It still sounds like capitalism to me. It's just more traditional capitalism. I'm pretty sure that the first mechanical looms were in factories where the owner was actually present in the factory, trying to make sure the machines kept working.

I'd even argue that ownership of land isn't really capitalism anyhow, it's more similar to feudalism. Capitalism involves buying capital and using that to transform raw materials into a finished product that can be sold at a profit. Feudalism involves charging someone rent for occupying land you own. Capitalism involves competing with other capitalists for more efficient processes, more cost-effective machines, and so-on. Landlords can't have "more efficient" land. A capitalist has to use their machines to generate profits. If the machines are idle, they don't make money. A landlord does nothing at all, then collects rent money.

So yeah, ban rent, or severely limit it. Require that a capitalist owner is actually physically present and involved in day-to-day operations, and you'll completely eliminate billionaires, probably even centi-millionaires.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 2 points 4 weeks ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 children)

I call it mutualism.

The "still sounds like capitalism to me" part is the reason that I think it's the most practical way forward. It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that's used to capitalism.

Socialists, generally speaking, want people to have ownership of their homes and workplaces. State socialists (think USSR-style) want this to be indirect, with the state owning everything on the behalf of the workers. Anarchists and other libertarian varieties of socialist want people to have this ownership directly, without the state as an intermediary. It's in this sense that mutualism is a form of socialism.

I included land in the absentee ownership prohibition because it's important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission. Whether one thinks of it as part of capitalism or not, the threat of homelessness (since all land is already owned) is part of what enforces our current economic hierarchy.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

It makes a radically beneficial structural change, while still being easily understood by anyone that’s used to capitalism.

Yeah, that's important. It also doesn't require a revolution to attain, just reforms of the current system. Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn't have to be bloody. I think some people who have never questioned the economic and political system in which they grew up can't even conceive of anything other than capitalism. Other people who have thought about it would worry that any attempted revolution might fail and we'd fall backwards into something much more like feudalism if not outright tyranny.

it’s important for everyone to have somewhere they can exist without having to get permission

Yeah, as bad as Feudalism was, at least serfs couldn't be kicked off "their" land. They were tied to the land, so they weren't allowed to leave, but the manor lord also couldn't kick them out.

As for all land being owned, it is, and it isn't. In commonwealth countries there's a lot of crown land. In the US there's a lot of government owned land. In cities there are a lot of city parks. In a sense all that land is owned. But, in another sense, it isn't. It's land that nobody's allowed to build anything on, unless we collectively (via our reps) decide they are. In practice it's not that simple, but in theory it's effectively land that isn't owned, at least by individuals. I've often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.

[–] cacheson@piefed.social 2 points 4 weeks ago

Admittedly, reforming the current system would be hard, but theoretically it wouldn't have to be bloody.

Yeah, hopefully. If you're effective enough at pushing for change though, those that are threatened by that change are likely to attack you with whatever resources they can muster, and you'll need to successfully defend your movement. Landlords and big corporate shareholders aren't going to be real keen on having their money spigot turned off.

I've often wondered what effect it would have on homelessness if there were land in cities where everybody was allowed to live if they wanted. I imagine it would basically end up as a favela. Not great, but probably better than homelessness.

Not having their camps bulldozed and all of their possessions confiscated and destroyed by the government every few months would definitely be an improvement for homeless folks. Being able to have a rigid structure with a locking door would be even better. But yeah, leaving it at that still isn't ideal.

If we could bring wealth inequality down significantly, that would mean fewer people going homeless in the first place, and also society's altruistic resources wouldn't be stretched as thin. That might be enough to get everyone into better housing, at least out of safety hazard territory.