A recent article from NBC news discusses how financing from government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac has fueled a surge in acquisitions of mobile home parks, where new corporate owners are raising rents and fees on residents. Low-interest loans from Fannie and Freddie have made mobile home parks an attractive investment, leading to a wave of purchases by private equity firms and real estate investment trusts. Long-time mobile home residents, many of whom are elderly, low-income and/or disabled, are seeing significant rent increases after their communities get acquired. These unaffordable rent hikes are putting residents in impossible situations, as moving their homes can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Affordable housing advocates argue Fannie and Freddie are exacerbating the problem rather than fulfilling their mandate to support affordable housing. Some Congressional lawmakers have urged more oversight and tenant protections, but minimal change has occurred so far. Overall, the article from the corporate media illustrates how government-backed financing intended to aid affordable housing is ironically contributing to the loss of one of the last affordable housing options. But the authors fail to make the obvious connections.
This article illustrates the warnings of Karl Marx about the tendencies of capitalism towards fascism, as government agencies become tools for capitalist interests rather than truly serving the people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were originally created to expand homeownership opportunities, but now they provide cheap financing to fuel corporate acquisitions of mobile home parks, exacerbating unaffordability. As Marx predicted, the state apparatus has become captive to the interests of the capitalist class - in this case, private equity firms and real estate investment trusts - rather than protecting everyday citizens. The affordable housing mandates of Fannie and Freddie are mere window dressing on their true purpose of generating profits for investors. The elderly, low-income, and disabled mobile home residents have no power in this system designed to extract maximum revenues through rising rents. Marx would see this situation as a result of the internal contradictions of capitalism, where profit motives undermine social welfare, and democracy is supplanted by corporate control. Only systemic change can counter this tendency towards fascism, where government serves the capitalist elite rather than the people.
You will own nothing …
The acquisitions of mobile home parks by private equity firms and real estate investment trusts reflect a broader trend of capitalist funds buying up properties to operate as rental units. Driven by the profit motive, these funds are purchasing an increasing share of single-family homes, apartment buildings, and mobile home parks across the country to add to their rental portfolios. As a result, the “American Dream” of homeownership is diminishing, as properties instead become investment vehicles for the capitalist class. Ordinary citizens are deprived of the ability to build equity and wealth through owning their home as more housing stock gets swallowed up by corporate landlords chasing endless growth and maximized revenues. With government-sponsored enterprises like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac providing favorable financing to fuel these purchases, the system is stacked against individual homebuyers. This tendency shows no sign of slowing, further entrenching the power and profits of the capitalist funds at the expense of homeownership rates. If left unchecked, the vision of a nation of homeowners may well disappear altogether as the capitalist class converts all residential properties into investment rentals.
But will you like it?
The dynamics described in the article and this discussion paint a dismal picture of what American society could become if corporate fascist tendencies continue unchecked. As government agencies become tools for capitalist enrichment at the public's expense, and funds amass housing stock to function solely as investment vehicles, the result is a nation in which ordinary citizens own nearly nothing. When rental properties constitute the norm and homeownership a luxury for the elite, communities cannot thrive. With no security, equity, or stake in the future, the non-owning lower and middle classes are disempowered and resentful. Yet the capitalist funds continue extracting higher revenues in pursuit of endless profits. This grim hyper-capitalist dystopia, where corporate interests dictate policy and strip assets from the masses, is the realization of Marx's warnings about capitalism's contradictions. It leads not only to material deprivation, but the erosion of dignity and democratic values. The case of mobile home parks indicates this future may be closer than we would like to admit, unless mechanisms to spread ownership and check corporate power are instituted.
In spite of the opinions of conservative pundits, what you’re seeing here is not Marxism.
Karl Marx envisioned a starkly different future than this corporate fascist scenario - one rooted in collective ownership and democratic control. Marx saw capitalism's contradictions leading inevitably to its own destruction, with a socialist society emerging in its place. Production and property would be collectivized, so that communities exercise self-determination instead of being at the mercy of capital interests. Housing and land would be de-commodified and provided based on need, not exploited for profit. There would be no idle capitalist class extracting unearned rents and driving inequality. Instead, the working class would be liberated and empowered to shape society democratically based on shared common interests. This cooperative future is the antidote to fascist dystopia; it resolves the contradictions undermining capitalism and creates conditions for human dignity, not deprivation. Though the capitalist class tries to paint collectivism as dangerous and inefficient (or that the collective ownership of one’s socks and underwear isn’t practical), for Marx it represents humanity's next stage - a liberation from exploitation into a shared, equitable future. The trajectory may seem daunting, but Marx would urge organizing to claim the future we deserve.
Have they read Marx?
A common misconception about Marxism is that it requires collectivizing all property, even one's personal belongings. This is a reductive caricature. Marx made a clear distinction between private property and personal possessions. Private property refers to productive assets like factories, land, resources - property that generates wealth based on the labor and efforts of others. Marx argued these should be collectivized. Personal possessions are items for personal use, like clothes, furniture, cars, etc. Marx did not advocate abolishing personal possessions owned by individuals. The aim was to socialize property that gives the capitalist class power over workers - not to make people turn over their underwear to the collective! Of course lines can get blurred between large personal possessions and smaller private properties. But the core principle remains - Marxism targets concentrated systems of capital control, not the ability to have personal items. Propagandists have twisted Marx's ideas to claim he wanted state ownership of all belongings. In reality, his critique was limited to property enabling exploitation - not your socks.
The WEF, Klaus Schwab, and “you will own nothing, and you will be happy” are not Marxist, they’re fascist!
By now you’ve probably heard the speech by the head of the World Economic Forum, Klaus Schwab, about a future where you will own nothing, and you’ll be happy. This isn’t his original material or thought. Rather it can be traced to a 2016 article from Ida Auken, Member of the Danish Parliament. The article depicts a vision of the year 2030 where ownership has been replaced by services and public sharing. The author describes living in a city where no one owns cars, appliances, clothes or homes. Instead, everything is shared and delivered as a service when needed. This model became possible due to free clean energy and digitization. With AI and robots handling much work, people have more leisure time. Environmental problems are minimized by circular economics and clean production. However, the author expresses concern about people who opted out of this high-tech urban lifestyle and live in abandoned rural areas. She also notes the lack of privacy with everything tracked and recorded. Overall, the article paints an optimistic picture of a possible future without personal property enabled by technological advances, but notes concerns about those excluded from this vision and the loss of privacy.
The idyllic shared future envisioned by Auken could not take shape under a corporate fascist model. Corporate interests would never willingly allow the extreme level of sharing and public access described, as it contradicts the profit motive and private ownership. The dystopian reality would more likely involve these services being monopolized by a handful of technology giants. Rather than free access, the companies would find ways to monetize every aspect of human life. Any leisure time created by automation would be consumed by privatized entertainment and shopping experiences. The advertising-driven data surveillance state would also annihilate any personal privacy. This corporate-controlled future would serve capital, not public good. However, the more utopian vision Auken proposes aligns well with Marxist ideals. Collective ownership of property, democratized technology, and production for need not profit could enable her vision. Automation's benefits could be enjoyed by all in a more equitable society. Freed from capital control, human creativity and community could flourish. So whilst corporate fascism leads to dystopia, Marxism opens possibilities for shared prosperity and realization of Auken's optimistic vision.
Final thoughts
A final key question emerges - what future is offered to those who cannot actively produce for the benefit of the capitalist class, such as the disabled and elderly? Under corporate fascism, they face deprivation and marginalization, as they have little value in a system centered on profit and exploitation. As capital seeks endless efficiency, those unable to work productively due to age or disability would likely be neglected and forgotten. However, in Marx's collectively owned system, all human beings have inherent worth regardless of productive output. Those unable to work would be provided for based on compassion rather than profit motive. No one would be rendered invisible because they cannot actively generate shareholder returns. The elderly could pass down knowledge and experience to the young, whilst the disabled could contribute in other creative ways. Marxism offers the possibility for a dignified life and inclusion in community for all. So for those unable to serve corporate interests, like the elderly and disabled, Marx's vision provides hope rather than abandonment. The choice between these diverging futures will shape whether we build a society based on exploitation or humanity.
The AutSide is a reader-supported publication. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber.
As an elderly, disabled, low-income dweller in a mobile home, I can attest to this unsustainable trend in which we own the home (sort of; we still have mortgage payments), but the land on which it sits is owned by some giant corporate entity that has raised the lot rent every year. As the rent increases, the services available to us decrease.
As an elderly, disabled, low-income dweller in a mobile home, I can attest to this unsustainable trend in which we own the home (sort of; we still have mortgage payments), but the land on which it sits is owned by some giant corporate entity that has raised the lot rent every year. As the rent increases, the services available to us decrease.