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.

Instead of its privatisation, the public capture of economic rent generates a world of abundance.

Question for AI: Did Christian socialism call for the public capture of economic rents instead of taxes on purchases and earned incomes?

Reply: Christian socialism, as a broad movement, has historically emphasized social justice, communal welfare, and critiques of unchecked capitalism, often drawing from biblical principles like stewardship and care for the poor. While specific policy proposals vary across thinkers and contexts, the movement generally hasn’t coalesced around a singular focus on capturing economic rents (like land or resource rents) as a primary alternative to taxes on purchases or earned incomes. However, some strands align with ideas akin to Georgism, which emphasizes taxing unearned income from land and natural resources rather than labor or consumption, resonating with Christian socialist values of fairness and reducing inequality.

For instance, certain Christian socialists, particularly those influenced by 19th-century thinkers like Henry George (who, while not explicitly a Christian socialist, shared overlapping concerns), supported land value taxation as a way to capture economic rents. They saw this as a morally grounded way to redistribute wealth without penalizing productive work, aligning with Christian ethics of justice and communal good. Figures like George Herron in the U.S. or some within the British Christian socialist tradition (e.g., the Guild of St. Matthew) occasionally echoed these sentiments, though their focus was often broader, targeting systemic issues like private monopolies or exploitative labor conditions.

That said, Christian socialism as a whole doesn’t uniformly advocate for replacing taxes on purchases or earned incomes with rent capture. Many Christian socialists have supported progressive taxation, public ownership of key industries, or welfare programs, without explicitly prioritizing economic rents. The movement’s diversity—spanning Catholic social teaching, Protestant reformism, and liberation theology—means proposals differ, often shaped by local economic contexts.

Whereas Australia’s total land prices represented $2000 per head (i.e for every man, woman & child) in 1971, now we’re at an astonishing $364,000 per head! (Refer ABS 5204 Table 61)

Go, Oz!

And we wonder why our productivity is waining!

Our economists seem to be lost on this.

Anyone for revisiting the Henry Tax Review?

…. IF MICHAEL HUDSON AND RICHARD WOLFF DON’T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HENRY GEORGE’S INPUT.

The highlighted interview above is most enlightening under current world circumstances, but in my opinion–not theirs, obviously!–Henry George correctly amended both Adam Smith and Karl Marx in Progress and Poverty.

…. by Warren Mosler

And I think he may agree with regard to inflation: –

~~~~

Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles has joined in solidarity with counterpart Pete Hegseth’s USA warmongering speech against China.

I guess we’ve got to show China what we’re going to do with it if it were to attack Taiwan? “Peace through strength“, eh Richard?

We’re just being tough, right? We’re not really angling for WWIII?

While I prefer diplomacy to chest-thumping and threats, perhaps China has become a handy scapegoat for the USA’s increasing socio-economic troubles. You know: “Look over there!“

Sounds remarkably like the British Empire facing off against Germany in the early 20th Century. All that hubris eventuated in WWI. There was no way out of the warlike atmosphere that had been created.

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.