Maybe I should have said he sounded like a feudal lord, it doesn't matter to me. I wasn't diving into the circumstances, just the phrasing of that last sentence I quoted.

So the transfer of state-owned assets to oligarchs is the significantly comparable as buying four houses and renting them to their owners? Do you even know what happened after the fall of the Soviet Union?

Man, you're reading too far into my comment. I was just saying the sentence reads like:

A wealthy individual (WI) coming to his neighbors.

WI: "I'm worried your homes might be bought by individuals that affect my privacy, I know you don't intend to move, so let's make a deal that you can still live here and pay rent."

Neighbors: "Ok"

Random YC Comment: "(WI) left them in their homes, rather than reneging on his deal and casting them out of their familial homes to the street."

----

A Feudal Lord (FL) dies and his heir receives the fiefdom.

FL: "You are now my serfs and I've decided you may continue to live here and pay me a percentage of the crop yield, I am a generous lord."

Serf: "OK, m'lord"

Random YC Comment: "(FL) left the peasants in their huts like the generous lord he is."

---

A state industry has been privatized and is now owned by an Oligarch, to include the housing provided to the workers.

Oligarch: "Party land now my land, you may continue to live and work here to provide me profit, I am a generous businessman."

Worker: "ХОРОШО"

Random YC Comment: "The Oligarch left the workers in their housing, as long as it still provided him a profit."

In this case a capitalist put in an offer to purchase homes, the owners accepted the offer. They didn't risk being "cast out."

They were offered a lease agreement, and they accepted this offer. They were not "left" there.

Some people sold themselves into slavery, i.e. became slaves willingly, and were bought by a capitalist.

The idea that capitalism guarantees liberty is dangerous and absurd.

They didn't risk being "cast out," they were not "left" there.

I mean this non-rhetorically: are you joking?

> I mean this non-rhetorically [sic]: are you joking?

You think that I'm joking about Zuckerberg being a poor comparison to those specific oligarchs?

I mean this unrhetorically, what part of my comment could you possibly misinterpret so horribly?

Serfs were not paid for their homes, and in many cases were not allowed to stay in their homes. How does this resemble feudalism?

He literally owns the property of his neighbors in order to make his living situation more comfortable. It's sort of like a king granting lands to lords he approves of.

Also, what's to stop him from kicking those people out if he changes his mind? I doubt Zuck would ever write a honest contract that held him accountable for anything.

Like everything else is a free economy, it was a consensual transaction. If Zuck offered me $1 mil for my small apartment, and said I could live in it, I'd take the deal. He purchased their homes and then leased them back to them, what's the problem here other than how it can be construed to "sound bad"?

That's how America works. It is a feudal system where the rich buy the laws, gated communities, college admissions, genes, designer babies, and pandemic vaccines they want.

> like a king granting lands to lords

He purchased the homes in a free market, they were not granted to him; the residents are not serfs.

So I guess it's like feudalism in that...there's a landlord?

Slaves, serfs and human organs were sold on free market in times of feudalism. They are perfectly compatiable.

Interesting aside. Back on topic: the homes were not granted to Zuckerberg; and his residents are not serfs. So they are not "perfectly comparable," they are barely comparable.

(not to mention serfs could not be bought alone, they could be sold with the land. Maybe you are thinking of slaves?)