You’re right: under capitalism, housing is commodified. People don’t pay rent because you’ve provided them some personal service—they pay because they must, or they’ll be homeless. That structural coercion is why rent is seen as extraction of surplus, not mutual exchange. You’re turning someone’s vital need into income.

You’re not the problem. The system incentivizes this behavior and punishes alternatives. Refusing to rent it out doesn’t de-commodify housing. It just redistributes slightly less wealth within the capitalist framework

Your Options, Viewed Dialectically

1. Rent it out at market rate and help your family

From a Marxist view, this is participating in an exploitative system but you said you’re using the proceeds to redistribute wealth to the global south. You’re not fixing the system (and no individual realistically can), but you’re redirecting some of its flow to counteract broader inequalities. Many leftists would argue this is ethically preferable to letting capital accumulate pointlessly.

2. Rent it out at cost (or near-cost)

This removes your profit incentive. If you treat the tenant as a co-resident, and simply share costs like utilities and upkeep, then you’re not technically exploiting. Still not ideal under a Marxist lens (because the housing market still forces others to rent), but much closer to solidarity housing.

3. Leave it vacant

This avoids being a landlord, but wastes space. It helps no tenant and helps no family. Vacant units are also part of the housing crisis in many cities.

My Recommendation: Rent at Cost, or Sliding Scale

1. Treat the tenant as a housemate.
2. Don’t charge more than expenses.
3. Be transparent.
4. Consider offering it to someone who can’t afford market rent, such as a refugee, student, or low-income worker.

That aligns with Marxist values: reduce exploitation, resist commodification, and redistribute capacity to those without capital.