? Honestly I knew it would ruffle feathers, and it doesn't matter much to me because I personally am very far from even owning a home for myself to live in let alone anything else. If we are being honest, just living in the US is "reactionary" considering we live on stolen land and benefit from mass exploitation of the global south. The point is you can be a class traitor, and participating in the fucked up system we live under shouldn't preclude one from being revolutionary.
I think my issue is that none of the ethical posturing means shit if there is no revolutionary praxis being done, and if revolutionary praxis is being done, that's what actually matters. That's why people like Engels weren't kicked out of the International, and why Zhou Enlai and Mao Zedong himself were not excluded from the CPC before the revolution. Even today, there are Bourgeois Kurds in Turkey who use their class position to support the PKK.
none of the ethical posturing means shit if there is no revolutionary praxis being done
I completely agree with you here, and most of your other points as well. Being a US citizen means benefiting from imperialism and genocide by default, and it's our duty to organize and empower our communities as best we can.
I just thought the landlord bit specifically was a bit strange given the fact that we're all pretty strong leftists here.
I guess I used that as an extreme example of the distinction between ones social relation to production vs ones commitment to revolution. In the west we are especially inundated with liberal hegemony and thus tend to think of things in terms of our own personal choices. That's why we have so many people that think being vegan or refusing to drive or working at a co-op is revolutionary praxis. I really fucking hate the term "be the change you want to see in the world" because it encapsulates this ethos. You need to MAKE the changes you want to see in the world through actual praxis, as in action guided by revolutionary theory, not just doing "good" things.
Tbh I'm being a bit controversial on purpose because I hate moralizing and have been in a precarious enough position that I've done unethical things to keep myself from being on the streets. I've said before on this site that drug dealing is counterrevolutionary and people were mad at me but when someone asks if it's cool to rent out extra rooms in their home people say they'd be reactionary unless they gave the tenants a stake in equity. Coming from the heroin capital of America and having experience as a drug addict myself, I can't help but laugh and assume that the vast majority of people on here are somewhat downwardly mobile suburban white folks with zero connection to the revolutionary struggle. I legitimately think this is understandable though, as it's reflective of the society we live in, and I think many people here really do want to change the world, they just need to break free from liberal idealism
somewhat downwardly mobile suburban white folks
Yeah, you got me there. And I'd wager you're right about most of the users here being in the same position.
I kinda missed your overall point before, my apologies for zeroing in on that one piece. I hadn't really considered before how the Western Individualistic mindset poisons discussion among even strong leftists. You've given me a lot to think about.
None of the individualist changes are good without revolutionary praxis, but there's quite a bit of difference from connection to the revolutionary struggle, and your initial point of it being easier to be revolutionary in an effective manner with income, and seeking out to position yourself financially in a way that your own interests would be harmed so heavily by revolutionary action. A large part of current organizing is tenant organizing for incoming eviction waves and a less large part is homeless assistance in some cases for those that have lost their homes, and having more people be landlords be also leftists can potentially hamper effectiveness there. The desire to be economically secure and never have to be in that situation again is still understandable, and it's similar to an extended version of the poor people joining the military aspect.
Class traitors are good.
Yes, ur a very bad boi for wanting to have secure shelter that's not under the threat of capital.
If I just have the one house with one or two roommates to help pay the mortgage does that make me a landlord?
Are your roommates who help pay your mortgage also gaining equity in your house?
If no, then yeah, you're a landlord.
What if they'd rather have money than equity in your house so they agree to sell their portion of the equity back to you every month? And what if they did that at the same time that they paid rent so that instead they just pay a lower rent without getting equity?
If that's how that worked, I'd just buy a house and sell off equity I got from mortgage to pay my mortgage and live rent free myself.
First off, not all the money you pay to the mortgage builds equity because you also have interest. Second off, if I'm staying in someone's spare room, I'm probably not contributing to the down payment for the mortgage, nor am I responsible for the debt if I decide to move. Naturally, I would expect to pay extra for someone else to deal with that.
The point was that you can't actually do that because that's not how it works.
I mean, technically I am defending landlordism insofar as I'm defending renting out a room in your house which technically makes you a landlord. If my friend offers to clear out their art room and let me move in in exchange for a monthly fee, I don't see why I should bring out the guillotines for them.
Housing is absolutely a human right, but the people standing in the way of that are not the middle-manager landlords who own like 5% of the house they're renting out, it's the leeches at the top that they're paying their mortgages to. And yeah most middle-manager landlords tend to be assholes because the profession attracts them, but if you're like OP and you happen to find yourself in a position where it just makes sense to rent out a room, then that's not a factor. Additionally, if you're living with someone and treating them as a roommate, i.e. respecting them as an equal, that removes another layer of why landlords tend to be bastards. Add in the fact that if you live there, you have more of an incentive to actually fix things that break in a prompt fashion and... yeah I'm really not seeing the problem here.
If that's a thing that's legally possible in the USA I'd be willing to. I've never heard of it.
Is there a name for this arraignment? What sort of contract would we sign?
I've never heard of giving renters equity even being an option in the US? Is that even possible? Does anyone have any information on this, including the downsides? Could this result in a situation where the renter would want to cash out their equity, possibly forcing the homeowner to sell if they can't afford it?
Not unless I want to live in the far exurbs and commute 90 minutes each way. Even a small house in the "bad" part of town is going to be expensive for my budget.
The only way I could kinda justify having a roommate to help pay off my mortgage is if I charged them below market rate for rent. Not sure if that's valid or if I'm just wanting to justify it to myself.
I could afford a mortgage by myself but it would be over 60% of my income. Right now I'm paying about 25% of my budget in rent, with a roommate. There's pretty much zero one-bedroom houses or condos in my city, so I could either have an extra bedroom for guests or rent it.
I'm talking 90 minutes of driving. There's some public transit in my city but it doesn't reach the exurbs where houses are cheaper. If it was 60 minutes on a train I'd be happy to commute that distance.
Not saying you're wrong about the ethical aspects tho
Maybe. Last time I looked the HOA fees for a condo made it almost as expensive as a house
yeah it'll depend on the condo. Keep in mind that the HoA fee isn't really like paying rent at all though, since that fee is used for services you directly benefit from such as exterminators, snow removal, cleaning, electricity/temperature in common areas, etc. That money is reinvested into your home, the downside is you don't have a choice about it.
edit: unless you join the board of the HoA that is. Then you can taste real power
Wanting to have a house is not bad or counterrevolutionary. Everyone should have somewhere to live, that ought to be a basic human right like food and water. Plus, not giving money to a landlord is good.
I lucked into buying a home a few years ago. It don't make you a bad person to want to own one.
The part about having a roommate to subsidize my mortgage is the part I'm not sure about
nah. buy one. I'd be so much more relaxed if I actually knew I owned my own place. but down the road, don't buy another one and rent it out.
You're not really a landlord if you're living in the house. Also you're not as locked into the house as you think because you can always sell it
"From each according to their ability unto each according to their need." You need a house. You probably don't need two houses. Renting space in the house you live in to someone else at a rate they can afford is fine, and helps both people get what they need, as best they can. Buying a second house you don't need just to make money off of someone else who does need it would be wrong.
And of course, life is complicated and we aren't fucking objectivists. If you use the rent money from a second house to house a third person who can't afford rent at all, is that wrong? Almost definitely not. So just use common sense and don't be too hard on yourself. Leftism really comes down to being compassionate. It's not meant to be a quasi-religious exercise in purity and self-flagellation.
There is literally zero moral difference between you renting and buying a house, first of all. Do what makes financial sense for you. Practically speaking, it's the same sort of arrangement just with different responsibilities and different social connotations. When you "buy" a house, it's essentially just agreeing to have the bank as your new landlord, with a few differences: You have more autonomy on what you do with the house, you have to fix your own stuff, you can't leave without finding someone to take your place, and if you stay there long enough, you may eventually actually own the house. All of those are just practical differences, so you should make the decision based off practical concerns and your own preferences, not based on morality.
Taking on a tenant is also perfectly fine. I love how so many people on here seem to be convinced that renting out a spare room makes you a monster. Like, I rent a house with three other people, and only one of my roommates' names is on the lease, so technically you could say that he's the one renting out rooms to the other three of us, making him an evil bastard landlord, even though we're on the same footing, which is dumb as shit. Suppose he went and "bought" the house (or in other words, rented it from the bank) and we split up the mortgage payment, with us paying the same amount and otherwise continuing as we were. Does he become an evil bastard landlord then? Not in my view.
The main issue with housing is not the landlords/middle managers who make a down payment to the bank, then pay mortgage out of rent while trying to squeeze out a little extra from their tenants for themselves - although these people can often be the most visible and annoying. But there are landlords out there where if you added up their equity in all their properties, it still wouldn't be enough to even buy a single house for them to live in. The bigger issues are the whales who own shit tons of properties and can just buy another house in cash on a whim. These are the people who the money eventually trickles up to, regardless of whether you rent or buy. There is no ethical solution to the issue because they stole the land that you need to survive so you're going to have to pay them one way or another and that's all there is to it. And if you decide to rent out a room to a tenant to help pay your mortgage, then all that's happening is that they're paying the billionaires through you instead of through someone else. Just don't be an asshole and it's fine.
"All landlords are bastards" is a slogan, and you shouldn't treat slogans as sound logical premises. It's like if you treat ACAB as a sound premise and build off that to say that any socialist project that has cops is bad. Slogans are designed to be pithy and express a sentiment, not to be strictly accurate and nuanced.
