I just think your point is too black-and-white. In the current system there exists people who want temporary housing and people who own more housing than they require and are willing to let others use it for a mutually agreeable payment. Your claim that this is inherently oppressive requires that the renter would not choose ownership if they had the means. Is it often an unfair, coercive dynamic? Yes. Do rent-seekers ruin everything? Yes. Do we need to villainize every single person who doesn’t donate their spare mother-in-law or inherited property to the homeless? No.
Sorry you do not understand class struggle then.
Class struggle is black and white. The interests of the working class are diametrically oppositional to those of the owning class. What enriches one oppresses the other.
I have no solidarity with those who willingly choose to oppress others because it is convenient within the current system to do so. I do not support the system of private property ownership and will make no excuses for it.
If you’re not using a home, then you should donate it instead of selling it for personal profits or hoarding it away so others who need it cannot utilize it. Those who do such things are villains in my eyes. No one should have that ability to begin with but, because people do, it becomes a choice whether to engage in the oppression of the system and benefit from it or to go against it for the betterment of our collective society.
It’s nuanced, dude. Part of class war is the optics and unless you want every empty-nester up against the wall with the BlackRock executives it’s not useful to paint with such a wide brush.
They have the choice to not go up against the wall by relinquishing their right of ownership over property they are not utilizing. If they wish to selfishly hold onto that private ownership so they can personally enrich themselves, then up against the wall they go.
It is nuanced, but not in the way you are implying
So your position is literally “impoverish yourself by donating all property you aren’t currently, personally using.” I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That’s a nice slippery slope you made there but I never said to impoverish oneself.
You still have your own job which should be providing for you and your lifestyle. You already have a home. You don’t need an extra house. So you either be a decent person and give it to someone in need or you be another owning class leech who wishes to exploit someone’s basic need for personal enrichment.
It’s all about who you choose to have solidarity with: the working class or the owning class?
I just think your point is too black-and-white. In the current system there exists people who want temporary housing and people who own more housing than they require and are willing to let others use it for a mutually agreeable payment. Your claim that this is inherently oppressive requires that the renter would not choose ownership if they had the means. Is it often an unfair, coercive dynamic? Yes. Do rent-seekers ruin everything? Yes. Do we need to villainize every single person who doesn’t donate their spare mother-in-law or inherited property to the homeless? No.
Sorry you do not understand class struggle then. Class struggle is black and white. The interests of the working class are diametrically oppositional to those of the owning class. What enriches one oppresses the other.
I have no solidarity with those who willingly choose to oppress others because it is convenient within the current system to do so. I do not support the system of private property ownership and will make no excuses for it.
If you’re not using a home, then you should donate it instead of selling it for personal profits or hoarding it away so others who need it cannot utilize it. Those who do such things are villains in my eyes. No one should have that ability to begin with but, because people do, it becomes a choice whether to engage in the oppression of the system and benefit from it or to go against it for the betterment of our collective society.
It’s nuanced, dude. Part of class war is the optics and unless you want every empty-nester up against the wall with the BlackRock executives it’s not useful to paint with such a wide brush.
They have the choice to not go up against the wall by relinquishing their right of ownership over property they are not utilizing. If they wish to selfishly hold onto that private ownership so they can personally enrich themselves, then up against the wall they go.
It is nuanced, but not in the way you are implying
So your position is literally “impoverish yourself by donating all property you aren’t currently, personally using.” I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.
That’s a nice slippery slope you made there but I never said to impoverish oneself.
You still have your own job which should be providing for you and your lifestyle. You already have a home. You don’t need an extra house. So you either be a decent person and give it to someone in need or you be another owning class leech who wishes to exploit someone’s basic need for personal enrichment.
It’s all about who you choose to have solidarity with: the working class or the owning class?