• FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think number of home units should be strictly limited, but a world without rent entirely is a really stupid idea that only ever seems uttered and promoted by Tankies.

    • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      Anarchists are anti-rent too. See this user’s comment. Anti-rent and anti-property has been a staple of anarchist philosophy since Proudhon.

      Really, any socialist worth their salt should be anti-rent.

      I think number of home units should be strictly limited

      We need way more home units, all of them free.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Anarchists by bare definition are not anti-anything except permanent rules and laws. Banning rentals would make you a tyrant and Anarchists would hang you for that.

        We should have free home options, and also more psychiatric facilities like before Reagan gutted them, to reduce homelessness down to only those who chose to be it.

        But we should also have the option to commission, build, and rent nice homes so that people are not tied down to a property for our entire life.

          • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Anarchists all agree that anyone else who claims to be an anarchist isn’t an anarchist.

            That’s about the only consistent think I’ve ever heard about Anarchists.

            Which is why they overlap with Punks a lot. Punks favorite think to do is talk about how punk they are and how other punks aren’t punk.

            Both things aren’t an ideology over a political movement. They are vanity label that stands for nothing other than being ‘against’ things.

            and we all can agree that Tankies are complete nutjobs.

            Anarchists by bare definition are not anti-anything except permanent rules and laws. Banning rentals would make you a tyrant and Anarchists would hang you for that.

            • PM_ME_VINTAGE_30S [he/him]@lemmy.sdf.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              What are you smoking, and can I have some?

              Like yeah there’s lots of disagreement within the anarchist movement (which is a sign of a healthy critical space!) but all anarchists agree in broad strokes that hierarchical authority is not good and for this reason that the state, capitalism, and property must be abolished, like this is the minimum ticket price to be an anarchist and has been since Proudhon.

    • Riverside@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      a world without rent entirely is a really stupid idea that only ever seems uttered and promoted by Tankies

      Meanwhile, in the USSR, nobody owned housing privately, most housing was accessed through the work union, and was rented at about 3% of monthly costs. You clearly, CLEARLY haven’t ever engaged with a Tankie (such as myself) on the topic of housing.

      • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I never claimed Tankies actually followed the beliefs thwy spew. Even that fat fuck Mao Zedong kept the rental system in place and Tankies still to this day praise him for executing landlords.

        • Riverside@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 day ago

          Why the fatphobia? No need to insult Mao based on his body.

          Tankies still to this day praise him for executing landlords

          Rightfully so, too. Life expectancy in China doubled under Mao. If India had had its own socialist revolution, it wouldn’t be very different from China in terms of life outcomes, unfortunately for them they didn’t have one.

            • Riverside@reddthat.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              He didn’t starve tens of millions, millions of people starved yearly in China before Mao since it was a preindustrial country. Mao found a China with below 30 years of life expectancy, and left a China with 55+ years of life expectancy, Chinese communism literally saved tens of millions of lives in that era if you compare it to comparably developed countries such as India

                • Riverside@reddthat.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  You can spread your anticommunist propaganda as much as you want, I gave you numbers and facts.

                  • FiniteBanjo@feddit.online
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 day ago

                    From 1959 to 1961 as a direct result of policy in “The Great Leap Forward” between 15 Million and 55 Million people died of the great famine which is the largest manmade disaster in human history, leading to the early termination of the the campaign.

                    Mao has killed more people than any individual in history.