The Georgist dumbshits honestly think Einstein saying George's book was "important" made him a Georgist. Like he's their most famous celebrity fellow traveler.
But if you read "Why Socialism?" the dude is a straight up crypto-marxist. Nothing he said even comes close to representing a Georgist analysis. He's just flat out calling for a a rationally planned and administered economy.
“There are increasing signs the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot among those who look upon Stalin as a stupid reactionary who has betrayed the ideas of the revolution.”
"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."
I don't know a single Communist that wouldn't say that George's ideas were important. Reformist and limited, perhaps, but an important part of Socialist development and with policy that can be used to advance revolutionary measures.
Lots of progressive-ish neoliberals adopt Georgist talking points in the same way Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg adopts leftist language in defense of liberalism. They make noises about wanting better things, they do thousand-page white papers about how they'd change policy, and then they undercut anyone else trying to actually execute on the vision by screaming "You're a bigot! You're a radical! You're a monster!"
Georgists think that anyone who supports a land tax is therefore a Georgist.
A lot of people have supported land taxes, including Marx himself. In a capitalist context, it's a generally a more progressive tax than a lot of existing taxes under capitalism, many of which are explicitly regressive. Of course, most people who support land taxes do not support taxing land at 100% and making that the only tax that funds the entire government, which is what George supported.
Online Georgists, who are overwhelmingly market fetishists, also don't realize that George himself was considered a radical in his time. His ideas made a lot more sense in the 19th century, and if he was alive today, he'd probably be to the left of the average succdem. Actual modern-day academic Georgists like Polly Cleveland are not classical liberal single-taxers; they're generally ecologically oriented social democrats who happen to support land taxes, in addition to other progressive taxes.
Of course, most people who support land taxes do not support taxing land at 100% and making that the only tax that funds the entire government, which is what George supported.
George supported a 100% tax on base land value, not capital productivity or licensure. In that sense, his theories are somewhat outdated. They applied best to agricultural economies and economies predicated on a handful of geographic trade choke points (rivers and dams, mines, mountain passes, natural ports, canals, etc).
When modern monopolies are more heavily predicated on manufactured economic choke points (satellites, railroad hubs, accreditor institutions, legal patents, financial proximity to the Fed credit window) his ideas don't neatly apply.
Of course, the same could be said of Marx, who saw the aggregation of political capital in institutions as a symptom of a looming crisis, but lacked the prophetic wisdom to predict the post-WW2 period and the impact of centrally controlled media/finance which allowed Capitalists to weather a century of global communist revolution.
Actual modern-day academic Georgists like Polly Cleveland are not classical liberal single-taxers; they’re generally ecologically oriented social democrats who happen to support land taxes, in addition to other progressive taxes.
The whole back-and-forth shows the fundamental weakness of pegging your ideology to folks over a century in the grave. Piketty's Capital expands significantly on the understanding initially gleaned by Marx. Bookchin's social ecology expanded on the theories and observations of George. Mao's third-worlder-ism built on the theories of Lenin.
Understanding an ideological foundation doesn't preclude you from building on it.
The Georgist dumbshits honestly think Einstein saying George's book was "important" made him a Georgist. Like he's their most famous celebrity fellow traveler.
But if you read "Why Socialism?" the dude is a straight up crypto-marxist. Nothing he said even comes close to representing a Georgist analysis. He's just flat out calling for a a rationally planned and administered economy.
“There are increasing signs the Russian trials are not faked, but that there is a plot among those who look upon Stalin as a stupid reactionary who has betrayed the ideas of the revolution.”
"I honor Lenin as a man who completely sacrificed himself and devoted all his energy to the realization of social justice. I do not consider his methods practical, but one thing is certain: men of his type are the guardians and restorers of the conscience of humanity."
:lenin-laugh:
I don't know a single Communist that wouldn't say that George's ideas were important. Reformist and limited, perhaps, but an important part of Socialist development and with policy that can be used to advance revolutionary measures.
But "Georgists" are universally just the worst.
Lots of progressive-ish neoliberals adopt Georgist talking points in the same way Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg adopts leftist language in defense of liberalism. They make noises about wanting better things, they do thousand-page white papers about how they'd change policy, and then they undercut anyone else trying to actually execute on the vision by screaming "You're a bigot! You're a radical! You're a monster!"
Georgists think that anyone who supports a land tax is therefore a Georgist.
A lot of people have supported land taxes, including Marx himself. In a capitalist context, it's a generally a more progressive tax than a lot of existing taxes under capitalism, many of which are explicitly regressive. Of course, most people who support land taxes do not support taxing land at 100% and making that the only tax that funds the entire government, which is what George supported.
Online Georgists, who are overwhelmingly market fetishists, also don't realize that George himself was considered a radical in his time. His ideas made a lot more sense in the 19th century, and if he was alive today, he'd probably be to the left of the average succdem. Actual modern-day academic Georgists like Polly Cleveland are not classical liberal single-taxers; they're generally ecologically oriented social democrats who happen to support land taxes, in addition to other progressive taxes.
George supported a 100% tax on base land value, not capital productivity or licensure. In that sense, his theories are somewhat outdated. They applied best to agricultural economies and economies predicated on a handful of geographic trade choke points (rivers and dams, mines, mountain passes, natural ports, canals, etc).
When modern monopolies are more heavily predicated on manufactured economic choke points (satellites, railroad hubs, accreditor institutions, legal patents, financial proximity to the Fed credit window) his ideas don't neatly apply.
Of course, the same could be said of Marx, who saw the aggregation of political capital in institutions as a symptom of a looming crisis, but lacked the prophetic wisdom to predict the post-WW2 period and the impact of centrally controlled media/finance which allowed Capitalists to weather a century of global communist revolution.
The whole back-and-forth shows the fundamental weakness of pegging your ideology to folks over a century in the grave. Piketty's Capital expands significantly on the understanding initially gleaned by Marx. Bookchin's social ecology expanded on the theories and observations of George. Mao's third-worlder-ism built on the theories of Lenin.
Understanding an ideological foundation doesn't preclude you from building on it.