Left-bourgeoisie feels

lend me a fiver, mate

there is apparently an outside possibility that i could inhereit some properties from family, which is something i've never put much thought into ideologically. (since landlords are in many ways people i would regard worse than the traditional image of a business-porky, since at least porky notionally organises production whereas landlords just sit on a constrained housing market.)

even if possible to play the good landlord and price severely below market value it's still quite disturbing. on the other hand the idea of working in a country with a labour market surplus is also disturbing.

i suppose it does expose some trickery in that thinking of paying inheritance tax gets a bit nightmarish even though i'd consider myself a strong advocate of it. (to be fair i can't see why they couldn't just structure it in such a way that the government is ensured payment in the long term while i retain the property now, instead of being told "well, you need to pay us X tax by Y, so sell a house.")

i mean, what is the right thing to do anyway? if i was to just dump it, someone else would just take up the property and exploit people. is it just to rent well below market value once my own survival is assured, or throw some of the money at leftist groups, or what?

i have to admit that i have a feeling that thinking about it might jinx it and i'll get karmic punishment for even considering that such random fortune* could befall me.
*upper middle class at best, we're talking individual family level things, not some entire big investment business.

You could sell your properties to your tenants and make it a housing co-op. Democracy at Work consults with property and business owners who wish to do just that. Here's their website: democracyatwork.info/

Well, I was a leftist first. I'm not quite a capitalist on my own yet, and my becoming one is still contingent on making the right moves and putting up with some unsavory people. I can certainly see where Zizek was coming from when he said the capitalist is not some naked hedonist as the popular culture suggests, but rather one who subordinates his own human drives and desires to the accumulation and machinations of capital. I mean, I really only want to get into research as a career, but it's becoming more and more of a "labor of love" (re: shittier and shittier objective conditions) every day regardless of my choices. The bump in personal security and quality of life as a terminal postdoc earning under minimum wage, and the concentration of power into leftist hands, should make it worthwhile.

Anyway, I read Rius' Marx for Beginners in middle school, and I think that had the biggest effect of anything on me, especially in today's swirling torrent of basic misinformation. I read a lot of WSWS in those days and made a lot of connections/extensions I thought were obvious from the basic premises, then stumbled on those same concepts being developed at length in the actual theoretical works and it felt like I was reading my own writing. But I really don't think I was "theoretically mature" until I was 19 or 20 and had spent about a year on Holla Forums. The kind of community we have, the theory recommendations, the discussions/debates, and the accountability/hobbyist aesthetic ("you both have to and can invest some effort in order to be part of a fascinating area of knowledge and human endeavor") are pretty great.
Maybe a profound sense of social alienation had something to do with it as well, as I couldn't possibly believe that "everything will be ok," or that everything liberal ideology promises of life can be secured, through owning and accumulating MoP. I suppose my own notion of rational self-interest revolves around seeking safety and security in capital, seeing it as something of a safe harbor from which you can then launch into the real activities involved in being the person you want to be, rather than an end in itself. With the productive forces developed as they are, there's no real reason this security can't be held in common by workers themselves (or the people, once work is obsolete) other than structural inertia and the immediate need to "defend" one's capital against workers and other capitalists. The primary distinction I see between one million and a hundred million in assets is the size of the cushion and the amount of force you can project towards staying out of the proletariat and out from under the mercy and caprices of other people. This view isn't as rare as you might think among those I've talked to - the much lauded "entrepreneur work ethic" is essentially about participatory responsibility, self-reliance and self-sufficiency - or rather, about personal security. Yeah, quite a few porkies seem to see it all as a thrilling game made all the more exciting by playing with real peoples' lives as chips (think Kevin O'Leary types,) and the real conditions of capitalism are definitely such that people with these temperaments are more inclined or more likely to succeed, but I don't think the outcome of "the real movement abolishing the present state of things" is necessarily worse for every capitalist than how things are today.

People on this board who excuse you deserve guillotine too.

Drink bleach, OP.

Every wealthy person needs to be eliminated.

the wealthy only die if they're annoying, the owners of the means of production are universally going in the woodchipper even if they're terrible at their jobs and have no cash.

No, they all should die. Those who own the means and their rich lackeys. They aren't going to give up their lavish lifestyles and it is good for morale of the revolutionary proletariat to take down their wealthy neighbours.
You should go too if you harbour sentiment for them.

i mean, i'm a very case-by-case sort of man. smashing cogs in a machine is only fun when the cogs have caught your hand in the past.

Oh fuck off with the petty moralizing. Individuals pursuing their rational self-interest are not the enemy, only the system is. Saying the bourgeoisie all deserve to die is to say that rational people born in a certain position deserve to die.

I dunno. That kind of personalizes the contradictions of a fiercely impersonal system, doesn't it? It wouldn't make sense to place a moral imperative on the individual capitalist to give up his MoP within a capitalist world, since capitalism as a whole steams ahead the same as always regardless of his individual choices. It's like the tragedy of the commons - even when everyone recognizes it's in their common interest to prevent over-grazing, an individual decision alone can neither cause nor prevent it because it does not impact others' balance of incentives or their decisions. The task is to reach and impose a collective decision that benefits all who use the commons.

it's not in their rational self interest to give up the means of production without a fight, by necessity some will have to die.
stop trying to keep your hands clean, to destroy a system sometimes a few men have to go down with it. "don't shoot the wehrmacht, our enemy is the nazi government!"

If you use your capital to start a co-op you could directly benefit the working class. I would think this would be more fulfilling than donating.

...

rational self interest is a meme and you just know some of them would take 'better dead than red' literally and go down fighting. (whether or not that suicidal action constitutes self interest is probably an interesting topic for discussion in itself, since the capital-parasite might well have bored deep enough into their minds as to make them identify with it to such a degree that, if it was lost, the self would be lost anyway…)

There's a difference between realizing people who get in the way will have to die and believing that certain individuals deserve to die for their role in the machine.

...

No they deserve to die and so do you classcuck.

Here's the Zizek quote you mentioned, and I completely agree with it. Don't feel bad about being bourgie man

Ignore idiots like

you're not a leftist, you're just a fucking idiot

Engels we need you to save us, please try to monopolise the AI/Automation industry and backstab all the other porkies when the time is ripe

This depends on the laws in your country of course, but usually you're allowed to pay the taxes out of pocket, so as to keep ownership of any property in the inheritance. If you approach a bank you could probably get them to loan the money placing the property as a safety, and then pay back the loan using the capital income.

good post

This is obviously true, but there's no reason to defend that shitposting idiot with their orcs vs. humans rhetoric when that's obviously not what they're talking about.