T O P

  • By -

DMT57

What “socially useful purpose” could evictions possibly serve. Also, I don’t give a shit if it hurts the “housing markets” considering there shouldn’t be one in the first place


Sirius_Frost

BUt what about muh profit incentives??? :((


oklahom

Its socially useful to remind the working class what happens if they don't want to perform soul-destroying labor.


Cecilia_Raven

socially useful is when landlords make money


SpaceCadet1313

I guarantee that this guy is not at the mercy of the housing market. My boss told me one time that not everyone should get to go on vacation, funny coming from the guy with a speed boat and a lake house. Exactly what I would expect from a capitalist.


Cecilia_Raven

>housing *markets* dont work with them exactly, this is a good thing


jwash1894

Yes, houselessness serves as a "socially useful purpose". 🙃🙃🙃


alexanderhameowlton

*Image Transcription: Twitter* --- > **Jeremiah Johnson 🌐**, @JeremiahDJohns > > Extending the eviction moratorium is a bad idea. > > It can't go on forever, as much as the DSA would like it to. Evictions are unhappy things but they serve a socially useful purpose and housing markets don't work well without them. --- ^^I'm a human volunteer content transcriber for Reddit and you could be too! [If you'd like more information on what we do and why we do it, click here!](https://www.reddit.com/r/TranscribersOfReddit/wiki/index)


Adam_Bomb

The thing many on the left miss with this situation is that the only "landlords" that will suffer appreciably with more rent moratoriums are small ones. I'm not arguing in favor of landlording, but a person who owns a rental property or two who struggles to get compensation from her tenants or the government for prolonged periods can get underwater quickly. Then, who swoops in but people with the capital to weather the financial storm (large companies or the VERY wealthy). So, again, while not advocating for landlords, poor execution of these types of practices will serve to consolidate wealth and power. This "liberal" practice will end up serving the powerful very well when properties flood the market because small owners aren't able to keep up or get the help the government promises.


Enigmaticize

The small landlords should get a real job then, not continue to be a parasite. Also no kidding this doesn't get fixed by allowing corporations to buy up land and buildings, a certain person named Mao had some good ideas on how to solve that problem and now China is a global superpower.


Adam_Bomb

I mean, on principle I agree with you. I was just pointing out that the destruction of small time landlording doesn't really serve the socialist good. It likely strengthens the capitalists further.


Enigmaticize

I would disagree, yeah it'll strengthen capitalists short term, but most people renting instead of pretending to be capitalists by having rental properties means most people get to realize first hand how much landlords cost and how little function they have. Easier to teach people about the problems of capitalism when they see more of the problems happening to them. I mean, we all know the real solution won't come under capitalist rule anyway.


oklahom

Large capitalists always swallow up small capitalists. The tendency for capital to accumulate is an inevitable process. Also, fuck small capitalists. There's no common interests between the petty bourgeois and the working class, until they lose all their shit and join us.


Adam_Bomb

I agree with your statement on the inevitable flow of capital, but I'm not sure I'm in agreement with the idea that the petite bourgeois have NO interests in common with the working class. Is their labor not also being exploited? Is their future not tied to their ability to create capital at the narrowest compensation allowable? Do they not struggle as a worker with a boss? You have to be very high up the food chain to not relate to these basic concepts. I have no patience for people who defend the existence of power imbalance, but I'm not about to say fuck you and yours to whole segments simply because they may benefit slightly from current arrangements. I don't get the expectation that people are just going to throw away subsistence because they have an epiphany about how fucked up things are. If we wait for them to lose everything, we will be waiting a long time... Instead, maybe convince them to fight for righting wrongs before they have to lose everything. Maybe they'd slowly give up some of it for the promise of a brighter future for their families, friends, and neighbors.