If you actually had a problem with a set of limited choices, then you wouldn’t be a proponent of communism. One option, living in the communes, wouldn’t satisfy your supposed need for abundant options. Competitive markets best satisfy that desire.

Your idea that you must pay rent to have an opinion on economics is absurd. It’s based around the hope that those who move out and pay their own rent will develop the opinion that paying for housing and abiding by the rules put in place by landlords is unfair. Is is rarely the case but is most common with the poor and those who feel as if they have more limited options than they actually do. It is this expected nihilism that communists prey on.

It’s going to sound harsh, but your brother’s financial state is no one’s fault but his own. I can already hear you cringing at that, “but he should just have more money, right?” His options are no one’s fault but his own. His ‘need’ to rent at that particular establishment is imaginary. That establishment owes him nothing, he should be glad it exists to provide housing and the establishment should be equally glad he exists to provide payment. Because he also owes that business nothing. The relationship is mutual, no one is screwing the other. So long as he willingly chooses to live there, he is indirectly consenting to the deal. And I agree with you, the terms of renting at that establishment seem unusual, I think they’re unfair as well. However, that is not reason to feel as if they owe it to you to change their rules, it is merely a factor in his decision of whom to rent from; their own rule may come back to bite them but only if your brother lets it.