If you’re a landleech and say you’re a communist, your comrades are going to have follow-up questions.
What if the landlord uses whatever money they get to donate it to communist causes and once they die, they donate their properties to the communist party?
You probably aren’t aware that these kinds of questions seem like rather silly, liberal, idealist ones to marxists.
On a funnier note: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-RfHC91Ewc
A YouTube link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same video on Invidious, which is a YouTube frontend that protects your privacy:
Mao wants to know your location
Jokes aside.
The problem with landlords is exploitation. Their concept of ownership of land is that you own it so you can do whatever you want, in sense of exploiting it’s resources or, in case of a house for example, renting it and expecting a revenue for doing nothing. They, the landlords, are parasites that want to get value from something without doing anything and people in the “western world” (using the term for broad clarification) justify that. All of this does not mean that a landlord cannot be a socialist and help the cause in some way, like Engels but he was a member of the capitalists. Still, without destroying the system that permits all of this, even if there are landlords that are indeed communists, the status quo will continue with all the exploitation that follows it.
Clarify me if I’m wrong comrades, please. I’m still always learning.
What if the landlord uses whatever money they get to donate it to communist causes and once they die, they donate their properties to the communist party?
Like I said, a “communist landlord” could help the cause in some way and then, if a communist revolution happens, decide to take part in the land reforms and collectivisation of land. But that is a rarity, because the system imposes exploitation, so the majority of landlords would still be exploitative parasites.
Even if this is possible we should not get our hopes on that but on changing the system itself. For, if it exists a system that promotes exploitation we should change that and not attach ourselves to the notion of individualism, bacause the individuals don’t make changes. The masses do.
Class struggle will continue for many years to come, but at the end, with the abolition of class and the creation of a classless society, there will be no such things as landlords or capitalists. The people will be truly free.
I think in general we all have to live our everyday lives. For most of us that means participation in capitalist societies.
Even so, I view being a landlord, or more broadly owning any property beyond your own home, to be a choice antithetical to my convictions as a communist.
I can in relatively good conscience do labour for a capitalist, because doing so puts food in my belly and a roof over my head. I cannot in good conscience use my ownership of property as leverage over someone who doesn’t own property, in order to exploit them for their labour.
It’s possible, but class interests are a thing and they’ll be significantly more inclined to be anticommunist than your average Zoe.
What if the landlord uses whatever money they get to donate it to communist causes and once they die, they donate their properties to the communist party?
Actually, the two things just cancel out and you end up not existing anymore.
All what’s left is gamma rays.
I think if you are in a position to purchase a second home you also have enough money not to do it.
Some people rent their own homes to pay their own rent, and yes, I was confused when they told me about it too.
There is also subleasing, or room renting.
Renting out a room in your own domicile is more like having a roommate than being a landlord.
Yes, Engels himself was by definition a member of the bourgeoisie yet he advocated and was a major figure in the development of communist theory.
So, the example of Engels is that one can participate in capitalism exploitation as long as one also tries to destroy it and advocate for communism?
Why is this question asked here every 2 weeks?
That’s sort of a gatekeeping, “no true Scotsman” question. Sure you could claim to be a communist and still be a landlord, and people might still call you both while others disagree entirely.
But there are unrefutable facts though. Like saying that one cannot call a dog “cat” due to “gatekeeping” and “no true Scotsman” is always funny for me. But, I get what you are saying, but to me definitions matter 😂
one cannot call a dog “cat”
Of course you could. What if I name one “Cat”?
Your vet would be very confused and there would be a lot of mixup whenever you needed medication for your pet.
Taxonomy is shitty and imprecise but it serves an important purpose.
In this comment, I declare that cats shall refer to 🐕 and dogs shall refer to 🐈.
As we all know, dogs meowing is normal behavior, but can you imagine cats meowing? That would certainly be strange.
Even if you have a hard time reading my comment, you understand my intent, although you probably would appreciate it if I didn’t define terms this way.
Similarly, OP could define communist landlords out of existence by declaring their definition of “communist” excluded landlords “by definition” and this is “irrefutable fact,” notwithstanding that the accepted definition of “communist” doesn’t require you aren’t a landlord (notwithstanding the hypocrisy in doing it)
This comment made me think of the fact that my dog brings rocks to me as gifts the same way a cat would bring a dead bird.
@[email protected] this question is for you
Who is that?
Not actually a landlord AFAIK but his username would make responding funny
Sometimes people are liberals and pursue a career that they think as “successful” and when they become aware that they are being exploiters they find themselves in this kind of difficult position.
The real question is, if there’s a revolution happening, will you fight against? Will you be passive? Or will you go and support them?
Actually being a part of the exploiting class has huge revolutionary advantages. You’ve got multiple houses? You can hide revolutionaries under a false identity. You’ve got a factory? You can giveaway a part of the production. You’ve just got a shit ton of money? You can make generous donations so the org can buy useful things.
Yes. A communist signifies your political allegiances, while being a landlord or business owner signifies your class. They’re mutually exclusive. If you are both, then it means you are arguing against your class interests and you are fighting for a state that doesn’t cater to your class interests nor represent you.
Similarly, being a communist doesn’t automatically make you working class, because class is defined by your relation to the method of production.
As of the conditions in most countries right now, I would say yes, technically. I think trying to establish some kind of gatekeeping community purity test is an excercise in futility, many of us have to live within capitalist systems. I myself work in upper management (which is probably not common for many communists) and also sell my own labor for less than it is probably worse to a faceless corporation. Now, that doesn’t mean you should go on to found a company exploting people’s labour and go “It’s okay, I am really a communist guys!”.
In much the same way that a country goes through a transitory process to become a communist nation and does not simply remove all capitalism overnight, neither does an individual. Several prominent communist leaders came from wealthy backgrounds themselves.
Now that said, while not impossible I think very few landlords would be advocates of socialism, as that is a self-defeating proposition. People tend to do what is in their own class interests most of the time, and that is unlikely to be socialism for a landlord. It’s absolutely possible to advocate for positions outside your class, we just don’t see it as often.
