this post was submitted on 17 May 2026
446 points (97.4% liked)

Flippanarchy

2489 readers
1113 users here now

Flippant Anarchism. A lighter take on social criticism with the aim of agitation.

Post humorous takes on capitalism and the states which prop it up. Memes, shitposting, screenshots of humorous good takes, discussions making fun of some reactionary online, it all works.

This community is anarchist-flavored. Reactionary takes won't be tolerated.

Don't take yourselves too seriously. Serious posts go to !anarchism@lemmy.dbzer0.com

Rules


  1. If you post images with text, endeavour to provide the alt-text

  2. If the image is a crosspost from an OP, Provide the source.

  3. Absolutely no right-wing jokes. This includes "Anarcho"-Capitalist concepts.

  4. Absolutely no redfash jokes. This includes anything that props up the capitalist ruling classes pretending to be communists.

  5. No bigotry whatsoever. See instance rules.

  6. This is an anarchist comm. You don't have to be an anarchist to post, but you should at least understand what anarchism actually is. We're not here to educate you.

  7. No shaming people for being anti-electoralism. This should be obvious from the above point but apparently we need to make it obvious to the turbolibs who can't control themselves. You have the rest of lemmy to moralize.


Join the matrix room for some real-time discussion.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Juice@midwest.social 1 points 3 hours ago

And city governments help them to raise prices and maintain their cartel

[–] RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 34 points 1 day ago (2 children)

the builders are the ones who provide housing and collectively they make nowhere close to the amount the houses they make sell for

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago)

No matter how much builders make, if there is no limitation on the use of housing as speculative investment assets there will never be enough houses because speculative investors don't buy houses for people to live in, they buy houses to ride the price bubble and sell later for a profit.

Just look at what has been going on in London (UK) for more than a decade - certain buildings made for sale to investors are almost empty of residents even though all the units were bought: the buyers simply don't live there and don't even want to rent because they don't want the hassle of tenants or the loss in value from the apartment actually getting used (this is more so in the Luxury segment were there's probably more units than people living in London who can and are willing to pay luxury rents)

With speculative investment the Demand side of the housing market is not limited to "how many people need a house", it's limited by that PLUS "how much money do speculative investors have to invest in housing", so that's basically how much money all high net worth individuals combined are willing to put in it plus how much money can banks lend against real-estate as collateral, and in this new Era of High Inequality the first number is huge and given that banking nowadays operates on Fractional Reserve Banking rules (basically banks can create from thin air up to 97% of their loans) that second number is even more larger.

Investor demand pumped up by cheap finance on the Demand side of housing are driving the real-estate bubble way more than reduced construction is driving it on the Supply side.

[–] Xaphanos@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago

And that goes double for the actual carpenters, plumbers, and electricians that do the actual building.

[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

"more than it's worth" yeah the solution is pricing necessities for human survival FAIRLY....

[–] JillyB@beehaw.org 8 points 1 day ago

A friend of mine who has some money mentioned maybe getting a rental property at some point. I told him I think that's immoral and he didn't understand. He insisted that he would charge below market rate. By his logic, the market rate is like a neutral point for morality and below market rate is morally good. But if you charged above market rate and got a renter...that's just the market rate now. There's no way for him to be immoral by his standards.

I told him I thought that a fair rate was the cost of property management. Basically the cost of maintenance and the administration of the property. It's arguable that the cost of property insurance should be included since a lot of maintenance will be through your insurance. He of course mentioned that wouldn't even cover his mortgage. I told him I don't believe people poorer than you should be buying you an asset. Why don't you get them to contribute to your 401k while your at it.

[–] BigTuffAl@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

excellent use of the godzilla 2 cover, the game rules too

[–] vivalapivo@lemmy.today 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Well, actually our landlord has built the building and keeps rent tolerable

[–] Zombie@feddit.uk 23 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Your landlord is skilled in architecture, masonry, joinery, electrics, and plumbing?! Impressive!

Or, more likely, do you mean your landlord paid labour to build the building for them? Labour which will gain next to none of the value that their labour has produced.

[–] Prathas@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 hours ago

joinery

Interesting, TIL.

[–] its_kim_love@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] A404@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

Woah, isn't that a bit too harsh?

[–] vagrancyand@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

A popular myth about the Chinese revolution is that Mao's government ordered the execution of landlords. This is entirely incorrect. Mao actually insisted on nonviolence towards the ownership class that complied with the revolution so that systematic and non-violent justice could be done as a show to the world the new government weren't just violent peasants throwing a fit; but rather prove that peasants, when given power, would act more fairly than those that ruled before.

Despite this push from all official sources to NOT kill landlords, with assurances from Mao's government that renters would be free to make legal claims on the land they've historically rented and their landlords would be legally punished, the people, when given the opportunity, decided to kill their landlords en masse.

Some of these landlords, undoubtedly, were "fair" landlords. Some were undoubtedly "able to keep rent tolerable."

All of them were leeches on society, and society, when given the freedom to express their true feelings of reality, understand these leeches need to be physically removed from this plane of existence.

People generally do not have it in them to kill others. It's one of the few things people cannot generally just do. It requires someone to be pushed, punished, tortured, sometimes for years or for someone to pose that same immediate danger.

Landlords will always fall into one of those categories.

[–] Glytch@lemmy.world 2 points 20 hours ago
[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 0 points 16 hours ago (3 children)

Because being a landlord, even one creating affordable housing is probably the most evil thing you can do according to Lemmy.

I always get so frustrated at the lack of nuance. I loved being able to rent a house when I was in college. I had no desire to buy a house and renting was a great option. Also more affordable and better living conditions than on campus. Is it shitty when landlords suck and rent is too high? Yeah, but there are good landlords as well. Private equity and most property management companies are pure shit, though. Slumlords who own entire city blocks and don't maintain their properties are shit.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 hours ago

Nope fuck you, no renting, not even dorms (renting from the college is still renting), you must drop $150,000 on a townhouse while spending whatever college tuition is right now. What you can't afford it? Well fuck you for paying into the system perpetuating landlordism rentoid, should have lived in a tent on the street if you don't want to be judged by some terminally online twits!

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

You're just ignoring the nuance.

The nuance here is that you're charging more than what the shelter costs. You are profiting from it. Literally nobody is making you do that.

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

So landlords should provide their service for free then? Is that what you do? Where is your apartment complex where you invite people to stay for nothing, and just pay utilities? Can you share your listing with me so I can move into your complex? Living expenses are ridiculous right now, I could use some relief.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 4 hours ago (2 children)

No, landlords should not exist in my opinion. Public housing should be available with zero profit incentive.

Where is your apartment complex where you invite people to stay for nothing, and just pay utilities? Can you share your listing with me so I can move into your complex?

Housing co-ops exist, dude. This isn't some obscure, groundbreaking concept.

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 1 points 32 minutes ago

Also, housing co-ops aren't solutions to short-term housing. Renting is a good solution for that. However, since renting is intrinsically morally reprehensible no matter what, what's the solution to short-term or temporary housing solutions?

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I agree with you and I'm aware. So you live in a housing co-op then?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 hour ago (1 children)
[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 1 points 46 minutes ago* (last edited 45 minutes ago)

Why wish? Just do it. If you're renting, owning or renting to others, you're just perpetuating the system you're criticizing and have no moral high ground.

[–] too_high_for_this@lemmy.world 0 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago) (1 children)

You're smart, I like you. Can we be friends lol

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 3 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

no, you're just a land leech and glomming onto the first person who doesn't see you for what you are

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world -2 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

What's your living situation like? How many people are you providing free shelter for?

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

You aren't providing shit.

[–] WhoIsTheDrizzle@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

Can you provide the address to your housing solution so I can start saving money right away?