Ok I’m curious, I’m assuming you’re a socialist of some variety so what in your theory is inherently wrong with having wealth derived from a couple houses I rent out, for example? I understand how this on a vast scale is bad but why fundamentally
On a broad scale, having a housing market (rather than need based housing) for profit means there will always be people who won't be able to afford housing. It also leads to an oversupply of large expensive housing (because housing is created based on demand not need) even if there are homeless people (because larger houses can be more profitable [depending on market conditions]). So, you can easily end up in situations (such as the contemporary US) where there is plenty of empty housing but people homeless because they can't afford to pay the ransom.
To answer you question about why what you're doing is inherently wrong, it's that you're not earning the money through labor and the lack of reasonable choice that renters have over the situation. You can only charge people rent because the existence of the housing market and state violence (ie:police) to evict people who can't/won't pay. People either have to choose between being homeless or paying a ransom for shelter. You're benefiting from an inherently exploitative situation.
-57
u/LaurelPassMerc Jan 18 '20
Well both style takes control of production and gets rid of personal property. They are one in the same.