You’re misunderstanding many of my points. Market concentration is one aspect of how Capitalism functions, and is why it can’t last forever and is bound to be replaced by planning or by barbarism. Land ownership is a part of that process as well. However, the negative consequences of these facts are minimized in areas like Scandinavia through Imperialism.
You already kinda leaned into it, IMF loans are an example of Imperialism. Essentially, Scandinavian countries do the same thing other Imperialist countries do, they outsource the worst labor and pay far less for it than they’d pay for domestic labor, and along with the rest of the Imperialist gang use millitary threats and reliance on things like food control from countries like the US to keep these countries dependent. It’s why “aid” is really a tool of underdevelopment, true aid would allow countries in the Global South to develop themselves, rather than foster dependence.
I am not engaging mostly with the stats you bring up because they are one-sided and really serve to apologize for Capitalism and Imperialism, by focusing on land ownership alone when it’s a giant and interconnected system. I’m skeptical that the impact is as big as you say it is, but even if we accept them all as true, you’re still only analyzing one factor and thus miss the true problems at play. Marx elaborates as such in this letter discussing Henry George.
I’ll answer the disagreements in order:
The role of land. My point is that a Land Value Tax will not solve the problems of Capitalism. It can certainly play a role in a larger transition to Socialism, but it alone will simply pave the way for new avenues of exploitation, as has happened every time a “progressive Capitalism” has been enacted.
Capital, and its role. Land is one aspect of Capital, just as financial Capital and Industrial Capital are. You taking specific aim at Land ownership, and not at the system of private ownership as a whole, is why you have an incomplete view.
We agree already that Land needs to be tackled, and you agree that markets centralize and thus are better to have those monopolies folded into the public sector, but what happens after that? How do we get there in the first place? We keep folding into the public sector and abolish classes, and we get to there in the first place through revolution. We don’t sieze for the sake of siezing, but because it becomes an economic necessity as production increases in complexity.
It has never genuinely been possible for any working class to gain power by asking for it, ever. Only revolution has worked.
You do focus, but you over-focus, which is why you miss the key points. This is why there aren’t really any Georgists anymore, the right-Georgists become Social Democrats or Neoliberals, and the Left-Georgists become Marxists. Georgism occupies a niche underdeveloped in economics, which explains its scarcity. The largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity is run by Marxists, while Georgists don’t run anywhere.
I also don’t know what you mean by “ethical problems” with respect to Marxism. Marxism, if anything, is more ethical as it aims to abolish class society as a whole, rather than apologize for a large part of it and focus on one aspect.
I don’t think I’m being rude. I do disagree with your analysis quite sternly because I think you quite nearly get it. You fall just short, and it’s frustrating, if I’m being honest. If that manifests in rudeness on my part I apologize.
You’re misunderstanding many of my points. Market concentration is one aspect of how Capitalism functions, and is why it can’t last forever and is bound to be replaced by planning or by barbarism. Land ownership is a part of that process as well. However, the negative consequences of these facts are minimized in areas like Scandinavia through Imperialism.
You already kinda leaned into it, IMF loans are an example of Imperialism. Essentially, Scandinavian countries do the same thing other Imperialist countries do, they outsource the worst labor and pay far less for it than they’d pay for domestic labor, and along with the rest of the Imperialist gang use millitary threats and reliance on things like food control from countries like the US to keep these countries dependent. It’s why “aid” is really a tool of underdevelopment, true aid would allow countries in the Global South to develop themselves, rather than foster dependence.
I am not engaging mostly with the stats you bring up because they are one-sided and really serve to apologize for Capitalism and Imperialism, by focusing on land ownership alone when it’s a giant and interconnected system. I’m skeptical that the impact is as big as you say it is, but even if we accept them all as true, you’re still only analyzing one factor and thus miss the true problems at play. Marx elaborates as such in this letter discussing Henry George.
I’ll answer the disagreements in order:
The role of land. My point is that a Land Value Tax will not solve the problems of Capitalism. It can certainly play a role in a larger transition to Socialism, but it alone will simply pave the way for new avenues of exploitation, as has happened every time a “progressive Capitalism” has been enacted.
Capital, and its role. Land is one aspect of Capital, just as financial Capital and Industrial Capital are. You taking specific aim at Land ownership, and not at the system of private ownership as a whole, is why you have an incomplete view.
We agree already that Land needs to be tackled, and you agree that markets centralize and thus are better to have those monopolies folded into the public sector, but what happens after that? How do we get there in the first place? We keep folding into the public sector and abolish classes, and we get to there in the first place through revolution. We don’t sieze for the sake of siezing, but because it becomes an economic necessity as production increases in complexity.
It has never genuinely been possible for any working class to gain power by asking for it, ever. Only revolution has worked.
You do focus, but you over-focus, which is why you miss the key points. This is why there aren’t really any Georgists anymore, the right-Georgists become Social Democrats or Neoliberals, and the Left-Georgists become Marxists. Georgism occupies a niche underdeveloped in economics, which explains its scarcity. The largest economy by Purchasing Power Parity is run by Marxists, while Georgists don’t run anywhere.
I also don’t know what you mean by “ethical problems” with respect to Marxism. Marxism, if anything, is more ethical as it aims to abolish class society as a whole, rather than apologize for a large part of it and focus on one aspect.
I don’t think I’m being rude. I do disagree with your analysis quite sternly because I think you quite nearly get it. You fall just short, and it’s frustrating, if I’m being honest. If that manifests in rudeness on my part I apologize.