Where does Georgism sit in relation to Capitalism and Communism?

Georgism, based on the ideas of Henry George, sits in a unique position relative to capitalism and communism, blending elements of both while remaining distinct. It centers on the principle that land and natural resources should be held in common, with their economic rent (unearned income from land ownership) captured via a land value tax (LVT) to fund public goods, while private property in labor and capital is preserved.

• Relation to Capitalism: Georgism aligns with capitalism in its support for free markets, private property (for labor and capital), and individual entrepreneurship. It opposes monopolistic land ownership, which George saw as a distortion of capitalism that concentrates wealth. By taxing land value instead of labor or capital, Georgism aims to enhance market efficiency and reduce inequality without undermining capitalist incentives. It’s pro-market but critical of rent-seeking.
• Relation to Communism: Georgism shares communism’s concern for equitable resource distribution and critiques the concentration of wealth, particularly through land. However, it rejects communism’s abolition of private property and central planning, favoring individual ownership of labor and capital products. The LVT socializes land rent, not production, making it less radical than communism but still redistributive.
• Middle Ground: Georgism is often described as a “third way” between capitalism and communism. It seeks to address inequality (like communism) while preserving market dynamics and individual freedom (like capitalism). It doesn’t fit neatly on a linear spectrum but can be seen as a reformist approach within capitalism, with some socialist-leaning elements due to its focus on communal land rent.

In essence, Georgism is capitalist in its market orientation but incorporates a communal approach to land, distinguishing it from both laissez-faire capitalism and Marxist communism.