We're as atomized and alienated as ever, but now we also can't afford to buy a house or raise kids. Libs will celebrate this.

  • Pezevenk [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    First of all, their value isn't expected to increase everywhere. In many places it is the opposite. Second, that they have a finite life doesn't make them fundamentally different. Hell, houses have a finite life too, especially if they are old. Land doesn't but that's a different thing. But again, finite life isn't the distinguishing line between capital and non capital, the computers you have at work are not dissimilar from yours, but they are capital. Capital is only "capital" as long as you can realize its potential somehow. If you can't realize its potential because you live in it and don't trade it, don't rent it out, etc then it is not the same as the capital owned by landlords, small business owners etc. Because they are actually using it to make a profit, whereas the person who just buys a house to live in isn't, and isn't planning to. You could argue that if push comes to shove then they have selling their house as an option, but if push comes to shove to the point where they lose their house, then it's not very hard for them to reach class consciousness.

      • Pezevenk [he/him]
        1·
        4 years ago

        Working people who own a single home describes a very large percentage of the people I know because I live in a country with high home ownership rates. I don't doubt some of these people are obsessed with the value of their house etc, but that has more to do with ideological brainworms and temporarily embarrassed millionaire syndrome than any real material reason.

        Even pretending like a retirement plan is on the same footing as even a small business owner because it kinda looks like M-C-M is vulgar analysis that disregards the kinds of relations that put capitalists in one camp, workers in another. Like, even in the case you outlined, you know what that person would prefer? They would prefer if they could have a decent retirement plan that didn't have to involve them selling their house (which is precarious anyways, especially after we've seen how badly the housing market can crash) and paying rent. So advocating for them having that option will always trump the secondary "interest" they have in keeping the value of their house high.

          • Pezevenk [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            First of all, the "good things are actually bad" school of thought is, well, bad and terribly counterproductive.

            Second, what I am telling you is that it is NOT a major barrier to affordable housing, because 1) wage earning home owners don't intrinsically have a serious material interest in their houses having a high value, because most people are never planning to move out and sell it anyways, and the even for the people who do as a retirement plan or whatever, it's nothing deep, and 2) they are nowhere close to being the significant barrier, the significant barrier is the landlords, the banks and the real estate companies. Assume that a leftist party or whatever you include affordable housing in your program. The landlords are gonna be pissed at you of course, but it is not a major concern for the wage workers who own houses, EVEN those who are planning to sell it etc, when the rest of your program is nothing but good stuff for them. Similar to how, say, switching to renewables may make many workers unemployed, but it's not them who is the major barrier to that, and they wouldn't have a problem if your program guaranteed they would find a better job afterwards. So if there is opposition, it is a matter of ideological brainworms, but this is a very broad issue that afflicts everyone regardless of background. Bottom line, their material interest is NOT directly opposed to a leftist program, the material interest they have in maintaining the value of their house is secondary, and they are not the people most at fault for blocking affordable housing programs. Furthermore, saying home ownership is a bad thing is counterproductive because it is contradictory to the stated goal of improving the living standards of the working class, and just looking at home ownership rates in various countries should confirm that it really isn't negatively correlated to class consciousness.

              • Pezevenk [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                You keep using logic here

                Well sorry for using logic I guess! I'm gonna stop using logic, real anprim hours lol

                I am not operating under the assumption normies read Marx or whatever. If someone believes that something is in their favour when it isn't really, then that is not a material interest, that is ideology and you're getting into a much different issue, that afflicts EVERYONE (to varying degrees), up to homeless minorities. Again, a large percentage of the people I know is wage earning normies who own their own house, the only people I know who oppose affordable housing is either deeply ideological mega neolibs, rich people and landlords. So if it is more common where you live or whatevs it is because of ideology, not a real material interest, and that is malleable and depends on how good a job the left is doing at permeating society.