I have said repeatedly that I’m not a Georgist. I’ve indicated that HG did not propose an economic system in the way other classical economists have. His was a singular mission that is summed in Progress and Poverty. I also think after much more than reading, that the split rate property tax has significant merit for localities, particularly urban centers.

But ignorance should be confronted and sometimes that confrontation begins to look like I’m a single-minded proponent of Henry George. I think he is an incredibly overlooked (due to circumstances of the US economic/academic powers) and with a brilliant capacity to observe and synthesize and with a deep moral commitment to solve the problem of poverty to its root.

It’s now the 21st Century. The world is different, but fundamentally we are challenged by many of the same issues, in some cases made much much worse by the trajectory we’ve been on since the beginning of the 20th Century. What was once plentiful (back in the time of Marx and George) is arguably far less so which intensifies our situation. We need a new paradigm. George made an eloquent case for the importance of land in ways that were embraced by thoughtful minds throughout the world who were wrestling with the issue of Poverty.

ajohnstone, Fred Harrison is a Georgist. For some he would be a good source and for those who see only a cynical ploy he would be marginalized. But Harrison did not become a Georgist for no reason. He came to that conclusion after much research and practical consideration. I’m not an apologist for Harrison who I think pushes it too far (he wrote the book “Sliver Bullet”).

Again, I think Aetius Romulous speaks more to what I’m after than a single person’s thesis.

For my part, I try and steer clear of most of these types of discussion – not because they don’t have value, but rather because I don’t do ideology or politics. I prefer to pick and choose bits and pieces where they advance understanding.

It too often happens that we adopt a hero from the past, accept willingly the label attached, then spend our time defending that individual and his complete thought against all comers. This is the trap of ideology, that while all other arts are advanced through synthesis and progressive understanding, ideology – by its very nature – refuses change.

So much of our politics, philosophy, and economics are mired in this way in ages long past, and have deliberately resisted the force of modern reality. We spend waaaay too much time attempting to fit our contemporary situation into iron clad design advanced by old guys from another era. In truth, they all contribute like their scientific contemporaries for instance, but, as I say, unlike their fellow thinkers in other fields of their era, they have become condemned to stasis by the very people who champion their cause. We are fortunate we treat other fields of inquiry with open minds we deny these unfortunate social ideologues of ages past.

Our contemporary world and its problems have long outrun the individual contributions of Marx, Smith, George, et al. The challenge is for us to synthesize the best of each and have the courage to debunk the rest and move forward. None of these great old war horses solved anything independently, just as Copernicus was certainly not the “end of history” in his field. There are no “Copernicans”, and there is no “Copernicanism”, rather, all of science accepts him and his thought as a single, great, contribution to the whole of science – sans the silly bits.

So that is my schtick – use the minds of great thinkers past as a grab bag of ideas on which to build new ones, assiduously avoiding the ideology trap where ever possible. Advance some ideas of socialism without using the term socialism, Capitalism without the word capitalism, and freely ripping off the best of the old thinkers with as little accreditation as possible. In other words, let the thought stand on its own without the impossible to reconcile baggage each usually attracts.

It kind of fun actually.

If anyone wants to pass on an email address I would love to pick your brains further, and continue the conversation. Thanks for all of this.

I did find a relevant article athttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0254/is_5_62/ai_112083012/?tag=content;col1 by Fred Harrison which is making interesting reading but any comment by myself will have to wait although i was struck by the fact that he too mostly depends on speculation
“Since Marx and Engels never met or corresponded with George, the opportunity for a sustained colloquy between them never arose. Nevertheless, we do have access to a reasonable second-best: the record of an exchange of views between George and his one-time London host, Henry M. Hyndman, who was for a while a confidant of Marx. ” and the article has many a quote that are from Marx criticism of Proudhon ie 1840s and not as you infer a development that took place in Marx’s later years .But i need to sit and read it fully to give its rightful appreciation.

The crux of the issue I’ve discussed small minds look for small things to disagree on and miss the bigger picture.

What a pitty we have a few flies like that flying around DV.

ajohnstone I’m not trying to settle any matter.

That is the truthful remark you’ve ever made on DV. Your “Chomskyesque” agenda is to sow confusion.

Deadbeat- ” Max this is bogus ”

Max- “Deadbeat, it is not bogus…Marx definitely later introduced the importance of land to his overall thesis.” –

Max , you can simply settle the matter by providing the citations for your claim [ and ,of course, Marx always did recognise the importance of land , no one disputes that , but can you provide your sources for implying that he or Engels recognised this importance in a similar way as Henry George did. ]

Be very much appreciated

Answer: there ain’t no such animal as a “free market”. All exchange of commodities, items produced with the intent to sell them, takes place according to the rules and conditions established and enforced by the Political Power reigning over the particular place and time.

At certain times and places the dominant political Power Configuration will adopt rhetoric encouraging members of the public to believe they are enjoying “freedom”, “free enterprise”, “free trade”, “free markets”, but in actuality people in general are free only as long as their activities accord with the desires of the Power Elite. It’s just like Main Street: all these “owners” of small businesses are so proud of their independence, but in reality they stay in business only as long as they keep the bankers happy.

I agree with your statement about autos. They are the bane of ours and the planet’s existence. It has done more to destroy both the ecological well-being of all as it has been one of the main forces behind community collapse – when it comes to poverty the US is one of the poorest nation on the planet when it comes to community.

As u have pointed out, even today many people live sustainably. But what is happening [and i had been once naive] now in US and canada, is just so wastefull and unnecessary.

I am so saddened by what we do that i say quite firmly that we all are criminals if we do not demand at least that ?all cars be put out of commission once we install public transport.

Perhaps the ruling class had also hijacked also “green jobs”, “going green”, etc., in order to quiet us dwn or to feign concern. I think u said that the green jobs are not going to save us.
As implemented by top layers of society, i’d say yes! Obviously the top layers in canada and US don’t intend to do all that much about public transit, aircraft, cruise ships [it wld be best to take a rowboat to hawaii or cuba] warships, tanks, leafblowers, power lawn mowers, electric this and that, etcetc.
Seek simplicity: as long as we are ruled by feudal- and warlords as we have been for millennia, we can expect more of the same! tnx
But when hadn’t the ruling class duped us? So, what’s one more time and many times more! tnx

For those that think that an economics that accomodates ecological sustainability is too “white” than I’d say you just haven’t been talking to progressive African Americans and Latinos who understand to its core what is meant by Environmental Justice.

On the other hand, I don’t think the notion of “green jobs” is going to lay a glove on the problem. The point is it’s not a racial issue and if there happen to be more caucasions who have joined this “movement” then so be it. The problem exists regardless and playing dumb and following Obama is not going to change the fact that there is a freight training heading right for us.

Most indigenous people live sustainably. It’s the White/Western modernism that created the imbalance and it’s not corrected by using that method of living to correct matters. It’s not LIBERAL and it’s really ashame that there is this narrow mindset that can’t seem to get their minds around a problem and see it for what it is without tossing out ideological hocus pocus.

I.e., namecalling does not bring us enlightenment. However, each human can, to his/her satisfaction, define any ism, but not me.
Or, as i say to me, leave the damn undefinables alone.

However, enumeration of traits of any ism, includes americanism, brings us as-of-necessary-truth-for-the-moment a cristal clear elucidation.
Fortunately for us, we can see at least some societal traits in US and elsewhere.

So, the natuaral way of evaluation starts with enumeration and description of events-traits, followed by conclusions/suggestions what can be done, and only thereafter we call it a name.
And only so as to not ad infinitum list the seeable characteristics/events/structure.

One of the traits [one cld enumerate dozens of just salient ones] in almost all countries is the fact that a worker does not share in owning a work place.
And work is part of life. And if a person is not in charge of work-workplace-sale of his/her poduct-produce, that person is not free.
That person does not control his/her life to the degree that that person is entitled too or desires.
Such a person may be called a dependency, serf, etc.
As s’meone had said, “structure is the only content of knowledge”. Components of which we can see. We can see how a society is structured.
Society in US as also elsewhere is multilayered and with each layer having varying politico-educational-military-executive powers.

We cld conclude, to end this post, that the top layer has much more econo-military-educational power than any layer.
And, guaranteed, iniquities arise!

Max

The primary concept George provided was first and foremost a moral obligation. He saw wretched poverty and along side it progress and the concentration of wealth (he was actually in extreme poverty during much of his middle years). He simply asked: why? Why does such progress (and he was very clear about defining his terms) create such poverty in its wake? Is there a connection?

Deadbeat, it is not bogus. It is true that George did not know Marx, but Marx knew of George. Marx may have been threatened by the fact that someone from the States was taking Europe by a storm and so made is negative remark. A remark he later retracted. Read what the revolutionist Sun Yat-sen had to say about George. Or George Bernard Shaw.

To understand Marx vis-a-vis George you need to understand German economic leanings at the time. But Marx definitely later introduced the importance of land to his overall thesis.

Again, Marx, like George were part of a classical economics which is foreign to Universities today. You can get some Marx, but no George and what the Universities produce are neo-classical economists by the droves. Neo-classicalists made land invisible. That is it is subsumed under capital and treated as an input. Classical economists (Ricardo – primarily, Smith, Marx and George) all worked from this equation: Land + Labor + Capital = Wealth. By taking Land out of the equation, neoclassical economists paved the way for the Fed (monetary system), neoliberalist trade, World Bank, WTO and basically the kind of capitalism we see today.

Nevertheless many leading economists agree that land as a rent, and primary means of government revenue is the most equitable form of taxation there is. It addresses distribution, it is the most progressive (it’s non-elastic and therefore you can’t hide it in Swiss Banks), and it lays the way for a citizen a dividend. The latter would be a guaranteed income for all based on the value the community places on the land (remembering that land is all of nature).

DB and dan e you can argue with this, but at least stop it with the dumb crap about how George was a nasty old capitalist and that somehow whatever Marx thought at any point in time was gospel. That’s weak thinking. Start to think for yourselves. George’s offering is not perfect, and it is not a system of economics. What it does is pierce the veil of what makes people poor and how can that be corrected. It is fundamental, and I would say necessary, but perhaps not sufficient to achieve a harmonious economics that is sustainable.

Max this is bogus and I posted on DV both Marx and Engles critiques of Henry George as well and Daniel De Leon’s critique. Engles was perhaps the most generous in that he acknowledges George’s contribution to getting the working class in motion and hoped the George’s supporters in motion would take his ideas further. You tend to repeat the same bromides even when you have been show to be incorrect or your arguments are shown to be fallacious. You hope by repeating the same crap that you’ll win converts which makes you a very dangerous person since I believe your agenda is “Chomskyesque” — so confusion in order to maintain the status quo.

Also Aetius Romulous is correct. The land tax will not work today. In fact Marx, Engles and DeLeon argued that it would not work even in the 19th and early 20th Century. Clearly today you can run a boiler room operation in a 1000 sq ft office and rake in billions. The land tax would do nothing to reclaim wealth generated from no real production. So right there the land tax fails. I’ve posed this argument to you for months now and you have never even offered a rebuttal because that one argument blows away the whole notion of the point of a “land tax”. In fact Max you’ve argued against any redistribution of wealth which means that you accept the current level of INEQUALITY. Again I find the lack of any discussion of inequality by Daly, a former World Bank rep, to be specious.

It is clear Max that you are advocating a form of Liberalism, Dan E pretty much sums you up.

So later with all this jive bullshit. Don’t care whether you call it “green” or “libertarian” or Krypto-Republican, it’s all a bunch of fog and smoke thrown up to keep the victims of this vicious capitalist system from figuring out what’s going on.

Max. Damn. Good. Stuff.

Peace,
Melissa

Yours sounds like Stiglitz’s argument (who does support a land tax), but thinks that there are limits to its implementation, but he does not discount it as a significant alternative and that it could take care of much.

The problem with Stiglitz’s argument is that it is not based on a steady-state economy. He has not moved away from growth.

In growth-based economy with its multi-trillion dollar investment in war and occupation, of course a rent on land will not do. But since we are a debtor nation, some would say bankrupt but afloat by the tentrils of the global economy and the dollar as the basis exchange, it is hard to argue that the means of revenue generation we have today to keep the bloated empire are adequate.

Again, George offers a solution. If you know of a more sound way to assure a fair and equitable means of ensuring the common good, I’d be interested.