this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2025
1460 points (98.2% liked)
pics
24487 readers
621 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
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.