I remain at the same place, yet to understand how one can be a communist and not authoritarian. And I feel like you’re failing to interrogate whether your concept of authoritarianism is being used with any amount of consistency or if it’s just a club you wield against people who have positions you disagree with for other reasons.
Anarchists are cool, but they’re really only a minority of communists worldwide. Whatever you think “authoritarianism” is (as far as I’m concerned if you believe in having a state at all, then that state will exercise a monopoly on violence and will be repressive) it describes almost every single communist on planet earth. The game of splitting hairs on what does and doesn’t count as a “tankie” achieves nothing but divide a movement that has common cause.
If I’m being forthright, I’ll just go ahead and ask: if anarchists are the only communists, why even have the concept of “tankies” at all? Why not just say you’re pro-anarchist and anti-communist? From my perspective, all that the whole thing of saying that there supposedly are communists who aren’t “tankies” achieves is create two categories:
Then because you can find real examples of the first category, you can find the flaws they have, and compare them to the ideal people in the second category. But maybe I’m wrong, maybe there really are a ton of Marxists out there that figured out the secret to having a perfectly consistent anti-authoritarian ideology that is still distinct from anarchism. If you could let me know who they are, that’d be awesome.
If you disagree that .ml are communist and insist that they’re “tankies” instead, it seems to imply that not all communists are “tankies.” However, every single communist I’m aware of is called a tankie. What does a communist who isn’t a tankie look like? Are there examples of such a thing?
Osama Bin Laden and I happen to have the same position that the end of the USA as a political entity would be a positive thing. I probably also agree with him that breathing and having meals is necessary for survival.
Are either of those propositions made less true by virtue of Osama also believing them?
It seems like something is kinda happening in response. People are buying guns and joining orgs like PSL. Maybe not enough people, but looking from afar it kinda seems like there’s interest in moving beyond the democrats for people who don’t want to accept this crap.
I can’t answer that question unless you answer mine. The answer is contingent on the rate at which you rent it out.
I suspect a lot of the people making basic errors in this thread get their knowledge of politics from memes. A lot of people saying stuff like “big corporations are the problem, not mom & pop landlords” which, if they read something like this single page from Wage Labour and Capital they’d understand is false. Capital is capital, and its relation to labor is the same regardless of its size!
cause on one hand, buying property to rent out is one of the ways out of wage slavery
This is not complete thinking. It’s not a way out of wage slavery when you’re just pushing the can down the road and making the condition of someone else’s wage slavery worse. You have to realize that your condition as a worker and a potential tenant’s condition is one and the same, and the way to abolish that condition is to unite as a class to seize and exert political power.
I also don’t really think the answer is all property being state-owned, but what do I know
It really doesn’t have to be. There’s already countries where they have a 95% homeownership rate and that’s been achieved by heavy regulation of housing and real estate speculation, and expropriation programs (also a lot of liquidation of the landlord class).
You’re right. It’s also true that if I don’t wish to expend my labor power in exchange for compensation, I can also buy a factory where I buy materials and labor and sell them for more than they cost.
Can you think of any reason why, when done at scale, these sorts of activities create a class system where not everyone can simply buy a plot of land and build a house, or be an industrial entrepreneur? That there will actually have to be many times as many people who have to sell their labor and pay rent?
Can you think of a way in which the possibility to create profit out of land adds value to that land that is unrealizable to someone who buys it and just lives in it, and is realizable for someone who plans to rent it at market price?
The $8000-9000 municiple taxes, utilities, upkeep, are all supposed to be paid by the landlord at a net loss.
Can you link to the comment where anyone said this? On my own, all I’ve said is that if you do rent out a property and generate a profit, that profit is appropriated surplus value.
The part where you call any and all profit theft
Who is generating the surplus value, then?
Also the part where you are attacking individuals for trying to improve their lives while the entire mess is caused by corporations and billionaires.
I’m not attacking anyone, I’m explaining how the system works. I explained in another comment that I believe the solution to this problem is the abolition of private property, not stringing up anyone who has ever made any profit in a transaction.
Say you pass down all the recurring costs (I said damage in my comment above but sure, include utilities and upkeep too) to the tenant.
As for property taxes, consider that the purpose of property taxes is to slow down the rate at which the owners of land accrue wealth. Without them, there is no friction on land speculation, and landownership becomes too attractive as a source of income, which impedes the flow of capital to industry. This means that (in theory) property taxes correspond to appreciation of land. This means that paying property taxes on property ought to fall on the owner because they’re the ones that benefit from the appreciation anyway.
If you disagree with that, then say you pass down the property taxes to the tenant as well.
In total, you’d be making 0 profit, with some debate on the subject of the appreciation of the home. This situation is more or less fair. Any profit that you would be making is what comes out of appropriating surplus value, that was my point.
You simply don’t think economic relationships should exist at all
We’re criticizing the economic relationships engendered by the existence of private property and industrial capitalism. Those relations will be superseded, and already have in parts of the world. There is nothing eternal about the present state of things.
No, they’ll be overthrown in a social revolution that abolishes the present social relations and conditions of production. The state established after that point will seek out a program of expropriation of all private land.
What’s different about grandma and grandpa owning a condo and generating profit off of doing 0 work and a larger corporation doing it? It’s the same economic mechanism, and if you had replaced the single corporation that owned 5000 condos with 5000 grandpas who own one property each they’ll still be leeching off the tenants the same amount in total. The relation between capital and labor isn’t any different just because capital would in one case be owned by more or fewer people.
If the payment received exceeds the costs a profit is generated. That profit represents appropriation of surplus value. Surplus value corresponds to the uncompensated (or in this case, compensated but later misappropriated) expense of labor power.
What specific part of this argument do you think is objectionable?
Why don’t you rent it at exactly the cost of maintenance?
In every capitalist country in the world the ruling class is organized to ensure its continued ability to appropriate surplus value and leech off labor. I assure you any transient condition that is presently causing the profits of real estate speculators to falter is going to pale in comparison to the massive amount of profit they are set to make over the next decades. It’s no different than the temporary valley in 2008 which was only an opportunity for capitalists to move money into the real estate market.
Does “dishonestly” include a situation where the state’s monopoly on violence is utilized to leverage someone into a bad deal?
what is the difference between socialism and communism?