it's easy to talk shit like that but you don't know how hard it is to live without contributing anything to the world.
this post was submitted on 19 Feb 2026
1289 points (98.9% liked)
Lefty Memes
6765 readers
1126 users here now
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Serious posts, news, discussion and agitprop/stuff that's better fit for a poster than a meme go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low quality!
Rules
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme. Please post agitprop here)
0.5 [Provisional Rule] Use alt text or image descriptions to allow greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We require alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.
We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.
When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.
0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms
When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart
- ofc => OFC
- af = AF
- ok => OK
- lol => LOL
- bc => BC
- bs => BS
- iirc => IIRC
- cia => CIA
- nato => Nato (you don't spell it when talking, right?)
- usa => USA
- prc => PRC
- etc.
Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengists) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
(if you are reading the rules to apply for modding this community, mention "Mantic Minotaur" when answering question 2)
6. Don't irrationally idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
- Absolutely no posts or comments meant to relativize(/apologize for), advocate, promote or defend:
- Racism
- Sexism
- Queerphobia
- Ableism
- Classism
- Sexual assault
- Genocide/ethnic cleansing or (mass) deportations
- Fascism
- (National) chauvinism
- Orientalism
- Colonialism or Imperialism (and their neo- counterparts)
- Zionism
- Religious fundamentalism of any kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Had me in the first half...
He contributed capital! The hardest thing to do in this world!
Maybe the landlord should try living within their means. They should be buying fewer rotisserie chickens and instead get a piece of chicken, a piece of broccoli, a corn tortilla and one other thing.
They shouldn't be buying food st all, the should be investing in the stock market. The Dows not going to go up by itself.
A gun with a single bullet?
At least they finally moved on from the crippling avocado toast. What an indulgence, is no one doing the math to find out - how much did rents go up en masse, by all these indulgent landlords splurging on produce on bread?
Even warming it, some say toasting, for sheer enjoyment?
Landlords need to get real and live within their means. Surely there's a purpose-built WSJ article to reference here, gimme a minute...
I'd make sure to pay as late as possible every time after that
Yup. That check is sliding under the door at 1159 every month after that. With a video to prove timestamp and date in case he decides to get bitter.
A landlord who can't pay their own mortage shouldn't be able to own.
A landlord ~~who can't pay their own mortage~~ shouldn't be able to own.
FTFY
Capitalism and parasitic middlemen - name a more iconic duo.
I can't think of any better way to express the sheer absurdity of capitalism in a single meme than this.
This is more of a critique of private landlords than of capitalism. So it’s more of a Georgist than socialist argument.
Number of socialist revolutions that eliminated landlordism: several
Number of georgist revolutions that eliminated landlordism: none
Seems to me like this is more of a socialist argument
Georgism isn’t a about seizing land; it’s about socializing rent through taxation while keeping private use and markets intact.
Socialist revolutions “eliminated landlordism” by abolishing private land ownership, but often replaced it with state landlordism and political allocation which equally involves rent seeking behavior.
Georgism aims to eliminate unearned rent, not ownership, by making it unprofitable to hold land. The absence of “Georgist revolutions” isn’t evidence against the idea. It reflects that Georgism works through fiscal reform, not regime change. In both Soviet Union and China land was collectivized, which removed incentives for land use, agricultural output fell and a famine followed. Private landlordism was replaced with regulatory capture and misallocation. Now, China and many east Asian countries have switched to a land lease system, which is essentially a land value tax.
Where land value taxation has been used (e.g., in parts of Australia, Taiwan, Pennsylvania, Denmark, Estonia, South Africa, New Zealand), land appropriation fell without needing a regime change and with less potential for regulatory capture.
No place has fully adopted it though. It remains with very small tax rates. Scholars have argued this is because economists like John Bates Clark (foundational to the still dominant school of economics: the neoclassical school) was paid by landlord lobby to make “land, capital and labor” into “capital and labor”. Land was forgotten, and the legacy still lives on in academia. I studied spatial economics and never heard of Henry George.
replaced it with state landlordism and political allocation which equally involves rent seeking behavior
False. Housing in the Soviet Union was rented at maintenance cost prices, and on average costed 3% of the monthly income. This is not rent-seeking behaviour.
In both Soviet Union and China land was collectivized, which removed incentives for land use, agricultural output fell and a famine followed
Terrible analysis. The 1930-1933 Soviet famine was caused by economic and productive disadjusting due to the need for extremely fast industrialization, combined with drought and retaliation by landlords. After the initial drive for industrialization, agricultural output rose immensely due to usage of modern agricultural techniques and land reform, and hunger was actually eliminated. The big hunger episode in China was similarly not created by lack of incentive to cultivate the land, but by an ecological catastrophe caused by misguided anti-plague campaigns that eliminated a key part of the ecosystem in a time and society before ecological sciences were developed. Similarly, agricultural output rose rapidly after that and hunger was permanently eliminated. You can compare the exponential rises in life expectancy in the USSR and China after those episodes with similarly developed countries like Brazil or India respectively, and you'll find that this land reform and industrialization drive saved hundreds of millions of lives.
Scholars have argued this is because economists like John Bates Clark (foundational to the still dominant school of economics: the neoclassical school) was paid by landlord lobby to make “land, capital and labor” into “capital and labor”.
That's the biggest problem with Georgism. Policy is not something you can apply based on which one is ideologically better theoretically (which I don't even agree Georgism is), and Georgism, not doing any class analysis, doesn't provide answer to the most basic question: why would the landlords in power allow us to tax them? And if they don't, how do we force them?
Socialism having had mass movements and success in expropriating the land from landowners is not a coincidence: since Marx and Engels put forward scientific socialism and Lenin advanced the idea of the vanguard party and of revolutionary tactics, the only revolutions in the world have been socialist.
I’m not going to go deeper into the historical discussions here, I am not that much of an expert on those.
I also don’t find it very useful to discuss which “system” is superior. I think we need a mix of ideas from each. And that’s how all countries function anyways. I’m neither a Georgist, socialist or capitalist. I don’t think it’s helpful in deciding on an ideology and work from there. The only reason why I’m bringing forward Henry George’s ideas is because most people are not aware of them and how important they might be.
Socialism: We need unions, public investment in infrastructure and innovation, public ownership of natural monopolies, antitrust regulations, welfare state, workers rights.
Georgism: We need to fund these public investments and innovation, and welfare mostly from land value taxes. For many reasons; they are the most efficient taxes. They avoid the steady increase in inequality from land ownership as populations grow. They help us make better use of land. They help prevent housing bubbles. They incentivize investment in innovation instead of land. They fund public goods fairly via the benefit principle. They are justifiable in all fairness principles an natural law justice principles.
Capitalism: We need decentralized decision making and some freedoms of property rights to harness the potential individuals to come up with new ideas and to unleash their creativity. We need to use the power of competitive businesses to cover the needs of the citizens.
Edit: this is of course just my opinion. I’m not saying it as objective truth
And in general we need to make sure our rights are upheld by making sure elections cannot be bought.
We have countless authors with many ideas who each built on each other’s ideas. We should not fall into the trap of just relying on one author.
We don't need to fund anything with taxes, that's outdated classic economics. Modern monetary theory has proven otherwise. We don't need taxes to fund things, states can create unlimited amounts of currency, the whole "this is funded by taxes" is simply not true. Taxes work primarily for three purposes: removing money from the economy to prevent inflation, imposing obligations denominated in a certain currency to enforce usage of said currency, and discouraging certain behaviors.
If the whole point of taxing is not to pay for anything, and the whole reason is simply to disincentivize landlordism, georgism simply offers no advantages over collective land ownership and public decisions over land usage. Wanna build housing? Build it. Wanna build schools? Build them. Wanna have a park? Have it. The obsession with taxation is outdated once we've found out that taxes aren't paying for anything and we can have arbitrary amounts of currency created with the purpose of funding whatever projects we collectively decide. In this manner, Georgism is obsolete.
Do you think there are no consequences of creating more currency? Or do you think the consequences don’t matter?
Also the question of “wanna build housing?” seems to simplify the complexity of urban development. How much space should the housing have? How should it be designed? How much garden should it have? How many bedrooms? What about special needs like for handicapped? What about unique design preferences? All of these questions are fundamentally decentralized in nature. They exist in the preferences of the people. No one centralized unit can make sure most people get their preferences met. There are people who don’t care about their house but care a lot about community offerings and there are people who only care about their house. Should they get the same type of house? Where do people get allocated? Who chooses who gets to have what housing and where?
Do you think there are no consequences of creating more currency?
I didnt say "create unlimited money", I said "states have unlimited potential for expenditure in self-denominated currency, and so taxation is not a way of paying for things". Creating more public deficit has many consequences, both positive and negative depending on where and how this money is invested, but the response to this should be done by economic simulation, not by hard rules and guesswork as we do in most capitalist countries.
How much space should the housing have? How... [...] of these questions are fundamentally decentralized in nature
Yes. But first, most people in capitalism do not get the housing they we want where we want it with the services we want it etc, we get housing where we can find and afford it, so capitalism is clearly not a solution to those questions or to decentralization. Chaos is not sinonym with decentralized decision making. Second, socialism has the highest potential for decentralized economic and urban planning. It seems to me that you believe socialism is when the government does things autonomously, but socialism is actually based on grassroots movements and decisions, and cybernetic decentralized planning could easily, massively improve what we have now. Even the old and outdated soviet model is an improvement: everyone could afford housing, which is much more important than rich people having the power to decide how many square meters they get.
Where do people get allocated? Who chooses who gets to have what housing and where?
Any form of decision would be desirable to the current allocation method: chaos based on wealth. An example would be union-owned housing such as the USSR, in which workers got to enjoy housing generally in close proximity to their workplace. Another example would be region-based lotteries with preference for local workers and local inhabitants. Almost anything would be a more fair allocation method than "poor people get fucked over".
load more comments
(10 replies)
NGL, that's the situation for a ton of landlords that have a handful of rental properties.
When I got out of school and into my first apartment, the woman that owned the apartment building I lived in lost her other rental building because she'd been on razor thin margins with it.
Also, the guys that lived there had apparently damaged the hell out of it and she couldn't manage the repairs, so she had the bank take it back.
The family that owns the property that my husband and I have been living in actually own the buildings outright.. and we've been absolutely lucky in being able to stay in the same space for decades, which we love.
If you find landlords that are good people that don't jack the rent sky-high, take care of the space and be good to it.
Meanwhile the apt I've lived in for 5 years has changed ownership 3 times, each time rents raise.
load more comments
(2 replies)
They could, you know, actually do work for once?
Like improve society, instead of being a parasite?
load more comments
(17 replies)
My landlord was like this until she saw housing prices increasing. Decided to divorce her husband and take over the property we were living in. Because of the state we live in and that she had not signed a paper lease with us that year (and we did not bring it up for fear of rent increases), she kicked us out with 30 days notice, after never missing a payment for nearly 10 years. She did move in but now the place is rented out again.
We anded up buying a house by crushing all our savings and overbidding with inspection waived in a market full of house flippers and corporations at the highest prices of all time. We make high salaries and our housing costs tripled, just in time for Trump 2.0 so now all of our other costs are doubled. We are house poor and living like we used to when we had a shitty apartment right after my wife graduated college, when we made less than a third what we do now.
All the progress just to be backstabbed by a landlord. No, I don’t trust them, I don’t trust any of them. Mao was right.
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(13 replies)
The population of ethical landlords needs to be massively expanded.
And by ethical, I mean former.
I've only had one decent landlord, ever. He was so decent in fact, that he stopped being a landlord, because he inherited it, but came to realize it was unethical.
I was having this conversation with a co-worker recently. He was buying a second home with the intention of renting it to his brother "at cost." Which is to say, his brother is paying the mortgage while he gets the equity. When I pointed out how fucked up that was, he agreed and bought the house anyway.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I've had one decent landlord, too. one was just okay, but on principle I disagree with him because he owned like 20 properties and was a realtor. the other four just sucked.
but the decent landlord, holy shit were they ever good. cheap af rent on a long since paid off shitty little house for student housing. actually mowed the lawn. renovated the kitchen one year, like, actually well. not fancy, just well done. pretty sure it was just his last house that they upsized from, so no large portfolio or anything. I'm okay with that.
Don't you have a different word for landlord?
That word sounds crazy.
In Germany, we call that person "Vermieter", which is closer to "the person who offers you to rent".
I love the word "landlord", it shows, without shame, exactly what that scum is, lords of the land.
But you're right, I prefer landleech.
In German, the word prostitute is worded slightly differently from other languages I know, as "someone who is being prostituted". A passive word, similar to "enslaved person" instead of "slave". They are victims of circumstance and exploitation.
We should use a similar words for victims of rent
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
Don’t pay rent and let him sue. It takes at least 6 months to the court, but he will be bankrupt way before then :3
If he wants housing to be an investment, he has to take the risk too.
Edit: then offer to buy the house at auction price with the down payment you saved from the rent!
Keep in mind having the eviction on your record will make it significantly harder to rent another place in the future
load more comments
(4 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›