this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2025
113 points (96.7% liked)
Slop.
748 readers
571 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
does this "socialist" not know the difference between personal and private property?
Lol
China has over 90% home ownership
Proof of exploitative revisionism obviously
Cuba is 94 and Vietnam is 92.
that's only after Deng came to the rescue and destroyed socialism. under Mao everyone lived in a shoebox on a collective farm and one toothbrush was shared between 100 cadres
China has a fundamentally different property system from the United States. When you're buying into home ownership, you're buying into a global asset market where the Cosmopolitan bourgeoisie puts its money.
I'm sorry, but by comparing China's home ownership to America's, you're as incoherent as this cartoon Twitter guy. I don't think anybody else has mentioned the asset market either. I don't really think there's any framework here for a serious discussion.
None of this change the fact that someone's full-time residence is personal and not private property. People have the right to their homes.
People are only pointing this out in response to the user saying no one in any socialist state has ever been allowed to own a home. No one is directly comparing the systems of ownership in these states to America, just pointing out that ownership did and does exist.
You are making a direct comparison. I am challenging it. This is like if you all put your money into diamond toothbrushes that have microchips that are backed by the U.S. government. What the cartoon guy on Twitter is failing to elucidate is that yes, Americans like your parents do need to be decoupled from the global asset market. That is a form of expropriation, that doesn't mean make them homeless, and you're reading it uncharitably. It seems like you people have no idea where you even are. The Communist Manifesto has nothing to do with you.
I am not. I literally said I was not in the comment you are replying to. I am only saying that ownership exists/existed in socialist states (regardless that it wasn't identical to ownership in America, it was there), therefore the Twitter user is wrong on the facts.
What the cartoon guy on Twitter did is express themselves in an intentionally confrontational and engagement-baiting way instead of just constructively saying what they meant. The result is that if they did have a serious point, it was lost in the controversy because their original comment (in the OP) could easily be interpreted as "evict everyone who owns a house".
It was written on purpose to be read uncharitably. We are in a thread replying to a second screenshot where the user doubled down and said no one was allowed to own land in any socialist state, which is simply not true. In the very same comment as that screenshot, Alaskaball posted a screenshot of the constitution of the USSR affirming the right to ownership of one's dwelling as personal property. Whether the nature of that ownership was identical to the ownership a resident has of their home in America is irrelevant, the point is that the Twitter user's statement is factually incorrect.
This type of tone is a similar form of engagement-farming to what you see on Twitter. It's counterproductive to having a good conversation.
ugh, leave reddit behind dawg. this distracts the reader, reducing your comments impact.
Okay, feel free to ignore it then. I know some people who would love to hang out with you and talk about how Marx said the American Revolution was based.
youre welcome. i look forward to witnessing your maturity
Is talking like a pedophile to me supposed to prove something?
looks up wistfully
"one day"
Not beating the "talks like a pedophile" accusations by throwing the roleplay-speak into the pot. Do you have any substantive critiques or are you purely tone policing because you have nothing to add whatsoever? Which is, by the way, what I just directed back at you, tone policing, because you added absolutely nothing.
nothing? are you sure? i feel like this back-and-forth was pretty enlightening.
Yeah, I think it is pretty enlightening that Westerners reply with jokes and GIFs when the subject shifts from wage and rent stabilization to land reform. I guess you haven't really got the marks 'o capital all over your body like you once thought.
are you from a non Western country? color me surprised! i guess reddit-coded Internet speak makes everyone sound the same.
and this discussion addresses that problem. im telling you: you don't need this ridiculous bluster to communicate on the Internet.
despite what reddit et al taught us, it is the cheapest form of "toughness" since theres no repercussion for acting like a jerk.
i get that youre not gonna like, turn over a new leaf right now but think about it ok?
goodbye
I’m not seeing how that is less than a pedantic clarification about difference in property rights. The fact remains that in actually existing socialism, people aren’t made homeless (i.e. personal dwelling expropriated) in the name of socialism.
Pol Pot: "What, am I a joke to you?"
Well, if you're not interested in land reform in the United States, then how exactly are you going to deal with the homeless problem? Are you just going to mimic Christian charity? Are you going to bring them jars of peanut butter from your parents pantry?
This is reading a lot into my joke that the Khmer Rouge were a "socialist" movement that emptied the cities, making people homeless.
How was that pedantic? Do pedantic quibbles fundamentally change what a statement means? They're generally used to imply somebody meant something different than what the listener knew they met. A difference in historical context between your situation and the situation described in the Communist Manifesto is not a pedantic difference. Words mean things.
No time for English or manners lessons, I suppose. Where did cartoon Twitter guy say people have to become homeless? You just assumed that's what they meant because you don't understand there's a difference between housing in the United States and other Western countries that is backed by the global dollar system. It seems like a lot of people here are reinforcing each other's misinterpretations of basic things. The reason why you have homeless people in your country is because the property values of your parents' homes need to increase. Of course, this is more of a 10% than a 1% of the 1% critique, but I think we pay too much attention to latter and not enough to the former these days. You're talking about homeowners and comparing them to Laos. You absolutely cannot be serious. Are we going to compare American farmers to Vietnamese farmers next?
EDIT: It may amuse all of you to hear that cartoon Twitter guy is not happy with my replies either.
That is pretty funny, actually.
that and the fact that the majority of Soviet citizens had both an apartment and a dacha; the apartment provided by the state/union/workplace and the dacha being family property
It flashed in my head whenever the press stressed how Putin had a “dacha” but it was a palace!
…never elaborating that it stands out because dachas were extremely common among the citizenry that lived in the industrialized cities
Even in Cuba you are legally allowed to own a vacation home but they do put limits on how much real estate a single family can own.
What happened to Soviet and Cuban property law prior to workers en masse gaining the ability to buy a vacation home for their family? Do you think that the US land system can just be loosened up to allow poors into it? That goes contrary to its pricing through scarcity...
Practically speaking, the vast majority of Americans are housed already. They simply don't own those dwellings. It would be easy (and completely uncontroversial, at least among proletarians) to expropriate those dwellings and turn them over to their residents. Regarding unhoused people, it's a well-established fact that they are massively outnumbered by empty dwellings being held as speculative real-estate assets, which should also be expropriated. I don't really see what advantage there is in expropriating personal residences in use by their owners that would further the goal of American land reform.
Toothbrushes are private property because they COULD be used to start a tooth brushing business where you brush customers' teeth for a fee
ok, smart guy, what product is that house producing?
I heard some people make babies in those things
Poop, lots of it
Specifically naming "utensils" feels like they foresaw the
and toothbrush discourse
the soviets, famously never expropriated housing /s
nobody send them home ownership rates in china
Motherfucker never heard of Laos