Yes, that’s a very valid concern indeed. You’re right that under Georgism it may still be possible for an elite to corrupt politics in such a way that the Geogist values itself cannot be upheld. But it’s still a step in the right direction, and I think that’s more a political problem than an economic one. We also don’t really know for certain that if a society successfully implements Georgism that they will even let their elite gain such power. After all, it becomes much easier for the common folk to escape the capitalist treadmill. That may be wishful thinking if we would change to Georgism overnight and leave people with a consumerist mindset to their own devices, but maybe paired with an ideological shift in thinking, it could work.
I don’t necessarily disagree, as I said in my initial comment my complaint about Georgism is with it being insufficient, not me being in principle against the morality of it. I just don’t see why limit ourselves to taxation of land ownership instead of the, in my opinion fairer and more all-encompassing, collective ownership of land and means of production. We can start by taxing land, sure, but why the hangup with that in particular? We could argue instead for collective ownership of all housing, all means of production, and all land, and this way the exploitation would stop altogether.
As for democracy being revisited, I actually agree but in a different way. I just don’t think real democracy is possible in a two-class system where a minority class (capitalists) have the economic power, and hence media power, and hence political power. I love democracy, but I don’t think we’ve had real democracy in the west, in fact we have very much the contrary. We saw it recently in France where the President skipped congress using emergency measure legislation in order to raise retirement age against the democratic will of the people. We saw it in Germany when Berlin had a referendum to cap rent prices and a judge invalidated it saying it was unconstitutional. We saw it in Greece when Syriza carried out a referendum to revisit the sovereign debt but couldn’t do it under ECB threat of being left stranded without control over their own currency. We see it in the entire western world whenever austerity policy is applied, because almost everywhere the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of free good quality education, free good quality healthcare and good retirement pensions. I just think that we live in a bourgeois democracy, where there is a democracy for capitalists but not for workers, who actually compose the majority of the population.
Yeah, I think we’re largely aligned indeed, and I appreciate your detailed response!
We can start by taxing land, sure, but why the hangup with that in particular? We could argue instead for collective ownership of all housing, all means of production, and all land, and this way the exploitation would stop altogether.
I think I could also agree on collective ownership of housing, although I’m not yet certain it’s necessary. After all, from what I read about land-value taxation (which admittedly is still not a lot yet), it incentivises development of properties, so the land taxation alone might improve the housing situation too.
But a collective ownership of the means of production is something I’m more sceptical about. Because we want people to own the fruits of their labour, so if they make something, it’s theirs, which is the reward for making something in the first place. But then if I make something to improve food production, I become forced to share it with everyone? That de-incentivises people to work on such endeavour. I still agree that sharing improved means of food production is a good thing, but I don’t think an overly strict interpretation of shared ownership is the answer. The current practice of a time-limited patent might actually suffice.
I just don’t think real democracy is possible in a two-class system where a minority class (capitalists) have the economic power
Yes, I agree. Though in the proposal that I linked, there is indeed a two-class system but one where the minority class are explicitly prevented from having any personal ownership. This then incentivises them towards preventing capitalist excesses, since capitalists that become too powerful may actually become a threat to their own power. But it’s still merely a thought experiment too, so I don’t know if it would work out as intended.
Yes, that’s a very valid concern indeed. You’re right that under Georgism it may still be possible for an elite to corrupt politics in such a way that the Geogist values itself cannot be upheld. But it’s still a step in the right direction, and I think that’s more a political problem than an economic one. We also don’t really know for certain that if a society successfully implements Georgism that they will even let their elite gain such power. After all, it becomes much easier for the common folk to escape the capitalist treadmill. That may be wishful thinking if we would change to Georgism overnight and leave people with a consumerist mindset to their own devices, but maybe paired with an ideological shift in thinking, it could work.
But I would even be open to the idea that maybe it’s democracy itself that needs to be revisited.
I don’t necessarily disagree, as I said in my initial comment my complaint about Georgism is with it being insufficient, not me being in principle against the morality of it. I just don’t see why limit ourselves to taxation of land ownership instead of the, in my opinion fairer and more all-encompassing, collective ownership of land and means of production. We can start by taxing land, sure, but why the hangup with that in particular? We could argue instead for collective ownership of all housing, all means of production, and all land, and this way the exploitation would stop altogether.
As for democracy being revisited, I actually agree but in a different way. I just don’t think real democracy is possible in a two-class system where a minority class (capitalists) have the economic power, and hence media power, and hence political power. I love democracy, but I don’t think we’ve had real democracy in the west, in fact we have very much the contrary. We saw it recently in France where the President skipped congress using emergency measure legislation in order to raise retirement age against the democratic will of the people. We saw it in Germany when Berlin had a referendum to cap rent prices and a judge invalidated it saying it was unconstitutional. We saw it in Greece when Syriza carried out a referendum to revisit the sovereign debt but couldn’t do it under ECB threat of being left stranded without control over their own currency. We see it in the entire western world whenever austerity policy is applied, because almost everywhere the overwhelming majority of people are in favour of free good quality education, free good quality healthcare and good retirement pensions. I just think that we live in a bourgeois democracy, where there is a democracy for capitalists but not for workers, who actually compose the majority of the population.
Yeah, I think we’re largely aligned indeed, and I appreciate your detailed response!
I think I could also agree on collective ownership of housing, although I’m not yet certain it’s necessary. After all, from what I read about land-value taxation (which admittedly is still not a lot yet), it incentivises development of properties, so the land taxation alone might improve the housing situation too.
But a collective ownership of the means of production is something I’m more sceptical about. Because we want people to own the fruits of their labour, so if they make something, it’s theirs, which is the reward for making something in the first place. But then if I make something to improve food production, I become forced to share it with everyone? That de-incentivises people to work on such endeavour. I still agree that sharing improved means of food production is a good thing, but I don’t think an overly strict interpretation of shared ownership is the answer. The current practice of a time-limited patent might actually suffice.
Yes, I agree. Though in the proposal that I linked, there is indeed a two-class system but one where the minority class are explicitly prevented from having any personal ownership. This then incentivises them towards preventing capitalist excesses, since capitalists that become too powerful may actually become a threat to their own power. But it’s still merely a thought experiment too, so I don’t know if it would work out as intended.