ID: A Sophie Labelle 4 panel comic featuring Stephie in different poses, saying:

Landlords do not provide housing.

They buy and Hold more space than they need for themselves.

Then, they create a false scarcity and profit off of it.

What they’re doing is literally the opposite of providing housing.

  • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    5·
    10 hours ago

    Yeah, we’re speaking on different terms here. I have also had a good overall experience renting, but that doesn’t really have anything to do with crux of the issue, which is that landlords exploit a renter’s need for shelter at their own personal gain. We rationalize this by claiming things like “well, the landlord offers a service,” but not really, because for the most part the landlord does not need to do any work, they just need to invest money, which in turn increases the value of their property, anyways. Everything they do increases their own personal wealth. That’s not to mention the concentration of wealth and power that landlords perpetuate.

    This isn’t to say all landlords are bad people. We are all taught to make our money work for us, to try to achieve passive income, etc. in order to get out of the rat race. That doesn’t change the fact that the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      7·
      9 hours ago

      the relationships that landlords and renting creates are inherently unequal and therefore wrong

      I don’t think I agree with your conclusion here. Some relationships are going to be inherently unequal, and that doesn’t necessarily make them wrong. Take the doctor-patient relationship as an example. If I’m in need of life saving medical care, the doctor has far more power in that relationship. For me it’s “buy or die” while for him, not treating me has essentially no negative consequences. This relationship isn’t “wrong”, it’s just unequal due to its nature.

      With landlords (and with the medical industry), it’s not that the relationship is inherently wrong, it’s just extremely open to abuse due to that unequal nature. It’s the abuse that’s wrong, not the relationship itself.

      • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        7·
        9 hours ago

        I’ll have to think about that…you may be right.

        Although, the doctor-patient relationship does come up fairly often in anarchist thought. I think it falls under “justified hierarchy.” In this case, it is justified because the relationship is meant to end equally (ie the patient is cured, and the inequality between doctor-patient ends). Similar with parent-child, teacher-student relationships.

        But your point about unequal relationships not being inherently wrong still stands…gotta think about it! thanks

    • zfirerose@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      9 hours ago

      I understand the issue. I suppose I’m just not as concerned as the people in this forum are. When I saw this meme I was only thinking about the practicality of renting vs owning a place. I can see why most people are upset about my view of things, but then I was already aware people would be downrating me for showing my perspective. Regardless I felt like i needed to express my opinion nonetheless. I see a lot of these on my homepage

      • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        9 hours ago

        I think people are just upset you don’t align ideologically with them, even if you’re not necessarily ideologically opposite. Plus we’re in Lefty Memes, so I think many of them probably expect you to be ideologically in-line. I wouldn’t take it to heart. But if you find yourself interested, The Conquest of Bread by Pyotr Kropotkin has some really good thoughts about land ownership, and kinda pushes back against many of the ideas we are brought up in today.

        Edit: Oh! here it is online http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html

        • zfirerose@lemmy.worldEnglish
          2·
          9 hours ago

          Yeah, I expected this to happen so I’m indifferent about the negative replies. Thanks for the recommendation though, I’ll start to give it a read on my break.

    • Pandemanium@lemm.eeEnglish
      2·
      9 hours ago

      Ok, I’m genuinely confused. Without some kind of landlord, how can people live in homes they don’t want to own? Would the state or the federal government own, maintain, and rent out unowned homes? Or would there be a free-for-all of free abandoned homes and if you want to live in one, you’d be responsible for making it livable? Or…?

      • jwiggler@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        3·
        9 hours ago

        Well, I can’t summarize all the possible alternatives, because I don’t realistically know all of them or all their pros and cons. Certainly one of them is communal-style state-owned housing. Another would be the more free-for-all style you describe, with an emphasis on mutual aid, I’d imagine. That’s probably the one I’d go for, because I tend to think the state is generally an oppressive force. Ultimately though our idea of private ownership of land would probably have to go out the window.

        You should check out Pyotr Kropotkin’s chapter in The Conquest of Bread on Dwellings, really good book overall: http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/conquest/ch6.html