this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1445 points (98.2% liked)
pics
24447 readers
828 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
why would anarchism be a solution to this, surely it would make it worse?
Since no one is answering seriously, I will try. There is a distinct difference in anarchist philosophy between property and possession which I will try to explain with housing.
Property is something that is used to oppress people. Which is why anarchist philosophy aims to abolish all property. In this case, housing that is being used for Airbnbs takes a house from someone that could use it to create a home for themselves and their family and instead uses that land and building to make a profit .
Possession on the other hand would be someone using that land and building to make a home for themselves and their family, not to make a profit but to survive and exist.
Owning one home for yourself is not a property but a possession but owning multiple homes that you use to make a profit is property. So the anarchist solution to this is to give that Airbnb to someone who could make it into a permanent home, not a short term rental.
This reminds me of the campsite rule but applied globally: “Leave the world a better place than you found it.”
If your ethos is to own and manage as many housing units as possible, you're not going to improve them since, paradoxically, leaving the world a better place doesn't help grow your enterprise. On the other hand, if every housing unit is managed exclusively and only by a single local person who doesn't split their attention, then that person has a personal incentive to improve their home since they suffer the direct consequences of neglecting their possessions.
Absolutely! And by improving your own home, you are directly improving the community and environment for those around you while others do the same for you.
And the corporations have spent so much time and money fighting the idea that now anarchists are now associated with terrorists amongst boomers at least.
To be fair, that's not just due to corporations but also due to the mismatch in meaning between anarchist as a political movement and anarchist as a word from the dictionary. The movement covers only a small portion of what the word covers. Communicating more clearly as a movement can avoid the confusion
You mean anarchism vs anarchy.
Same difference in day to day use.
The important discussion is often lost due to confusing semantics. Extend it to languages other than English and some don't even have two separate words. Even in English this problem arises with anarchist (person part of the movement or person who does whatever the fuck they want).
There, FTFY.
If property doesn't exist, you can't go on vacation though.
When you leave your house, someone else can just come in and take it for himself.
You couldn't even go for a walk. The moment you leave the house you stop "possessing" it.
We're getting dangerously close to "under Communism, you will share a toothbrush"
We'll. Since I'm uneducated, you could try explaining why I'm wrong instead of making fun of me.
It is absolutely possible to go on vacation without oppressing or exploiting others. It happens all the time. You can avoid Airbnbs and stay in a hotel, camp, sleep in a car, or just stay home.
I really don't understand how you came to the conclusion that you cease possession of something the moment you end physical contact with it. You're gonna have to walk me through that one if you want to actually argue that point.
If there's no state to protect your possession, you are the one responsible for protecting it. The moment you lose physical contact, you cannot protect it. Unless you put traps all over your house to deter an invader.
I don't see how in a stateless society you could go on vacation without the fear of your home being "stolen" when you return.
That's where community and mutual aid come in. You have neighbors who also would like to not lose their homes either so they would protect yours like you would protect theirs. The importance and strength of community rises as the power of the state diminishes.
That sounds like such a stressful life. Having to constantly police not only your property but your neighbours property.
And that just won't work when the aggressor is mightier than your local community, which doesn't sound hard at all. Or if your neighborhood is more friendly towards your aggressor than towards you. Which would also end up in constant drama.
I don't like your solution at all.
Do you even know what anarchism is like at all?
Pasting the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article here:
Your username is a bit of a contradictio in terminis, if I may say so.
Zero government. No rules. Take it with force. Of course we're aware of what y'all think. You're the libertarians of the left.
Nope, try again.
No kings, no masters. Mutual aid and harmony without authoritarian leadership.
Kropotkin can explain it better than I can, maybe pick up his book called Mutual Aid.
Cute. Who protects the property? Mutual Aid sounds nice on paper. The truth of human nature is that the strong will take anything you work to build.
That is objectively wrong according to most historians and anthropologists. It is propaganda written by those in power to justify their abuse of power. What you are describing is generally seen as sociopathic and antisocial behavior. And this may come as a shock to you, but most people are not sociopaths.
The people with the most power and force are sociopathic though. So we can all be as empathetic as is reasonable, but a relatively small group of well armed people will take everything.
Anarchy and Libertarianism are the wishful thinking of the left and right. People may on average be good, but large enough groups never are.
The whole point of mutual aid is to prevent that though. It organizes people together to stop a small group of people from taking everything.
The hard part is getting everyone to participate in mutual aid when we live in a dog eat dog world that was built by the small group of well armed people.
We do. Unlike people like you, anarchists are responsible people in society.
yeah, we don't want the strong taking everything you build. Just bend over and let the rich do it instead, because that's better for some reason
Tell me you know nothing of anarchy without saying you know nothing.
I believe they specifically asked about anarchy? If they know little about it, what could they have posted that would have been better than what they did post?
They're open to a lucky 10,000 moment; don't drop the ball!
Make a place undesirable to rent an Abnb in and people may stop renting.
They could live in a home, for staters. Squatting is the crime of living in somebody else's legal property, but under anarchy, an unused home is being put to use, arguably to do what is was designed for. We don't necessarily need total anarchy to push the idea that "sometimes the rules are worse than no rules at all".
I fucking hate 2010 venture capital companies like AirBnb and Uber. Flaunt the law in a sexy way, loss lead with the capital to build market share, then crank the price up.
It’s always bullshit behind a convenient app with great UI
Man, if only there were some organisation that were powerful enough to enforce these rules against people who don't want to follow them.
Aren't taxes and zoning non-existent under anarchy?
If there is no state, there is no one to pay taxes to. And if there is no state, there is no one to make and enforce zoning laws.
Pardon the confusion. This is Lemmy, anarchism is a utopistic solution where everyone sings kumbaya and gets along, not an apocalyptic hellscape where the people with the most guns amass all power. Fortunately, there has never been a societal experiment to determine what anarchy really is, so no one has to be proven wrong.
ah, makes sense. thanks
not an apocalyptic hellscape where the people with the most guns amass all powerHahaha yeah that's totally not what capitalism is at all, right guys? ...right?
Right, but they didn't talk about capitalism.
Google "cnt-fai"