• J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
    11·
    1 year ago

    Not a market fundamentalist. Common ownership applies to housing (land) and water.

    Capital rental benefits workers. Renting is buying the services of a thing for a period rather than buying the whole thing. Sometimes workers will prefer to buy only the services for a period thus paying less. In value terms, there is no difference between renting and owning because
    capital’s price = future rentals’ discounted present value

    Such transactions would be with worker coops on both ends

    • StrayCatFrump@slrpnk.netEnglish
      22·
      1 year ago

      Capital rental benefits workers.

      Wrong. Capital rental benefits the capitalist (e.g. the landlord).

      Renting is buying…

      Wrong. Weird, dumb misunderstanding that you are really irrationally obsessed with right now, and already explained. Rent is an exploitative property relation, that leaves the owner with ultimate power. If the dictator doesn’t like you for any reason including that you don’t follow his every edict (easily the equivalent of that “employment contract” you’re so worried about), he terminates (e.g. evicts you). And I’m not sure why you keep putting @anarchism at the end of your comments, because you aren’t advocating for it. You’re just advocating for a property-based hierarchy with a different flavor.

      Okay. Done with this exchange, and won’t be replying further. Take care.

      • J Lou@mastodon.socialOP
        11·
        1 year ago

        You haven’t been listening to what I have been saying. I am explicitly excluding land. We both agree that land should be commonly owned. With capital (as in equipment and machinery), if the party you’re renting from has a condition you don’t like for use of their capital, you can compel a sale at their self-assessed price in the scheme I mentioned. This eliminates the monopoly power associated with capital ownership. Thus, it confers no hierarchical authority to the owner