this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
GenZedong
4298 readers
29 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I've got a hang-over pet policy from when I was a baby leftist to abolish rents on land, but with a twist: Any exchange of money for the use of a property is a sale. It's absolutely financial neo bullshit but I can't take it off my mind.
The idea being that if, over time, you pay the landlord for maintenance + the value of the house, you get the title for the house, and this is the law and you can go to court, prove that you've paid for rent over however many years, and get the title of the house.
If you leave before that there'd be some system where the "rent" payments are split equally and you get the value back from whoever is currently living there, because you're selling your share to them. Since the payments are split equally minority "shareholders" leave first. If nobody lives there but you're paying taxes and maintenance, you still paying for the house so you accrue shares of the house.
I think it might be palatable for neolibs, destroy the value of homes for rent-seeking, but preserve it for construction, which is what libs always complain about when you talk about abolishing rent.
I do not think so, atleast in the circles I am in with Neolibs, they will talk about how its the construction profits that they have to preserve untill you push harder on the rent itself then it all comes tumbling. and things like "It is not a bad thing to make a little money" come out. There is a fun thing libs do where they will say the nice sounding thing next to what they beilve if what they belive is too mean sounding