You do what you want, it’s your cabin

I prefer to only read the top line of a meme then post. And no that’s not a Lemmy user, that’s squidward

I don’t think there is any data to back that up.

1st year econ says something supply demand curve something something price. But that’s not true in practice

3. And you may own one cabin but it must be used by you and cannot be rented out

Probably important to point this out: private property is not personal property.

E.g. An apartment building rented to tenants is the landlords private property. They have exclusive rights to the decisions, especially economic ones, regarding the building and the profits of the rent.

A car, book, house, pizza, are all your personal property so long as you don’t owe a lender anything for them.

So no private property might look like:

The people who live in an apartment building own the building collectively and have the full right therein, but the individual units are each their own personal property.

I mean, he knows loads about manipulating people and being rich. Does he bring value to society?

No.

Which parts exactly?

I mean, a good chunk of things are things I don’t like because they are fascist. For example: ethno states intent on committing genocide. Or attempts to conflate disdain for a state and its settler colonialism, as disdain for an entire people, which I suppose is fascist in and of itself.

Or are you saying that you have such a refined pallet for preferences that you like everything except things that are fascist?

This is disingenuous: the fundamental principle of socialism and Communism is democracy. And, credit where credit is due, capitalism forced us to socialize the production of goods and services (it now takes many people to “produce” anything). Currently, there is no discussion about who gets the profit of socialized labour, it goes to the people who own the workplace, which are rarely the workers.

So, to make your example realistic, you and this other person are part of a community that grows apples (pick any rural community). Together, you all own the fields.

How do you decide what each person gets? You come to a consensus. There are so many variables; is the other person injured?young?sick?old? Or really bad at picking apples? Maybe you are on some apple picking super serum. How do you decide who gets what? The same way people usually do; you decide together.

In your example, having a blanket rule as you suggest would never work, and would be unfair, but it is what happens now in our advanced capitalistic economies. If you pick 1000 apples for a company, how many do you keep? Or more realistically; once the apples are sold, how much of the.profits go to you? You have no choice. You work, get paid, and go home. You work harder and you end up with just about the same amount at the end. The only saving grace is if you work hard enough, one day you might be promoted by the generous owner to a position where you are no longer the poor schmuck who does all the work. But that poor schmuck will always still exist, it’s just no longer you.

…I need to write less lol

How much supply is needed to bring the price down then?

While I agree that in general there is a problem with zoning laws making it all but illegal to build anything other than single family homes, markets work in such a way that the price is based on what people are “willing” to pay. Where a home is a fundamental necessity, this is already problematic. Nevermind the huge increase in access to money (the advent of mortgages and all of the policy surrounding them) driving up the demand side of the equation.

So when the options are: Homelessness (kind of illegal) Renting (very expensive) Buying (even more expensive)

Foregoing any participation in the housing market isn’t really an option.

As a side note: the simple supply/demand model is from econ 101, and I really think it’s unwise to make decisions based on first year university textbooks.

I am genuinely curious, I couldn’t find what Communism did to Finland. There was the civil war between socialist and non- socialists, but this can’t be blamed on one ideology over the other, the Soviets invaded southern Finland to “liberate” the “reds” in the south, but this also isn’t able to be blamed on Communism, as it was the Soviets. And then Finland sided with the axis powers and attacked the Soviets, including the siege of Leningrad leading to mass suffering and starvation of “communists”.

I do not come from Finland so it’s hard for me to know much about the history outside of what I can read. I just pulled most of these facts from Wikipedia (a liberal western source), so if you are willing I would appreciate some insight.

True, the south manages to have a rising GDP and the world’s worst rates of suicide, and some of the longest working hours of anywhere, while being held hostage by that same crime family. That is the difference you can expect while you kiss the boot of the empire responsible for segregating your country and preventing any attempts of reunification.

Though to be fair, DPRK is the way it is at least in part thanks to the Americans obliterating their cities and farm land. But we can ignore history to make a “I used to be in a communist country and it’s bad, trust me bro” statement.

And I agree, I prefer to live in a system where prisoners aren’t primarily minorities or political prisoners. And where the prison system isn’t the most populated in the world, and rife with for-profit forced labour.

I would also be curious to hear which definition of “capitalism” and “Communism” you are using. That is, if you are open to dialogue.

Because capitalism was the first time money existed lol

That would require reading Marx lol. These hot takes usually come from reactionaries mimicking what they hear from other reactionaries/charlatans/media towing the stateline. Marx was wrong about some things of course, like the revolutions to a democratically worker owned economy would come from the industrialized centres. But knowing about the ideas which are critical of our current economic system is dangerous to a few, and freeing to the majority.