As always, the poor are human shields for the rich.

Or even honestly, the middle aged couple that was able to upgrade houses without selling, and lets their old house to a young couple for a reasonable rate because it's paid off. Which, in my rural experience, is really common. I am very grateful to a man that I didn't and still don't particularly like, because he rented me a nice property for a very fair rate. I could say similar things about other past landlords. The difference is when it's not an investment, but a business. Treating housing like a business interaction cheapens human life, and I have lived in that situation as well, to varying degrees. The worst was an apartment in Park City UT that was owned by some yuppies in Massachusetts, part of some sheisty lease/timeshare property LLC, where the building super was just a power tripping asshole with no accountability. I'm rambling, but Landlord Bad is too simple for a complex situation.

Marx is clear about this, BTW. The distinction between private property (i.e. capital) and personal property, is that personal property is owned for its use value (you own a trenchcoat to protect yourself from the cold, or you own a house to live in it), whereas private property is owned for its monetary revalorization capability (you own a trenchcoat to rent it in a costumes store, you own a house to rent it to someone else). The same object can be used for its use value, and then it's it's personal property; or it can be used in the capital revalorization cycle, and then it's private property.

We're talking about a very minor amount of priviledged people who have the spare property to rent. Even a room. Most impoverished people live in apartments. We do not own them, none of the income taken from us for rent is returned to us (unlike property ownership via a mortgage in which case value is literally returned to you), and we are only able to roomshare or sublet. Neither of which is what youre describing.

Not dismissing that middle class property owning families cant fall on hard times and have to fight to maintain the class position they occupy, just pointing out that the majority of us would do anything to have a home with a spare room to rent out. Thats a dream that many many people in my generation will never come close to achieving.

We shouldn't have to appeal to the class anxieties of middle class people. The fact that we suffer is a rallying cause enough. There are enough poor people to tear the system down if we all worked together. Its appealing to our shared suffering. Class consciousness and solidarity. Its recognizing our collective struggle and fighting back against power. It doesn't happen by making concessions to land owners. The threat of having to downsize is nothing compared with the threat of being homeless if you have to go to the hospital. The threat of losing everything if you get an injury. The impoverished and the marginalized live with guns aimed at every one of their vital organs. From birth to death under duress at the hands of the state. I dont really give a fuck what land owners are going through. We'd kill to have to downsize.

The idea is, we abolish the concept of private property, but retain the concept of personal property.

Personal property being stuff that's used by one person, or ome family, or one small group, and ownership rights come from that use.

So a car would be the personal property of the driver or drivers who use it - the same as a computer or microwave or toothbrush would be the personal property of the person or people who used it. You drive it, you fuel it, you repair it, and that's what makes it yours.

How to produce and distribute goods (like houses and cars and toothbrushes) without a system of private property, purchase, and ownership is a major site of leftist contention 😆

And the majority wouldn't go into other peoples' homes because it's someone else's living space if we went to that model.

Self driving cars are not going to stop car ownership, that's pure CEO fantasy. The logistics of it doesn't make any sense. Gig economy it's the opposite of even distribution, it's companies owning everything and workers owning nothing. Stop drinking the neoliberal kool aid.

This. Then just put up a scoreboard of who’s excess revenue is providing the most tax revenue to the public, then they can play for first place and we can all benefit off of their sociopathic narcissism. Everybody wins.

how about instead of restricting all ownership, you instead just limited it

But basically nobody proposes this. Communists don't propose "abolishing property" altogether, we propose abolishing private capital, which is the type of property that isn't owned for its use value, but instead owned for profit. A commie would say you can own a car to use it, but you can't own a car to employ someone else to drive it as a taxi and generate a profit for you.

Sure, happy to explain!

The populus.