Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It’s a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.
ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?
I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.
In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.
yeah this is much bigger topic and I doubt I would change your mind on that level. For myself I have never seen any indication that would work but also for extreme capitalism (old libertarian thought although as a movement its way away from its roots) and believe elements of both make a good society. We have way to much private ownership right now though and way to little publically ownership so I would be in favor of more changes toward your paradise but if its all or nothing then I would be against them.
Well one. Its worked and has been shown to work and work well provided its limited and regulated. I like having my own room. Going further I like having my own home. If I could I would have some property. This is space where no one else is allowed to be except by my permission. That in a nutshell is what private ownership is. Its things that other people are not allowed to use except by the owners permission. If your allowing that but not calling it private ownership you are fooling yourself as that is what that is.
Define “worked” and “works well.” Disparity is rising, safety nets are eroding, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, people are homeless despite a surplus of houses and people starve despite a surplus of food. It does not work for anyone except the wealthy.
You can own a home for personal use in Socialism, you just can’t be a landlord. That is Personal Ownership, not Private Ownership, you aren’t seeking an income from the labor of others, justified by your ownership.
I am not fooling myself, I just know what I am talking about with respect to Socialist theory. I’m a nerd like that.
Ill accept it for the arguments sake. How about a homeowner that rents out a room and they only advertised with a sign in the window they bought themselves. They also have a job keep in mind. The rent from the room does not exactly pay all their needs it just offsets the mortgage. Are they workers?
Petite bourgeoisie. Capitalists that do not drive enough income to survive without working. It’s a bit muddier than this, with respect to their personal job their power dynamic is clearly Proletarian, but they are attempting to escape that dynamic and become full bourgeois via landlording.
ok. so if they did not rent the room and the would be tenant stays homeless then they are good workers or whatever foreign word you use for them. so bad if the one guy has a roof over his head but good if he does not?
I am not making a moral judgement on what happens within Capitalism, I am stating that Capitalism itself should be replaced with a collectively owned system. Microcosms do not represent the system as a whole, nor represent the average.
In a better scenario, landlording would not need to be a necessary evil to give this person a home, when public housing can be an option.
yeah this is much bigger topic and I doubt I would change your mind on that level. For myself I have never seen any indication that would work but also for extreme capitalism (old libertarian thought although as a movement its way away from its roots) and believe elements of both make a good society. We have way to much private ownership right now though and way to little publically ownership so I would be in favor of more changes toward your paradise but if its all or nothing then I would be against them.
Why? In what manner is Private Ownership better, at a systemic level?
Well one. Its worked and has been shown to work and work well provided its limited and regulated. I like having my own room. Going further I like having my own home. If I could I would have some property. This is space where no one else is allowed to be except by my permission. That in a nutshell is what private ownership is. Its things that other people are not allowed to use except by the owners permission. If your allowing that but not calling it private ownership you are fooling yourself as that is what that is.
Define “worked” and “works well.” Disparity is rising, safety nets are eroding, wages are stagnating with respect to productivity, people are homeless despite a surplus of houses and people starve despite a surplus of food. It does not work for anyone except the wealthy.
You can own a home for personal use in Socialism, you just can’t be a landlord. That is Personal Ownership, not Private Ownership, you aren’t seeking an income from the labor of others, justified by your ownership.
I am not fooling myself, I just know what I am talking about with respect to Socialist theory. I’m a nerd like that.
its personal ownership rather than private ownership? yup. im done.