Nor is it any reason to assume it will not.

That’s a fundamental part of capitalism, that the one that owns the capital also get to choose where to invest it. It is their money.
Now you can get some that will invest in project that benefits the communitiy, like building new homes, schools. You can also get greedy asholes that only invest for their own benefits, buy new jets, etc.

Now calling all landlords greedy pigs like some does in this topic will only benefits the later, by discouraging those who works toward nobler goals to advertise them, which doesn’t help those initiatives to reach their target audience.

Like I told on other replies, I do own a house, which I rent to an elderly couple, so I’m on the landlord “side”. It was my grandma house, which I inherited when she died. I renovated it, rented it, had to do costly repair after the first tenant because he trashed the place, all that at a rather low rent for the area. To this day I didn’t touch a cent from the rent other than for repairs, and reduced the rent again due to water damages in a room (coming from the neighbor which refuses to do the repairs as it do not affects him).

So, tell me, AITA?

In an ideal world, it would work, if the tenant has enough money ahead to do said repairs. If not, what will you do ? Ask the owner? He doesn’t have any money anymore, other than his own salary, which may also not be enough to pay for said repairs.

Rent isn’t just money lost, it is money that can be put asside in order to be used in the future to do those repairs.
How much money will be kept for that purpose depends on the landlord, which can be either a greedy cunt, a good guy, or anything in between), but that’s another topic.

Another use for rent money is to build new homes. Building new things costs money, be it for the material used or the workers involved, and you can’t just ask them to work for free.

I agree for the human right, but who will pay for the house repairs? With what money ?

I honestly hope this will play better on the Deck than GW2.

Which comes back to my main argument: both have failed, so either both are bad, or we have a people problem instead of a system problem.

• 1921-1922 (Povolzhye, or Volga famine), 5-10 millions dreath
• 1932-1933 (Holodomor), 3.5 to 7 millions death in Ukraine alone
• 1930-1933 (Asharshylyk), 1.5 million deaths (seem small, but that was 40% of then Kazakhstan population)
• 1932-1933 (at the same time than the Holodomor, but in Russia) : 1 to 2 millions deaths
• 1946-1947: 1 to 1.5 millions deaths

And that’s only those who were big enough to be impossible to hide completely.

All of them have something in common: the central government minimised them, and tried to hide them. Some weren’t even acknowledged until after the USSR fall. All of them are a combination of bad luck (war, drought) combined with hasty decisions which made what could have been a hard year a generational disaster.

Both having a form of free market doesn’t make it suddenly good for one side and bad for the other.

Some sort of free market is good, so new idea can brew, some of them being one day attempted, other won’t because it ends up either not getting traction, or would very obviously fail after some research.

Problem is with too much planning is that it doesn’t give as much place for innovation, as well as put too much weight on a single point of failure. That played a good part in the USSR famines, like the holodomor, which was then further aggravated by their unwillingness to admit they fucked up, blaming it on other factors. But if they had learned from their mistakes, it would have improved, but unfortunately those very same error were repeated multiple time (see the multiple famines the USSR faced while strangely their western counterparts did not).

And I’ll pass on the other similar failures (Chernobyl, among other), that follow the very same pattern.

Of course, the USSR had some very clear wins, like the first part of the race to space, and others.

The USSR could have been a success if their leader weren’t selfish idiots, which os a shame since I’d rather live in a good cummunism regime than a good capitalism regime.

I always worked toward such ideals, I contributed to some open-source project (Gnome, KDE, mostly translation, bug report, but also some packaging for OpenSUSE and Fedora.

I’m a bit tired of those who blindly follow ideologies without having the intellectual honesty to recognize where said ideology fucked up and where it was great. Do I have to be called a social-traitor for every reflection on communism or socialism? I doubt Marx would be happy to see those he tried to enlighten sheepishly follow whoever yell the loudest… Even if they yell parta of what he tried to teach them.

That was part of my philosophy class, the book is probably still at my father house.

Already done, lot a good ideas, some ideas I don’t agree with, but an enlightening read nonetheless.

The part I disagree the most about are free competition.

Communism by itself isn’t bad, nor is capitalism, but both assume that their proponents are immune to greed, and that their opponent are full of it.

There are good things in both, bad things in both. The problem is to find people that are truly altruistic, and that have the moral fortitude to stay altruistic.

Edit: y’all can downvote all you want, I’ll stand by my opinion unless someone has the honesty to argue on that.

Login with Pass A38 (Asterix reference😏)

My dad uses LibreOffice for years, still call it OpenOffice 😂.