The problem with most 19th and 20th century (and 18th Century) economics is that they encourage the notion that humans are above a natural order. That we can build suprasystems which stand outside of the central ecosystems.

The American economy (whether we call it capitalism or corporate globalism) is a prime example of what happens to such a system. The bubbles created are an attempt to defy “gravity”. The stimulus “solutions” are an attempt to apply air to a deflated balloon. It’s over. Huffing and puffing won’t make it “come back” as seems to be the desire of our new President and his economic advisors.

Max

These are contrived systems which means they are destined to run their course and distintegrate.

Taking turns between TINA (Thatchers pronoucement when the Soviet Union collapsed) and Marxism is not a way to get humans back on track.

These over-rated fabricated systems are not sustainable. If Marx understood capitalism, he did not necessarily have an answer to it. Or if he did it got fucked up somewhere between Das Capital Volume I and III.

Point is there are fundamental priniciples – land is central. All classical economists (including Marx) understood this. Only George gave it the spotlight it deserves.

Deadbeat, regardless of the critique Hudson works for the Henry George Foundation. I find nothing particularly valuable in George’s run for public office, other than noting it as something he did.

I’m speaking to his writings which reflect what people such as Einstein, Tolstoy and yes Hundson are primarily interested in.

Since Marx didn’t DO anything, he cannot be faulted for having tried; but rather for having NOT tried.

I can find more troubling with Marx and say Lincoln that your little findings on George.

As usual you spend your days googling and you can find just about anything on anything.

But when it comes to THINKING Deadbeat, well your just a DEADBEAT!

Despite these flaws he was heavily supported in his campaign by Socialists (such as Daniel DeLeon). It is rather unfortunate that George allowed himself to become a footnote because of his refusal to EVOLVE his political thinking.

I have to correct the above remark. DeLeon supported George BEFORE he became a Socialist. His introduction to Socialism was through his activism in the George campaign. However DeLeon subsequently EVOLVED his political position becoming a Socialist and came to see the flaws in George’s advocacy later and later wrote a critique of George upon his George’s death. I’ve already posted DeLeon’s critique of George in this debate.

Hudson writes…
As [Henry George] became more sectarian, 12 criticisms of his political strategy became paramount:

1. George’s refusal to join with other reformers to link his proposals
with theirs, or to absorb theirs into his own campaign;

2. his singular focus on ground rent to the exclusion of other
forms of exploitation;

3. his almost unconditional support of capital, even against labor;

4. his economic individualism rejecting a regulatory or planning
role for government;

5. his opposition to public ownership of resources and enterprises;

6. his refusal to acknowledge interest as the twin form of rentier
income alongside ground rent;

7. the scant emphasis he placed on urban and owner-occupied
land;

8. his endorsement of the Democratic Party’s free-trade platform;

9. his rejection of an academic platform to elaborate rent theory;

10. the narrowness of his theorizing beyond the land question;

11. the alliance of his followers with the right wing of the political
spectrum; and

12. the hope that full taxation of ground rent could be enacted
gradually rather than requiring a radical confrontation to shift
control of government.

*****

Reading Hudson you can see that George alienated many of his supporters. He writes …

George went so far as to accuse his supporter Father McGlynn and
Catholic officials associated with the Knights of Labor of succumbing
to socialism.

and…

In his 1928 preface to the U.S. edition of The Intelligent Woman’s
Guide to Socialism, George Bernard Shaw made a similar observation.
George did not acknowledge injustice stemming from causes other
than private ownership of the land and natural monopolies, or explain
how the government would spend the rent it was to tax

It is clear Max that all you can do is engage in ad hominums (claiming I’m throwing terms around) when you yourself has provided NO ANALYSIS or evidence whatsoever to prove your assertion that Land value tax eliminates speculation and bubbles – it eliminates boom and bust and stabilize the economy.

Even Michael Hudson who YOU brought up to support your position, even he can assess the debate surrounding in George’s advocacy.

Unfortunately George retained an adherence to CAPITALISM and his support for CAPITAL is UNCONDITIONAL.

You see Max, it is YOU who is MISLEADING readers here with your advocacy of George WITHOUT any HONEST analysis. Your only response are ad hominems. All your supporting evidence of George has been rather anecdotal. You tried using MLK and Einstein to bolster support for George and both times you failed to dig deeper.

As Barry points out Marx, who preceded George, indicated that “property is theft”. Marx spoke to issues of ecology as well. George FAILED because he failed to EVOLVE his political viewpoint and to work with others which is the cornerstone of solidarity.

Despite these flaws he was heavily supported in his campaign by Socialists (such as Daniel DeLeon). It is rather unfortunate that George allowed himself to become a footnote because of his refusal to EVOLVE his political thinking.

What you are doing Max is presenting the bright side of Georgism while concealing its FLAWED aspects in a cynical attempt to deride Marxist Socialism and to divert the less conscience of the working class into making the same mistakes that Georgists made over 12o years ago.

however, the indigenous bands in canada are losing fast its original social structure; i.e., that existed for millennia prior to european arrival.
how and when bands began to adopt the fascist structure of society?
probably they learned it from european structure of society.

money was used to buy some chiefs and split their ancient solidarity into opposing camps.
this is now happening in palestine. a monolithic (tho also fascist to a degree) society was rent assunder by money.

however, in case of palestinians there was not much they cld do against US/Europe/World Jewry, so some of them probably thought, Why not get some money out of the mess? thnx

This social system held for all human groups until the rise of agriculture. That is, population pressures enabled or forced bands to settle in place. (An alternative theory is that settling on the land caused population pressure, not the reverse). Agriculture introduced land ownership, notions of property (and taxes), social hierarchy (from which comes kings and landlords), hierarchical religion (from which comes monotheism and archbishops), slavery and serfdom, armies, imperialism and colonialism, and cities (from which come empires and states and hard borders) – to name a few things. It diminished the status of females in society. And it vastly altered the relationship of humans to ‘nature.’

So it would behoove us to restore an old human relationship to land, or find a new one that alters the relationship to land – and its bounty. Nature is a common good and the human relationship to land should reflect that. Its bounty should not be solely for private profit. As Marx indicated – Property is theft.

I don’t think Marxism as analysis is dead. As someone somewhere said – Marx is necessary but insufficient. What Marx brings to the table is a material analysis. That to understand a society you have to examine its modes of production – and reproduction. Most or all of aspects of society, material or spiritual, can be viewed under the microscope of materialism – how it produces and reproduces itself.

If we look at the landscape of America, it is a landscape created in the image of our political economy. It visually bears the imprint of our economic system. Geographically, the world can be viewed as a profit surface, with investments flooding in to areas where profits are maximal, while older areas that are ‘resource exhausted’ or where the price of labor has become dear, undergo disinvestment – capital flows out. This is the impetus for globalization – the free flow of capital (and the restricted movement of labor) to profit surfaces. Capitalism cares not a wit for social disruption or displacement other than that which impedes profit accumulation.

I believe major change is coming down the pike. Perhaps both believers in the Apocalypse and those who surmise the death of capitalism will soon be correct – in outcome, if not in rationale. Marx thought it would happen when the relationship of capital and labor becomes too antagonistic (or as Khruschev put it (to paraphrase) – the capitalist countries will hang themselves by their own noose – hoist by their own petard, literally). The abuse of nature, at least as far as it has always provided a comfortable living for humans, has reached catastrophic proportions, such that the air we breathe and water we drink are altered beyond repair. This is reflected in global climate changes, in wars over water, and conflicts that we attribute to other reasons (such as Darfur where pastoralists and agriculturalists fight it out for scarce resources). The pace of disruption will likely escalate. Various capitalists will enlist various states to do battle for their share of the final scraps of profit. And billions will die – as will even more billions of the animals we depend upon for sustenance. Famine will be pandemic.

OK, so maybe that is not an exact scenario, but global changes in ‘nature’ are already having widespread impact. I don’t know what’s going to come out the other side. The planet will surely survive, but it will be different. But whether the brave new world emerges in varying forms of socialism, a fascist capitalism, or something else altogether, I’m not yet prepared to suggest. I do think though that capitalist relations distort a proper respect for nature and its bounty, and with 6.9 billion people and growing, and upwards of 30 billion livestock – the pressure on natural systems will kick the environment into a new gear – one that human beings have never experienced before in a quarter million years of existence. The cataclysm will be televised, and you-tubed, and twittered – until the power source suddenly goes quiet. The remaining apocalyptics, the millenialists, the rapturists – will say, “see, we are right, it is ‘the fire next time’ – and next time has arrived.” We won’t have the energy to argue with them.

regarding land rent that max speaks of, that may be OK. but since it hadn’t been tried in US, one cld conclude just from this that the upper classes find it detrimental to their interest.

speaking of classes, we do not have earls, lords, barons, grafs, boyars but we have richer and poorer classes; more powerful and less powerful classes on econo-jurisprudence-military-political level.
thnx

The word socialism is not monolithic and has many, perhaps hundreds of variations. Of these which are you talking when you talk about “socialism”?

An ideology of “Marxist-Leninist” seems all but left to the history books. Where in this are fundamental principles?

I hear here and else where the leap from capitalism to the savior of socialism, but no where is it clear what this socialism is.

Simply assuming we are all talking about the same thing is a fools journey and is more than dangerous. I’ve presented a cogent argument for the centrality of land. Not as an “ism” or a dogma, but as a universal principle which time and again has proven itself to be the difference between the concentration of wealth, the exploitation of others, the privatization of the commons, the basis of almost all conflict and war, the creation of poverty.

No one, not even Marx denies this (perhaps, Deadbeat you do?).

Again, what is this thing you call socialism? It’s time to do more than pull tidbits from out of the internet and speak clearly about something, something you allude to “believing in”. (I will be surprised if you respond to this challenge…you never have in the past…a sign of a very weak and muddled thinker, Deadbeat, is that he can only react as you do.)

There are fewer and fewer Marxists in the world. For me George is not an ism nor do I see his work as the be all end all. It is childishly naive to think that one person has all the answers for the human condition.

I’m simply making a case for a great American thinker, who few know, and who has provided one of the most potent and viable solutions to poverty, peace and justice.

George is not a revolutionist, nor is he a capitalist or socialist. If you can’t get you’re mind around that, DB, than perhaps you need to consider meditation or something.

Neither George’s theories and practice (nor my own) are cynical. To the contrary, they look to understand fundamental principles. There is nothing about George’s work that is dogmatic in nature.

George aproached his economics first as a moral and ethical mission. This is why he resonates with the likes of Tolstoy, Einstein and Martin Luther King, Jr.

Deadbeat, your ad hominems do not make for a cogent argument.

Georgism is capitalism with collective ownership of land. The problem and why George was critized by his comtemporaries is that he single solution failed to fully address exploitation. The point of where I am going with Einstein is that YOU Max introduced Einstein to support your argument about George. It Georgism had all the answer as you’ve positioned the land tax to be then Einstein whold have ceased to evolve his perspective. Obviously he did not and in the end wrote the essay “Why Socialism?”.

What you are doing Max here is trying to DIMINISH Socialism as another “ism” like say “Capitalism” or “Liberalism” or “Fascism” in order to persuade workers to “seek alternatives”. As you have stated Max under the Land Tax there will be no need to redistribute wealth when in fact there will be becuase you elevate “capital” to the same importance as labor which creates ALL the wealth of a society. Under socialism there is no “capital”. People are the engine of the society.

What you are doing Max is exactly as the article infers to “Mesmerized by melodic rhetoric”. Henry George HAD his time and place and his contribution did in many ways eductate workers to ONE form of exploitation but his argument about land was FLAWED did not address labor exploitation.

It is not the reading of George that I object to. It is your presentation of George WITHOUT any critique or analysis as to why Georgism fell short to that of Marxist Socialism that you dismiss as another “ism”. What you are doing Max is deeply cynical and dangerous when the working class needs clarity of thought and analysis.

I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. Einstein emphatically and repeatedly saw the genius of Henry George. Leo Tolstoy dedicated his last book: Resurrection, to Henry George. The book also deals with land and Tolstoy was NO capitalist.

Deadbeat: “However Socialist are not convinced that all revenue can be derived from rent on land use. This is probably more true today since get sums can be derived from stock market speculation in a small office (very little land use). The problem here is that land ownership is not the only form of exploitation and redistribution is needed to repair that exploitation.”

First, whether all revenues for public works can be attained from land is not a “socialist” question per se. A number of economists have asked this question (capitalist economists). “Enough” is the real question. What are our public needs. Are these sustainable needs given: land is limited. You see land forces the question of sustainability. If you have a multi-trillion dollar war machine you need to support, sure land may not be sufficient – nor any other source of revenue for that matter; which is why the US economy is bankrupt.

Deadbeat talks about Power as if power is an innate and not something derived from external control. Those who acquire access, privatize the commons (natural resources: land/energy sources, etc. hold POWER. The purpose of a non-defensive military is to hold on to resources. But the military is not Power, it is a means to an end.

The finance “sector” that Deadbeat suggests is where “wealth” resides and is outside of “land” is really a shallow understanding of economics. First, finance is not a fundamental component of an economic system.

Again, wealth = Land + Capital + Labor. Finances, in a classical sense serve these components not the other way around. However the US system has flipped it. Subsuming land to capital and driving the “economy” through the finance sector. That is why the US makes nearly nothing (military armament is the major exception). Speculation is the problem. Land value tax eliminates speculation and bubbles – it eliminates boom and bust and stabilize the economy.

Land is real. It is not some vague concept that blows up into a bubble and explodes and collapses. It is the problem of finance taking the lead that creates depressions and collapses economies.

Socialism is another “ism” that includes this and that. Some of which I, personally agree with from an ethical and moral perspective. But as a economics focused on fundamental univeral principles – socialism comes up very short. George may not speak to every aspect of the human condition. Again, his mission was not to engineer a society, but to reveal the underlying principles behind progress and poverty.

The railroad barons are an excellent example. Union Pacific and Burlington Northern accumulated tens of 1,000s of acres at virtually no cost, thanks to friends in high places. With this land gift, the barons’ power increased proportionally to their land holdings. As such, power obtains land, and he who owns more land has more power. It’s a fairly simple and straightforward equation.

What makes multinational companies like McDs or KFC so valuable? Is it their global sales? Their (non)nutritional contribution to society? No. The net worth of such companies from extensive land holdings around the world is the basis of their value.

A more relevant example is Colombia. The FARC organized in order to represent campesinos in armed rebellion against the state-controlled oligarchy. Their early 1950s origin was in response to carry out what their populist, presidential candidate Gaitan had been promising to do before being assassinated (presumably state involved) — redistribute land to the poor, people who had their land stolen from the state and procured for latifundios since the late 1800s.

The State has maintained power all these years through control of land. The FARC managed to expand their power through successful conflict against the state (military) and the seizure of land. The FARC has maintained their ongoing conflict against the oligarchs through control of land. At the turn of this century they controlled nearly half the country which began to interfere with legitimate multinational business to such an extent that Washington had to get involved, i.e. Plan Colombia. It’s involvement used the Drug War as a pretext, but the war against guerrilla groups like the FARC, ELN and M-19 was about land and the power which accompanies it. That power can’t be equally distributed, nor can the land.

While Colombia and its conflict is complex, with a multitude of factors, it essentially boils down to land control and power. Therefore, by understanding the relationship between land and power, as opposed to just one or the other, we are able to better comprehend the reason for so many problems in our world today.

Best to all.

by just sharing the language alone, pious and impious people are interconnected and this connectedness is what clergy endeavor to sever.
there is no religion without people and no its (mis)teachings without people believing them and carrying them out which affects everything else.
cleargy often tells their serfs to be with people but not of it. and that has vitiating effects onsociety. thnx

is governance or gov’ts part of capitalism or capitalism part of governance/gov’ts?
and both being parts of reality/morality? can capitalism stand in total isolation from the reality/nature?

do not capitalists ( the word “plutos” might be more exact) aid some candidates for office and reject others? with money mostly?
have not plutos written also constitution? and do not only they interpret the constitution?

it seems to me that capitalism is merely an aspect of the reality. whether we pay taxes or pay rent on land used, this too is a mere aspect of nature.
so, it seem sto me we need to cast the widest look to better understand what is going on.
we need to include study of religions; interpersonal, interclass behavior; whether, climate change; our fears, hatred, intolerance, supremacism, lore, technology, education, etc.
everything is interconnected; nothing stands in isolation. thnx

This is a simple but profound question. George set out to define his terms very clearly (which is not the case with economic writters, leaving people to wonder what they “really” meant).

Wealth is not money and requires 3 discrete components to its creation: Capital + Labor + Land. All classical economists (including Marx understood this) but in the very end of the 19th Century to the present, land was subsumed under capital by the neo-classical economists who have ruled our policies and academia for over a century. When “land” is subsumed under capital it becomes a commodity. And it is this turn of events which compounds the concentration of wealth, and the creation of world poverty.

When, Deadbeat, I mentioned monolithic thinking, I was referring to your rather black and white view: either/or. George challenges that kind of thinking because he is both and neither.

One reason I think George has been so widely read and incorporated, is because you can incorporate his thinking in practical ways without abidding by a system. Marx, as is the case with most of his contempories in Germany, was of the German school whereby to be taken seriously you needed to provide a system of thought (not in the biological sense of system, mind you). And Marx complied.

George writes like a Whitman or Melville – he’s kind of a Nietzche in that he embraces the problem without regard to a “school of thought” or dictim.

But George was also meticulous in his thinking. There is incredible clarity.

As I indicated, land is a central core principle which must be incorporated in a sustainable economics. Land and a single “tax” is but an elegent solution to one of our most pressing problems – access to the means to distribute wealth and sustenance. Such access is, I would submit the basis for war/peace, justice/injustice, empire/living democracy. It is not a utopia that George is trying to layout (as did Marx) but a just direction.

His economics is not ABOUT class. Class is a symptom. The term “worker” is transient to underlying principles. George’s genius was that he was not interested in the transient but in underlying principles. Underlying principles are universal and “eternal”.

What is amazing is that this profundity captured the thinking of millions the world over. It’s been said George was the second most popular American during his time (Mark Twaine, who was a George subscriber, was number one). His book, Progress and Povert (he wrote about 1/2 dozen) is the number one selling book on the topic of economics. He was considered an inspiring speaker and ran for mayor of NYC twice. The first time, in a 3 way race loosing to the Boss Tweed machine (by a whisker) and beating out T. Roosevelt. The 2nd time he ran, indications he would win, but he died unexpectedly in his late 50s just before election day.

George grow up poor, was self-educated, a journalist, life-long student, who knew extreme harsh personal times. His life is an inspiration. And in this time, when America is the world’s greatest threat, it’s always good (at least for me) to realize that there exists a spirit that bobbles on the ocean of dispair.