As usual our fake Maoists and government are trying to corrupt Marxism and Maoism--this time on the question of "rent." The followers of Wang Ming dogmatically copy China as if they were peasants paying "rent."
Marx explained "rent" from land apart from capital goods. Though raising the topic many times, the stupid Wang Ming followers and federal agents never point out what "rent" actually is according to Marx.
Rent stems from a quality of land that cannot be put into a capital good by the efforts of the workers. A bourgeois economist is more likely to explain this than our vulgar Wang Ming followers and federal agents. The factory is a typical means of production and factories can be built by workers and then used up.
The question one needs to ask is why Marx treated land separately from other means of production. The reason is that other means of production can be produced by workers. Marx argued--following others before him--that land-owners claim a share of surplus-value under capitalism, and not just in proportion to the labor that goes into it.
In contrast, our people accustomed to copying Trotsky without understanding anything, just as Wang Ming did in Mao's day, they think they are some kind of peasants being exploited on land owned by land-owners. It goes to show just how little seriousness they put into the study of political economy and class struggle.
The house that imperialist country parasites live in is NOT an example of the "rent" Marx talked about. That is just the wrong definition of "rent."
Houses are produced by workers and they can be 1 story high or 50 and it would not affect the "rent" so paid by the tenants per apartment. It's basically up to what the housing capitalists want to build and what the unions and local governments will allow. In contrast, land is much more limited and cannot expand infinitely through a business decision of capitalists.
If our white trash fantasizing itself as Chinese peasants had studied the question, they would know MIM handled it in its essays on the class structure of imperialism. There is a much better case for saying that imperialist country so-called workers receive "rent" as Marx meant it than someone who leases out houses, especially those who lease houses in the Third World.
First of all, in large territories like the united $tates and Australia, the petty-bourgeoisie already killed off or imprisoned the original inhabitants to take the land (not the houses). Thus, collectively, they benefit from the "rent" as explained by Marx that would have gone to the aborigines had they lived and capitalism continued. But of course, the exact same RCP=CIA critics who are criticizing MIM for raising the issue of "settlers," leave out the "rent" question then, but bring it back when it suits white nation parasites! They are the representatives of genocidal politics smuggling their way into Maoism and they are completely out of line with Marxism.
Second of all, the imperialist country workers limit the production of workers themselves by taking drastic action to close the borders--a la Minutemen. Some would argue that that also constitutes a "rent" situation that explains the high pay of white so-called workers.
Finally, by backing wars on the Third World, the imperialist country so-called workers make it impossible for Third World people to create their own substitute technologies in which the imperialists and their allies claim "intellectual property." Some would argue that also could be a "rent" situation, if we understood what "rent" was in the first place according to Marx and even some economists following him.
But no, Marxism is bastardized by those who want to fantasize that they are exploited. They are backed by house-owners who want to claim that competitors leasing out space are extortionate, a la Ralph Nader.
Land is a special kind of problem. The question of land rent dominating an economy is one of the most serious matters there is today. On our have a cow scale a land rent dominated economy is almost a 5 cows out of 5 cows situation. So don't just have a cow over feudalism, have five. We know the people will be suffering intensively just from the domination of the economic logic of land rent. The only possible worse thing is an invasion by a foreign occupier.
Some problems cannot be solved by intelligence or application of money. Land is one of those. An overall political revolution has proved to be able to resolve the land rent problem.
The capitalist housing situation is not at all the same thing. It does not depend on quality of land. In fact, housing can be built on some of the worst land. When purchased by investors, housing is more like a capital good situation connected to industry and industrial capitalism--a productive sector activity at first but parasitic activity just like any other as time goes on under imperialism. If we lived under socialism, money would go not to profits, rent or oppressor nation bloat generally but toward building more and more houses till the global housing shortage was over.
For capitalists, feudalism and agrarian-dominated economies are a problem too, but maybe only a two out of five cows problem. Capitalists find themselves allying with feudal classes all the time, just as political partners of convenience. A good example is in the Philippines where landed elites continue a murderous political atmosphere against the people, partly out of the inherent logic of their economy. In contrast, the apartment renting situation in the united $tates is a zero or one out of five cows situation, as far as scientific communists are concerned. The only real concern is again in connection to migrant workers in fear of being discovered and deported. When MIM says it is working on political problems, especially those connected to "rent," it is not talking about houses being rented in the imperialist countries.