I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.

I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.

I pick on all of Capitalism, I'm a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and "fairness" will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.

Yes and renting of houses pretty uniformly exists under all market conditions I.e. even when supply and demand “cover each other”. So by your definition there must still be some value since it has a place in the market.

The value offered is a service, just like a hotel room. What is an alternative to renting that could enable someone to have a place to live without having the capital to buy property?

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.

The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.

This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.

The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.

I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.

All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

There are a few errors, here.

This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.

This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.

There are a number of errors here.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.
"Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.
Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.

All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.

Judging systems by their internal static snapshots and not by how they fit within the broader system and their trajectories is the peak of Idealism. The Nordic Countries, which you are referencing, enjoy high safety nets because they are Imperialist and drastically exploit the Global South, they are not affording these off their own backs. Additionally, they are seeing sliding worker protections and decreased unionization rates due to being Capitalist, and Capitalists slowly clawing back more profits via eroding the safety nets.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

This isn't true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

Sure, but this supports my original point, this is because they dropped the price below market value implying that there is a value to begin with. We already established we’re using different definitions of value so it probably not worth arguing past each other.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

"Full Communism" has no such requirement for everyone to be "aligned in ideals and goals with government," whatever that means.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that "fact" right out of your ass.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

Red Vienna's housing policies remain.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

Again, you have no analysis of trajectories, nor how they fit in the grand scheme of things. You ignored my entire section on that, actually.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

Again, analyze trajectories and context. Socialist countries have done the most to uplift their population, far moreso than Capitalist countries. Capitalist countries in the Global North rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to even exist in the first place. If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?

I’m not claiming that capitalism is perfect or objectively good, all economic theories are idealized and I don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that actually works.

The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions and bad actors. Capitalism clearly needs some form of regulation without runaway effects, but I think I would prefer to live in a free market at least to some degree. I personally cannot afford to be a landlord, but I also don’t think that it’s unfair for them to exist.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago (1 children)

All of that is vibes-based, I'm asking you to do any analysis. If you don't want to, that's fine, but then just say that outright.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You asked me what my opinion was and I gave it. If it’s not up to the rigor that you expect from a meme thread on Lemmy then my bad.

And fwiw idealized economic theory is mostly vibes based anyway. The only way to truly scrutinize the theory is to test it in the real world, and most countries have converged on something that borrows from both capitalism and communism. Probably some mixture of these two extremes is where we net out.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

And fwiw idealized economic theory is mostly vibes based anyway. The only way to truly scrutinize the theory is to test it in the real world, and most countries have converged on something that borrows from both capitalism and communism. Probably some mixture of these two extremes is where we net out.

Again, looking at snapshots without analyzing their trajectories or contexts is the peak of idealism. This is vibes-based, and is why you need to read theory if you are going to make claims. Capitalist countries are not a "mixture of the two extremes."

[–] void_star@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Capitalist countries are not a "mixture of the two extremes."

Yes they are, the US and most European countries have free markets, but they also have social welfare programs.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Social welfare programs are not Socialism. This is why I am trying to convince you to familiarize yourself with the concepts people are discussing before asserting your opinion on said subject, unless you are just trying to learn.

[–] void_star@lemmy.world 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Ok c’mon you’re just being pedantic now. Social welfare programs are definitely inspired/borrowed ideas from socialism and communism. Social security is literally a form of comunal wealth.

I’ll freely admit I’m not an expert in economic theory, but I am entitled to my opinion and to have discussions about it. I don’t have a PhD in the field, next time I’ll be more careful on c/memes.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 months ago

Ok c’mon you’re just being pedantic now. Social welfare programs are definitely inspired/borrowed ideas from socialism and communism. Social security is literally a form of comunal wealth.

Social Welfare Programs are concessions made when there is risk of revolt. They themselves do not make a system more or less Socialist, what determines if a system is Socialist is who is in power, the Proletariat, or the Bourgeoisie, and where it is trending.

I’ll freely admit I’m not an expert in economic theory, but I am entitled to my opinion and to have discussions about it. I don’t have a PhD in the field, next time I’ll be more careful on c/memes.

You're entitled to your opinion, yes. However, if you haven't done any investigation into a subject, why do you feel the need to speak on it? You don't need a PhD, but doing some research into a topic makes conversation constructive.

What I disagree with is when you insist strongly on something in the face of contradictory evidence or analysis, without providing ample evidence in return. That's why Communists have a saying, "no investigation, no right to speak."

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn't when everyone gets paid the same thing.

I thought communism was when property and wealth are communally owned. The extreme of this is that higher value labor doesn’t get proportionally rewarded at an individual level. In other words, it tends to favor equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 months ago

You're correct in that it's about communal ownership of property, yes, but the idea that labor isn't rewarded proportionally is false. Higher skill or more intense labor creates more Value with respect to that which is required to create it. In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx explains what would likely happen as the means of production are sufficiently advanced:

But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly – only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

-Karl Marx

[–] void_star@lemmy.world -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

I pick on all of Capitalism, I'm a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and "fairness" will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.

Isn’t this an argument that could be applied against communism though? Communism is government regulation to enforce fairness, if it can’t fix capitalism, why would it work in a communist economy?

[–] GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Your comment reminded me of a quote about the Bolsheviks and the idea of communist "equality"

long quote

The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.

All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.

Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 months ago

Fantastic quote, great reference.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 months ago

That's not what Communism is. Communism is the process of working through contradictions (ie the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie) through Historical Development. Socialism is established via Proletarian control of Capital, rather than Bourgeois, not just regulation or "fairness."