(Source: slutties, via milkonmygriptape)

marxvx:

cteranodon:

marxvx:

legit capitalism is at its dumbest when you think about private ownership of land unrelated to commodity production. like, a landlord owning an apartment complex that he doesn’t even live in and gaining the ability to kick tenants out of apartments that he doesn’t even use. and in 300 years the only argument that has been offered in favor of this by liberal philosophers is “uh well they have a natural right to control land that other people use and live on”

*compulsory “I’m not a capitalist” intro*

personally, I don’t see what you mean here, unless you’re going for “people shouldn’t have to pay to have a roof over their heads,” which I agree with

but aside from that, shouldn’t a landlord be able to evict someone who’s damaging the quality of life for other current tenants, or otherwise damaging the apartment they live in (and thereby damaging the quality of life of future tenants)?

You’re avoiding the real issue here; this is a criticism of private property. The issues you’re bringing up aren’t inherent to the private ownership of land. Land should be owned by the people who use it. If we’re talking about an apartment building, then clearly there is a level of interdependence: what one tenant does will probably affect the lives of other tenants. This still doesn’t justify one person (or enterprise), who may or may not even live in the building, having total control over the price of the apartment, who can and cannot live in it, and whether you’re allowed to continue living there. The issues you bring up can be solved by tenants cooperatively governing their shared land. What I’m saying here is that there’s nothing that makes a landlord’s land theirs, beyond a legal title - and there’s no justification for that legal title in the first place seeing as the land is being used by other people.

You can also extend this argument to the workplace. If we’re talking about a Dunkin’ Donuts, there may be an owner who has the legal title to the building and the machines, but it’s the workers who are using the machines to produce goods. Yet somehow, because the owner of the Dunkin’ Donuts “owns” the machines and buys the labor of the workers, all of the wealth goes to him, although the wealth was produced entirely by the labor of workers. These workers, of course, receive a wage that is nowhere near the value of the goods they produce in a day. Like, a Dunkin’ Donuts worker easily creates over $200 worth of value (in coffee) per day, but even with years of tenure their daily wage probably wouldn’t exceed $80.

(via samanticshift)

parks and rec: a summary

  • everyone: andy no
  • april: andy yes

(Source: arzetweets, via maddecentlife)

labsinthe:

François Nars’ “Makeup Your Mind”

(via spacetrashqueen)

(via veela16)

(Source: ethiopienne, via stupiduglyfatcunt)

(Source: nevver, via milkonmygriptape)

drickimaraj:

popcrimes:


"The queen of rap, slayin’ with Queen Bey"

Nicki and Beyonce off to conquer Rome or something.

^^^

drickimaraj:

popcrimes:

"The queen of rap, slayin’ with Queen Bey"

Nicki and Beyonce off to conquer Rome or something.

^^^

(via theslyfeminist)

notquitephil:

invertedgender:

calling a man a “pig” is literally dehumanising how do some people not think there’s anything wrong with that how

Because chicks, fillies, birds and bitches never get dehumanised. Those vixens always get away with this kind of shit. Especially the heifers, they’re the worst. What cows.

(Source: toxicnebulae, via urkel--grue)