NK’s highest legislative body is a multiparty parliament elected directly by the people.
“Oh but the communists dominate”
Yeah, because they do popular things and have a popular political program compared to the other parties.
Is it more democratic when no one party is popular because all of them don’t help the proletariat and power is a hot potato passed to whatever bourgeois party fucked the people the longest time ago?
You should instead read “Riding the wave” which is a serious book that explains why social democracies rely on imperialism using one case study (Denmark I believe but I haven’t read it in forever)
This was legitimately a problem after ww2 where the politically active communists were more heavily involved in the war and a bunch of the human infrastructure of (especially local)democracy got killed by nazis
The mechaviks literally wanted to continue ww1 and have a psuedo democracy where the bourgeoisie were literally guaranteed a majority of seats, wtf are you talking about?
We literally have. Look at the massive literacy, life expectancy, and political rights increases under literally every single communist government compared to what came before them instead of comparing them to some utopian ideal that capitalism compares even less favorably to.
The Cuban people literally joke that the government should be less democratic because of how much they consult the people, I dont think it is an authoritarian dictatorship and it is under immense pressure as it is 70 miles away from the imperial core and has been effectively blockaded for 60 years or so.
Don’t call communists fascists please. This is an article from a mainstream holocaust historian that explains why a related equation between the two is harmful.
I would also recommend reading “economy and class structure of german fascism” so you have a better idea of what fascism actually means.
Okay, imagine a hypothetical. You’re a landlord with 90 percent occupancy rate across 100 apartments. For simplicity let’s say they all pay you 1000 dollars a month. With the lvt tax you pay 100 dollars a month per apartment. Your renters simultaneously get 90 dollars a month(let us assume that renters make up 50 percent of the population and slightly more than half of the tax comes from residential land, giving us 90 dollars)
You’re going to raise rent by 90 dollars, at least. Maybe 111 dollars, to compensate for the empty apartments, if you want to continue making the same amount of money.
could cite tons of capitalist garbage in favor of renterism
Okay. Do it then.
Point is renting is a business, like any other.
It is literally distinct enough that we define the rentier class separately from the capitalist class
The business owner can fleece customers or treat them like humans. We choose to be the latter, we choose to treat our renters fairly and give them an excellent service, and if that’s too difficult for you to separate from your prejudice for that facet of capitalism I see no reason to waste further conversation on the subject.
Can you please seperate systemic critique from moralizing? The point isn’t to call you a bad person, in the same way ecology isn’t about calling mosquitos evil. You’re frankly missing the point by being defensive and arguing “okay but some mosquitos don’t carry malaria”
I think it is probably useful rhetorically and in analysis to differentiate between landlording as owning property and doing maintenance as doing a job even if one person is doing both
Soviet khrushchevka blocks are a trope for a reason
The reason they’re a trope is because they were temporary housing built with limited resources in response to a baby boom after the economic devastation of the Nazi invasion and due to geopolitical events their service life was extended far too long, and while I would prefer to live in a communist utopia, a socialist better than how things are now sure does sound nice. Housing on average cost something like 5 percent of income (and income was guaranteed in the USSR) which is a lot lower than property taxes if you own a home in many places in the US.
It is always an investment that requires work to be put into it, but you doing the work isn’t an inherent component, you can always pay someone to do it for you.
Just rephrasing what you said in a way I think you’d agree with to repeat the point that it is always an investment.
Not to be pedantic, but you did write just the broader enforcement of property rights and not private property rights, and I approached it from that broader perspective.
In fairness I did say “like the cpc did” which implied the distinction between personal and private property, but Im glad we’ve cleared up the source of misunderstanding.
The concern is that under this ideal scenario, what happens if you leave you house for a longer term? How does this take temporary moving into account? Examples: I get temporarily transferred for a year to a new city by my job and I fully intend to return to my home after this assignment. Rental homes/apartments aren’t a thing, so I must either buy a dwelling there for a year, or stay in a hotel for a year. If I buy a dwelling, I now own two properties as long as I can afford to pay both mortgages. More likely, I am forced to sell my long term home because I cannot rent it out for that year I am gone. If I do keep it, can I own two separate pieces of personal property or does one become private property because it is not in habitation? I have deprived someone of buying one of them by owning both, and ownership of empty dwellings is usually complained about just as much as renting them. Will my personal property rights be enforced on my vacant home for that year? Should the government allow someone to move in and use my house for that year without my permission or compensation, and only resume enforcing my rights when I move back in? Am I forced to sell and hope that I can rebuy my home when I return? A similar dwelling in an adjacent area may not factor against the sentimental value of a family or generational home. Are any of these parts different if I become temporarily disabled and move in to another person’s home for care. What about a year in the hospital or rehabilitation facility? I don’t think any of these concerns are all that absurd, even if they would affect a small percentage of the population.
This is entirely contextual. If there is enough housing for people to do it at the rate they’re doing it then sure, own two properties at once if they are for personal use. If there is not enough housing then let someone who is going to be there for a year use it. You could also create rights to first usage in the case of letting someone (an exchange student for example) use a residence for a period of time while you retain long term usage rights.
But also, historically speaking, the communists aren’t coming after your toothbrush. This stuff is a drop in the bucket and they don’t care.
Also why would you still be paying a mortgage in this system? The idea is decommodified housing. Housing is assigned based on needs, not currency.
which is another reason to view it at a somewhat extreme angle.
You could view private property as an extreme angle that has been normalized. The idea of private property rights is the bedrock of capitalism, which is rapidly committing ecocide on the one planet humans are able to access.
You’re just not getting like, a basic political economy concept.
Regardless of whether the investor also does the job of maintaining the property, the property they invested in is an investment. Investments always require some sort of work on someone’s part.
Also you were the one gatekeeping the word investment
Oh, looking back you were objecting to “being a landlord isn’t a job it is an investment”
We’ve had a semantic misunderstanding. I think what the op was trying to say is that being a landlord is a property relation, and you were saying “but if can also be a job” and if you want to analyze social relations I’d argue that it’d be confusing to call maintaining property as being a landlord. You could say that some land managers are also landlords, or that some landlords are also land managers?
unless we’re going to get into the weeds over some sort of pointless discussion of property ownership being horrible in general (which I tend to agree with). I shouldn’t have to explain that.
That is literally my central argument.
I’m gonna have to point out that I’ve repeatedly said some variation of “this isn’t about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords being harmful” and you’ve continued to take it as a personal attack, over and over again.
The response to
“this isn’t about landlords being evil, this is about the system that creates landlords”
Really shouldn’t be
“but I’m not a bad landlord! Not all landlords are slumlords”
Communist Filth/Capitalist Filth (lemmy.ml)
deleted_by_author
Never has never will (lemmy.ml)
Help! My family's starving and I only know how to play 1947 West Siberia Economic simulator... (lemmy.ca)