My parents are landlords of a medium apartment with a family of 4 living inside it. Is it hypocritical for me to be a Marxist-Leninist when my parents are landlords? especially considering what past revolutionaries have done to landlords (Mao). To clarify things, i do not agree with the concept of landlord-ism and how my parents (and me too from a broader view) are benefiting from someone else’s income while doing nothing except owning basic human needs

  • AmarkuntheGatherer@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    1 year ago

    Jesus fucking christ. It’s the “Am I allowed to participate in society?” all over again. No, it’s not some huge hypocricy to have an extra flat that you rent out, or to work a high salary job. It’s also not a crime to want some comforts and even luxuries.

    The landlords in pre-revolution China were essentially feudal lords, not people with a bit of extra wealth that still laboured for their living. There’s no point in looking down on people over what is little more than pittance for an actual capitalist today, those arseholes take trips to the bottom of the ocean for the money your parents accrued over their lifetime.

    I feel I would’ve been a lot softer if I hadn’t read the comments. I also struggled with this when I was younger. If you truly can’t fathom being petit bourgeois, just sell it when you inherit it, though be wary that the buyer may be another leech looking for investments. Otherwise I’d say it’s sufficient that you keep in mind that as a human being your interests lie with the preletariat. It might be even better if you used your money to support revolutionary activity.

  • Commissar of Antifa@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    1 year ago

    Castro’s family owned a plantation but he expropriated his own parents during the revolution to give their land to peasants. His sister went to Miami and joined the CIA.

  • aidnic@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    Che was born to an upper class family, so, no it’s not hypocritical for you to be in your situation being a Marxist Leninist.

  • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Is it hypocritical for me to be a Marxist-Leninist when my parents are landlords?

    Definitely not.

    First off, you have no choice on what your parents do, that’s outside of your control. But even after that, divesting yourself of your class voluntarily is what liberals love advocating for, but has very little actual impact. If you look at many prominent socialists throughout time, you’ll see that they had the time, resources and privilege to advance the cause in large part because of a good material condition. Neither Marx, Engels nor Lenin would have had so much time to dedicate to developing socialism if they were labourers or lumpenproletarians. All that is asked is that when the time comes, you’ll fight so that landlords cease to exist as a class, rather than resist change for some attachment to your privilege.

    My recommendation is instead for you to look into ways of making your “landlord-ism” the least exploitative you can. In the grand scheme of things, a single apartment of 4 is not gonna change society and still leaves you far away from the higher capitalist class, no matter what they tell you. And on the other hand, using that privilege to further the cause, educate yourself and fight the good fight can do a lot of good. You’ll probably have to figure out how to balance these ideas on your own, but beating yourself over it without a plan won’t do you any good.

  • bleepingblorp@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    You are not personally guilty for the sins of your parents. In fact, that you recognize your privileged status and wish to fix the contradiction is commendable.

  • nephs@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    1 year ago

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_traitor

    Additionally, Friedrich Engels, partner and lifelong friend of Karl Marx, the revolutionary socialist, was himself a son of a wealthy factory owner. Such people sacrifice their ability to be part of the capitalist upper-class for the sake of who they see as the oppressed, even if it hurts their status in the process.

    I think it’s less about your specific status than about the ideas and the people your stand with.

  • ButtigiegMineralMap@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    1 year ago

    I agree that others are saying you are not a hypocrite. YOU don’t control your parents’ means of earning income, you control the way that you make money, and depending on the work opportunity or laws in your area, sometimes that isn’t even the case.

  • 201dberg@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    My parents rent out an extended mobiles home on our property. My grandmother lived there and we took care of here for year and when she passed the property came back to us. If we just kept it as a second building our taxes would go up significantly. If we rented it out it wouldn’t cost us any additional taxes. I realized this is how they prevent you from forming communes by attacking you with additional taxes for sharing property instead of renting it out like a fucking landlord. They do it just to not have to deal with extra taxes. Charge super low rent for it.

    • sicaniv@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      One way of solving housing crisis in capitalist world is to monetize the f**k out of houses without caring for the perils of tenants to afford it. They can’t providing free/affordable housing without appropriately taxing the rich so they use this scheme that is appealing to liberals and makes rich richer leaving no one of significant importance to care if housing crisis still remains.

  • Nora@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I call them land parasites. The word lord pisses me off, and its more accurate to what they do.

    I would say you are an exception because usually people with enough wealth to own multiple properties aren’t the ones that care about the working people.

  • MochiGamer@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    No you’re not inherently hypocritical because while you may be the beneficiary of capitalist exploitation and landleeches, but that doesn’t mean you must do the same. Not unlike what Engles did, there are pro worker movements that you could put your efforts toward especially if you’re in a more comfortable and need to work relatively less… After all it’s hard to teach theory and spread awareness/organize labour power, if you’re always having to work for the meat on your plate. We’re not a movement of meritocracy/individuality, we need as many people to understand and teach the horrors of capitalism as well the way forward.

    That all said ensure you get your education and don’t waste this opportunity to ensure your own financial security (ideally with no reliance on labour value extraction). To become a capitalist is “bad” but there always will be capitalists so to be a capitalists that is pushing for revolution will be better than anti-revolutionaries exclusive holding the power. Additionally, many great members of the movement have benefited from or been themselves capitalists. Their self-awareness and efforts they made to write these wrongs is what set them apart.

    TLDR; Not inherently hypocritical. You’re benefiting from workers being squeezed, don’t let them be sucked dry just so you can lick the cheeto dust off your fingers or else yeah that’d be pretty sour. You sound like you’re already on the right track by even asking this question. Good luck comrade.

  • iriyan@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    I was browsing the boards up and down before reading this, and my first reaction was “haven’t you read who Engels was and what he did for a living?”, but others had the same response as well.

    The reason I was searching and browsing threads was to locate reading material about “private property” and the distinction of it being owenrship of means of production or property you couldn’t exploit anyone’s labor with.

    I am firm and clear about production means not being private, but what if someone creates/builds something for their own use. It can be a cabin,house, or it can be a raw boat, a violin, a bicycle… without any intention of renting them, using them to exploit others. What can be wrong with it? I am thinking more about the amount of resources needed, that they would have to become private to be used, so building a 6 story 1000 sq.m building “for yourself” is an overkill and abuse of resources, but even painting on a piece of canvas also needs privatization of “materials”. So there has to be a cut-off.

    But banning all private property makes no sense at all, it is nearly inhumane to enforce such policy.

    • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      We tend to make a distinction between “private property” and “personal property”. The communists aren’t coming for your toothbrush, just your factories! 😁

      • iriyan@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nice of you to say this, I am very attached to my toothbrush, and my guitar and bicycle. But where is this distincion made, do you know? To what extant do we see limits where personal ends and public property begins?

        For example, one can claim his land of 5 generations back is 24 hectares, but he is not using it for production, he takes care of it, uses a patch for growing personal/family food, the rest is for walks, riding a horse or a bike around, Is this personal? A 4 person family globally relates to about 3 hectares of land that can be culrivated, and maybe 6-7 more that is useless for agriculture. If one person has 10 times as much as personal, that would create a deficiency for available land to grow food for everyone else.

        With basic hand-tools one person can barely work a land that is half a hectare, no matter what grows in it. Most of us can barely deal with the work needed for 1/10 of a hectare 1000sq,.m

        The other extreme would be to have a 400sq.m house that you pretend is personal but at times you could exploit a traveler or a visitor to charge rent.

        • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Please keep in mind that I’m not one of the smart theory powerhouses here. I’ll do my best!

          I’ve always understood the difference to be between “things I’m using or can reasonably use” and “things used to create surplus (that can be sold off)”.

          For example, one can claim his land of 5 generations back is 24 hectares, but he is not using it for production, he takes care of it, uses a patch for growing personal/family food, the rest is for walks, riding a horse or a bike around, Is this personal?

          You might look into “the enclosure of the commons”. My understanding is that the idea of individually held land for individual recreational use pretty much arises with the advent of capitalism and private property. Your example includes inheritance (sounds incompatible with an equal and fair society) and someone who isn’t using the land. That sounds like private property to me, right? Why not take that from him and make it a park for everyone?

          The other extreme would be to have a 400sq.m house that you pretend is personal but at times you could exploit a traveler or a visitor to charge rent.

          This one seems pretty easy. It’s more than our subject can reasonably use, and is used to generate surplus. Def private property!

          If you need help clarifying, let me know! I can try to look up resources for us to learn together.

          • iriyan@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            You are absolutely right about inheritance, I was referring (in my mind) on the transition period between capitalism and private ownership to socialism and collective/communal property.

            The populist anti-communist propaganda has been built around this sensitive issue where “the evil communists will come and take the little property you have away”. This has to be clearer and understood better for the enemy not to have grounds to base their propaganda on.

            The recent development world wide has had public land (and water/sea) be rebranded state property, and under this state property label it is easier for the masses to digest that instead of raising taxes the state sells off “its assets” as state property. This is a violation of any constitution in robbing human rights from public land/sea and converting it to “real estate” owned by the state, which in turn flips it over to private interests for exploitation at gift like symbolic cost.

            So now we are left with all land and all sea be in a way private. They took desserts and converted them to solar panel lots for the industry, which may eventually fail and be converted to casino centers, who knows. They took hills and mountains and handed them over so windmills/generators can be installed, all private enterprise, the management, roads, water supplies, pylons to carry electricity were all placed in mountain areas, forest was wiped out, and the protection of this infrastructure is now enforced by private interests.

            The general left had nothing to say about all this, because simply the autism of public land and state property has not yet been theorized upon, and therefore neither have human rights and access to land and water been theorized upon. So it was all ok, because humans are slaves of either capital or the state.

            But the propaganda on taking someone’s hard earned and constructed cabin, a little lot with vegies fruit and flowers, is private property that will be banned in communism.

            This is ideology at the verge of bankruptcy and should either be re-examined or be sentenced to the slow death new-capitalism has sentenced it to.

            • diegeticscream[all]🔻@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The recent development world wide has had public land (and water/sea) be rebranded state property, and under this state property label it is easier for the masses to digest that instead of raising taxes the state sells off “its assets” as state property. This is a violation of any constitution in robbing human rights from public land/sea and converting it to “real estate” owned by the state, which in turn flips it over to private interests for exploitation at gift like symbolic cost.

              Aight, this might be the root of our difference then. I pretty much fully support the expropriation of land that existing socialist concerns have done. I specifically like how Cuba approached it, but every country’s different.

              Idk if I agree that states usually expropriate land to sell to private concerns. Maybe it happened in China’s special economic zones? Just because it has happened doesn’t mean it’s necessary for the future, though. That’s just what China’s development required.

              It looks like you might be talking about China’s energy development projects which I do support. China’s got a clear history of tightly managing private businesses, and taking them over when the time comes.

              I really don’t want to spend a long time writing back and forth about this if we’ve figured out where we differ. We can definitely leave it at this instead of having a big argument!

              • iriyan@lemmygrad.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Reducing public land, that is access by poor people to land, increases their dependency for food to markets. This nearly makes revolutionary tendencies become suicidal. You subject yourself to slavery or die starving.

                Are you now for the state that mandates people to starve than violate market stability?

                I admit I do not follow China’s development much, and I also understand not having time to engage too, so I agree to stop, but I had to bring this little detail into it for other readers to understand my perspective as well. Maybe others would be willing to continue this.