As an ex-Georgist, that was a great read that really sums up the problems with the ideology, which is really rare. The ideology is really obscure so a lot criticisms of it seem to be based off a meme-level understanding of the theories. I don't think that it's fair to call Georgism a "right-wing project opposed to labor" though, and I don't think that's really how Hudson characterizes it either. He calls George a "tragic figure" and argues that the LVT was a lot more radical and progressive than a lot of other proposals. But the problem was the total lack of any coherent strategy as to how to get it implemented, with George instead pursuing ideological purity and pushing away potential allies, while trying to convince capitalists to support reforms that were fundamentally opposed to their own interests. Essentially, George and his followers were more concerned with winning in high school debate club than in actually achieving their political aims, and they had this idea that convincing people was simply a matter of having a sound logical foundation. Which of course isn't true, and the political forces opposed to the idea had and have a lot stronger of a signal, and you can't really win an argument if your opponent gets to say 1000 words for every 1 that you get. The Upton Sinclair quote he cited really sums it up:
A few years ago, out here in Southern California, a fine enthusiast by the name of Luke North started what he called the “Great Adventure” movement, to carry California for the Single Tax. I did what I could to help, and in the course of the campaign discovered what I believe is the weakness of the Single Tax movement. Our opponents, the great rich bankers and land speculators of California, persuaded the poor man that we were going to put all taxes on this poor man’s lot, and to let the rich man’s stocks and bonds, his inheritance, his wife’s jewels, and all his income, escape taxation. The poor man swallowed this argument, and the “Great Adventure” did not carry California.
So, I no longer advocate the Single Tax. I advocate many taxes. I want to tax the rich man’s stocks and bonds, also his income, and his inheritances, and his wife’s jewels. In addition, I advocate a land tax, but one graduated like the income tax. If a man or a corporation owns a great deal of land, I want to tax him on the full rental value. If he owns only one little lot, I don’t want to tax him at all. Some day that measure will come before the voters of California, and then I should like to see the bankers and land speculators of the state persuade the poor man that the measure would not be to the poor man’s advantage!
Ultimately, I didn't abandon Georgism because I found some theoretical argument for why an LVT would be a bad idea. I still think it'd be a good idea, but, like there's plenty of good ideas! The state of the world under capitalism is so fucked up that the problem isn't really that nobody knows what to do to fix shit, it's that the people who want to fix shit have less political power than the people who are benefiting from shit being broken. Georgism only ever really tried to be a theoretical, academic solution, and when it was presented with the opportunity to be more than that, the nerds fumbled the ball.
The thrust of the article is that George enjoyed early support from socialists and labor early on, even though he actually vilified socialists and compared unions to monopoly capital, and alienated them with, in addition to the crapping on them, a single-minded, fundamentally capitalist focus on only having a land tax. The funny story of him getting nominated for office by a socialist/labor unity caucus only to strip out basically all of the pro-labor reforms is in there, too.
Georgism is right wing in the same sense that American libertarianism is right wing: fundamentally supportive of capital and capitalist exploitation by being opposed to virtually all regulation (and also having a good dollop of envy for the "good guys" in the capitalist ruling class), let alone actually challenging the capitalist system itself. Given the incredible focus on the land tax, Georgism is practically one policy away from ancapistan. The contradiction of George, per Michael's thesis, is that he really meant to be a progressive reformer but ended up fighting others' progressive policies more than actually building political power for his primary goal of a land tax - and now, as when he died, his supporters are basically right wing libertarians.
I don't agree with your reading of Hudson and I think Georgists are just their own weird thing and I feel like it's kinda reductionist to just say that they're bad because they're like bad group.
Given the incredible focus on the land tax, Georgism is practically one policy away from ancapistan.
and now, as when he died, his supporters are basically right wing libertarians.
Michael Hudson craps all over Georgism as being quasi-fascist or something
Doesn’t mention fascism, but makes a case of Georgism (and George) being right-wing projects opposed to labor.
Idk man I just get the vibe that that's how you're looking at it, like, trying to tie it to something more familiar. Which is kinda fair tbh bc the ideology isn't really significant enough to deserve it's own space in a brain, but as long as we're discussing it I think it's worth examining critically without trying to figure out where to lump it in with stuff. I don't think it fits neatly into any modern political camp, and I don't think it fit neatly into any camp back in it's day, either.
Quote 1 is a conclusion drawn from the Single Tax movement that defines George and Georgists, as I said. The myopic focus on a single regulatory policy led them to attack most other regulations and ally with overt right libertarians.
Quote 2 is a callback to quote 4, one of the things you took issue with and are very much incorrect about. Remember, you took issue with Georgism being called right wing (ancaps and American libertarians are right wing - it's not just name-calling as you imply, but I think you know that). It is also something that Michael Hudson said in the article I posted - the one that you say I'm reading incorrectly. From the chapter entitled, "George’s Alliance with the Right Wing of the Political Spectrum":
"By the early 20th century, George’s economic individualism had allied
itself with libertarian anti-government ideology. This led to a political
alignment of Single Taxers just the opposite of what his early sup-
porters favored."
Quote 3 is me vaguely mentioning that Michael Hudson had negative things to say about Georgism.
Quote 4 is me correcting myself in quote 3.
Idk man I just get the vibe that that’s how you’re looking at it, like, trying to tie it to something more familiar.
You didn't summarize what I said as, "trying to tie it to something more familiar", lol. You're being dismissive and doing it in a lazy and disrespectful way.
Which is kinda fair tbh bc the ideology isn’t really significant enough to deserve it’s own space in a brain, but as long as we’re discussing it I think it’s worth examining critically without trying to figure out where to lump it in with stuff.
Examining it critically requires lumping it with stuff. How could it not? George didn't exist in a vacuum, he courted different audiences for an idea and moved to audiences more and more on the right over time, particularly anti-government, anti-regulation, and so hilariously, anti-tax audiences. Hudson's critique covers this and also summarizes George as an idealist, as his strategies of courting these audiences tended to mean he was asking them to move against their own material interests while ignoring or dismissing those for whom it would be in their interest.
I don’t think it fits neatly into any modern political camp, and I don’t think it fit neatly into any camp back in it’s day, either.
Well I didn't say it did, did I? What I did do was point out that George himself, per Hudson's analysis, only really gave a shit about his LVT and was happy to align with right libertarian types and punch left to do it. If your ideology, in practice, is defined by wanting there to be one tax and fighting against basically every other form of regulation and taxation, it's not difficult to draw a comparison to the American right libertarian movements that he courted - and that became Georgism.
I wanted to keep my response short out of a desire to avoid getting into a drawn out discussion and I apologize that it came across as dismissive or disrespectful.
A lot of what you're claiming isn't really consistent with Hudson's arguments. Hudson said that Georgists foolishly sought an alliance with right libertarians and were rebuffed. Georgists didn't really have anything to offer them, because they have no power or influence and they're inflexible regarding policy. I don't think that trying, ineffectually, to get right libertarians to cooperate with you on something they're opposed to makes one a right libertarian, it just makes them foolish and incredibly naive.
American right libertarian movements that he courted - and that became Georgism.
This implies that Georgists were actually successful in courting right libertarians, which isn't accurate. In reality it's more like, they were weird cranks demanding that everybody do their thing first, and when their attempts to get socialists to focus exclusively on their thing failed, they tried to get libertarians to focus exclusively on their thing which also failed. Hudson's criticism is that the attempt to form an alliance was doomed to failure because their objectives and policy proposals were fundamentally opposed, and that they wasted the opportunity to form an alliance with socialists, who shared similar values and objectives.
I wanted to keep my response short out of a desire to avoid getting into a drawn out discussion and I apologize that it came across as dismissive or disrespectful.
Accepted!
Hudson said that Georgists foolishly sought an alliance with right libertarians and were rebuffed.
No, he doesn't. He says that he sought out such alliances and they didn't result in any substantial increases in the number of Single Taxers. These are not actually the same thing, I think you're trying to read between the lines of one section without looking at the rest. Example: "By focusing on ground rent to the exclusion of other forms of rentier income, and by opposing public regulation of industrial capital, they became opponents of mainstream reformers. Most became anti-socialist libertarians by the mid-20th century." and "In my own belief, the main reason why George’s followers have been so politically ineffective in mobilizing popular support (or even discussion) of a land tax is their attempt to become junior partners in a political alliance with libertarians that never had much chance of success. Libertarian ideology in America is essentially an anti-tax ideology, and a land tax remains among the most politically contentious economic proposals, having been a major factor impelling mainstream economics since Clark’s day away from the classical antipathy toward the “free lunch” of economic rent to a rationalization of such rent—and even land-price gains—as being earned. By turning the Henry George Schools into a funnel into the anti-tax ideology of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, George’s followers have walked into an effective political wall, while breaking with the opposite wing of the political spectrum that still treats Progress and Poverty as a socialist classic. This political position reflects that of George himself."
Georgism is a very thin and myopic ideology. Hudson is focusing on where George took it, in the direction of individualism and the exclusion of other reforms and taxes, as an example of it becoming a "junior partner" to right libertarianism. George didn't invent the concept of a land value tax, nor the idea of instituting one to balance out a form of rent-seeking. He's primarily distinguished by focusing nearly exclusively on it, actively excluding other forms of regulation, taxation, or power analysis, and as Hudson says, building any kind of popular movement. You can still see this among internet Georgists today that still do shit like argue that all other taxes are immoral and should be opposed.
Georgists didn’t really have anything to offer them, because they have no power or influence and they’re inflexible regarding policy. I don’t think that trying, ineffectually, to get right libertarians to cooperate with you on something they’re opposed to makes one a right libertarian, it just makes them foolish and incredibly naive.
Modern Georgists are essentially libertarians that like a LVT that goes into UBI. They fight against other regulations, reforms, and taxes on the basis of individual freedoms and saying they can't be justified. The greatest departure from this is in sometimes paying lip service to taxing other forms of rent-seeking, but this is not consistent among Georgists. Similarly, they are actively anti-socialist and oppose a class analysis beyond collaborationism. These modern Georgists are not actually a serious departure from George himself nor the Single Taxers, they're the natural conclusion to the direction he personally went and are very similar to the positions adopted in the early 20tg century. One difference is that the early Georgists lacked a consistent idea of how to redistribute the proceeds.
This implies that Georgists were actually successful in courting right libertarians, which isn’t accurate.
No it doesn't. Georgists were already very similar to right libertarians and moved closer to them. Hudson points out that many simply became libertarians - it's not a big leap, at all. Movements can stay small and recruit and change character and do so all the time because they have high turnover. While I don't know whether this is definitely the case, I would guess that this describes early Georgists as they cycled through and alienated reformers and socialists, then buddied up with libertarians
In reality it’s more like, they were weird cranks demanding that everybody do their thing first, and when their attempts to get socialists to focus exclusively on their thing failed, they tried to get libertarians to focus exclusively on their thing which also failed. Hudson’s criticism is that the attempt to form an alliance was doomed to failure because their objectives and policy proposals were fundamentally opposed, and that they wasted the opportunity to form an alliance with socialists, who shared similar values and objectives.
Nearly so. Hudson also points out that their individualism and exclusion of other taxes and reforms made them similar to libertarians and that they became a funnel for libertarianism. They still are, but with some Yang Yang bazinga brain thrown in for good measure. The key failure wrt libertarians is that they are fundamentally opposed to all taxes and basically all government, so the small jump to "just one tax" is still a step too far for them to become Georgists en masse via idealism.
In contrast, socialists had a class analysis and a wide set of reforms, particularly nationalisation of a number of industries and pro-labor legislation. Instead of being one policy removed from socialists, socialists just also liked his views on systemic causes of poverty wrt rent-seeking and instituting a LVT on top of their other reforms. The world in which this would be a more natural alliance is one where George didn't shit on socialists and unions and other reforms, but pushed LVT as a significant but not exclusive tax.
Found my vaguely-recalled source!
https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/0801GeorgesCritics.pdf
Doesn't mention fascism, but makes a case of Georgism (and George) being right-wing projects opposed to labor.
As an ex-Georgist, that was a great read that really sums up the problems with the ideology, which is really rare. The ideology is really obscure so a lot criticisms of it seem to be based off a meme-level understanding of the theories. I don't think that it's fair to call Georgism a "right-wing project opposed to labor" though, and I don't think that's really how Hudson characterizes it either. He calls George a "tragic figure" and argues that the LVT was a lot more radical and progressive than a lot of other proposals. But the problem was the total lack of any coherent strategy as to how to get it implemented, with George instead pursuing ideological purity and pushing away potential allies, while trying to convince capitalists to support reforms that were fundamentally opposed to their own interests. Essentially, George and his followers were more concerned with winning in high school debate club than in actually achieving their political aims, and they had this idea that convincing people was simply a matter of having a sound logical foundation. Which of course isn't true, and the political forces opposed to the idea had and have a lot stronger of a signal, and you can't really win an argument if your opponent gets to say 1000 words for every 1 that you get. The Upton Sinclair quote he cited really sums it up:
Ultimately, I didn't abandon Georgism because I found some theoretical argument for why an LVT would be a bad idea. I still think it'd be a good idea, but, like there's plenty of good ideas! The state of the world under capitalism is so fucked up that the problem isn't really that nobody knows what to do to fix shit, it's that the people who want to fix shit have less political power than the people who are benefiting from shit being broken. Georgism only ever really tried to be a theoretical, academic solution, and when it was presented with the opportunity to be more than that, the nerds fumbled the ball.
The thrust of the article is that George enjoyed early support from socialists and labor early on, even though he actually vilified socialists and compared unions to monopoly capital, and alienated them with, in addition to the crapping on them, a single-minded, fundamentally capitalist focus on only having a land tax. The funny story of him getting nominated for office by a socialist/labor unity caucus only to strip out basically all of the pro-labor reforms is in there, too.
Georgism is right wing in the same sense that American libertarianism is right wing: fundamentally supportive of capital and capitalist exploitation by being opposed to virtually all regulation (and also having a good dollop of envy for the "good guys" in the capitalist ruling class), let alone actually challenging the capitalist system itself. Given the incredible focus on the land tax, Georgism is practically one policy away from ancapistan. The contradiction of George, per Michael's thesis, is that he really meant to be a progressive reformer but ended up fighting others' progressive policies more than actually building political power for his primary goal of a land tax - and now, as when he died, his supporters are basically right wing libertarians.
I don't agree with your reading of Hudson and I think Georgists are just their own weird thing and I feel like it's kinda reductionist to just say that they're bad because they're like bad group.
Do you think "they're bad because they're like bad group" is an honest summary of what I said?
Idk man I just get the vibe that that's how you're looking at it, like, trying to tie it to something more familiar. Which is kinda fair tbh bc the ideology isn't really significant enough to deserve it's own space in a brain, but as long as we're discussing it I think it's worth examining critically without trying to figure out where to lump it in with stuff. I don't think it fits neatly into any modern political camp, and I don't think it fit neatly into any camp back in it's day, either.
Quote 1 is a conclusion drawn from the Single Tax movement that defines George and Georgists, as I said. The myopic focus on a single regulatory policy led them to attack most other regulations and ally with overt right libertarians.
Quote 2 is a callback to quote 4, one of the things you took issue with and are very much incorrect about. Remember, you took issue with Georgism being called right wing (ancaps and American libertarians are right wing - it's not just name-calling as you imply, but I think you know that). It is also something that Michael Hudson said in the article I posted - the one that you say I'm reading incorrectly. From the chapter entitled, "George’s Alliance with the Right Wing of the Political Spectrum":
"By the early 20th century, George’s economic individualism had allied itself with libertarian anti-government ideology. This led to a political alignment of Single Taxers just the opposite of what his early sup- porters favored."
Quote 3 is me vaguely mentioning that Michael Hudson had negative things to say about Georgism.
Quote 4 is me correcting myself in quote 3.
You didn't summarize what I said as, "trying to tie it to something more familiar", lol. You're being dismissive and doing it in a lazy and disrespectful way.
Examining it critically requires lumping it with stuff. How could it not? George didn't exist in a vacuum, he courted different audiences for an idea and moved to audiences more and more on the right over time, particularly anti-government, anti-regulation, and so hilariously, anti-tax audiences. Hudson's critique covers this and also summarizes George as an idealist, as his strategies of courting these audiences tended to mean he was asking them to move against their own material interests while ignoring or dismissing those for whom it would be in their interest.
Well I didn't say it did, did I? What I did do was point out that George himself, per Hudson's analysis, only really gave a shit about his LVT and was happy to align with right libertarian types and punch left to do it. If your ideology, in practice, is defined by wanting there to be one tax and fighting against basically every other form of regulation and taxation, it's not difficult to draw a comparison to the American right libertarian movements that he courted - and that became Georgism.
I wanted to keep my response short out of a desire to avoid getting into a drawn out discussion and I apologize that it came across as dismissive or disrespectful.
A lot of what you're claiming isn't really consistent with Hudson's arguments. Hudson said that Georgists foolishly sought an alliance with right libertarians and were rebuffed. Georgists didn't really have anything to offer them, because they have no power or influence and they're inflexible regarding policy. I don't think that trying, ineffectually, to get right libertarians to cooperate with you on something they're opposed to makes one a right libertarian, it just makes them foolish and incredibly naive.
This implies that Georgists were actually successful in courting right libertarians, which isn't accurate. In reality it's more like, they were weird cranks demanding that everybody do their thing first, and when their attempts to get socialists to focus exclusively on their thing failed, they tried to get libertarians to focus exclusively on their thing which also failed. Hudson's criticism is that the attempt to form an alliance was doomed to failure because their objectives and policy proposals were fundamentally opposed, and that they wasted the opportunity to form an alliance with socialists, who shared similar values and objectives.
Accepted!
No, he doesn't. He says that he sought out such alliances and they didn't result in any substantial increases in the number of Single Taxers. These are not actually the same thing, I think you're trying to read between the lines of one section without looking at the rest. Example: "By focusing on ground rent to the exclusion of other forms of rentier income, and by opposing public regulation of industrial capital, they became opponents of mainstream reformers. Most became anti-socialist libertarians by the mid-20th century." and "In my own belief, the main reason why George’s followers have been so politically ineffective in mobilizing popular support (or even discussion) of a land tax is their attempt to become junior partners in a political alliance with libertarians that never had much chance of success. Libertarian ideology in America is essentially an anti-tax ideology, and a land tax remains among the most politically contentious economic proposals, having been a major factor impelling mainstream economics since Clark’s day away from the classical antipathy toward the “free lunch” of economic rent to a rationalization of such rent—and even land-price gains—as being earned. By turning the Henry George Schools into a funnel into the anti-tax ideology of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises, George’s followers have walked into an effective political wall, while breaking with the opposite wing of the political spectrum that still treats Progress and Poverty as a socialist classic. This political position reflects that of George himself."
Georgism is a very thin and myopic ideology. Hudson is focusing on where George took it, in the direction of individualism and the exclusion of other reforms and taxes, as an example of it becoming a "junior partner" to right libertarianism. George didn't invent the concept of a land value tax, nor the idea of instituting one to balance out a form of rent-seeking. He's primarily distinguished by focusing nearly exclusively on it, actively excluding other forms of regulation, taxation, or power analysis, and as Hudson says, building any kind of popular movement. You can still see this among internet Georgists today that still do shit like argue that all other taxes are immoral and should be opposed.
Modern Georgists are essentially libertarians that like a LVT that goes into UBI. They fight against other regulations, reforms, and taxes on the basis of individual freedoms and saying they can't be justified. The greatest departure from this is in sometimes paying lip service to taxing other forms of rent-seeking, but this is not consistent among Georgists. Similarly, they are actively anti-socialist and oppose a class analysis beyond collaborationism. These modern Georgists are not actually a serious departure from George himself nor the Single Taxers, they're the natural conclusion to the direction he personally went and are very similar to the positions adopted in the early 20tg century. One difference is that the early Georgists lacked a consistent idea of how to redistribute the proceeds.
No it doesn't. Georgists were already very similar to right libertarians and moved closer to them. Hudson points out that many simply became libertarians - it's not a big leap, at all. Movements can stay small and recruit and change character and do so all the time because they have high turnover. While I don't know whether this is definitely the case, I would guess that this describes early Georgists as they cycled through and alienated reformers and socialists, then buddied up with libertarians
Nearly so. Hudson also points out that their individualism and exclusion of other taxes and reforms made them similar to libertarians and that they became a funnel for libertarianism. They still are, but with some Yang Yang bazinga brain thrown in for good measure. The key failure wrt libertarians is that they are fundamentally opposed to all taxes and basically all government, so the small jump to "just one tax" is still a step too far for them to become Georgists en masse via idealism.
In contrast, socialists had a class analysis and a wide set of reforms, particularly nationalisation of a number of industries and pro-labor legislation. Instead of being one policy removed from socialists, socialists just also liked his views on systemic causes of poverty wrt rent-seeking and instituting a LVT on top of their other reforms. The world in which this would be a more natural alliance is one where George didn't shit on socialists and unions and other reforms, but pushed LVT as a significant but not exclusive tax.