there's a line from george benard shaw that haunts me, "5 out of 6 socialist reformers in britain are due to henry george". do you think 20th century georgism was sorta subsumed by socialism? how have you gone about studying marx and early george? i've read Land & Liberty, but i'm looking to learn more.
It's a very large topic but the issue isn't, in my view, that Socialism subsumed Georgism. It's that the first iteration of Georgism was a mistake theory rather than a conflict theory.
Georgists were extremely optimistic about the prospect of liberalism being able to develop itself into abolishing the Land Monopoly. Why shouldn't they have been? In the late 19th Century, the last few centuries had seen the overthrow of feudalism, the curtailment of aristocracy, and the abolition of slavery. For them, the Land Monopoly was merely the next domino to be pushed over. Therefore, when the usual methods of social reform that had given birth to temperance, women's suffrage, abolitionism, and all the social reforms of the progressive era didn't work for the abolition of the Land Monopoly, Georgists didn't have anything else in their playbook.
The reason that Marxist socialism became the revolutionary ideology of the 20th century is, as I've tried to explain, because they understood immediately that their goals were not going to be accomplished within the liberal framework. Therefore, they developed a sophisticated, class-based analysis; mapping the correlation of forces, predicting strategies for a struggle, evaluating who would be an ally or an enemy and in what circumstances. Marxism is the quintessential conflict theory.
What I've tried to explain here is that we now have enough historical experience that should put to rest any delusions that Georgism can have success as a mistake theory. There is a very powerful class of people who understand our objections the land monopoly and don't think they are incorrect but are nonetheless going to do everything in their considerable power to stop us. Therefore, what I hoped to do with this three-part essay was explain how the process of strategizing for a protracted and bitter struggle against an intransigent foe could proceed.
there's a line from george benard shaw that haunts me, "5 out of 6 socialist reformers in britain are due to henry george". do you think 20th century georgism was sorta subsumed by socialism? how have you gone about studying marx and early george? i've read Land & Liberty, but i'm looking to learn more.
It's a very large topic but the issue isn't, in my view, that Socialism subsumed Georgism. It's that the first iteration of Georgism was a mistake theory rather than a conflict theory.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/01/24/conflict-vs-mistake/
Georgists were extremely optimistic about the prospect of liberalism being able to develop itself into abolishing the Land Monopoly. Why shouldn't they have been? In the late 19th Century, the last few centuries had seen the overthrow of feudalism, the curtailment of aristocracy, and the abolition of slavery. For them, the Land Monopoly was merely the next domino to be pushed over. Therefore, when the usual methods of social reform that had given birth to temperance, women's suffrage, abolitionism, and all the social reforms of the progressive era didn't work for the abolition of the Land Monopoly, Georgists didn't have anything else in their playbook.
The reason that Marxist socialism became the revolutionary ideology of the 20th century is, as I've tried to explain, because they understood immediately that their goals were not going to be accomplished within the liberal framework. Therefore, they developed a sophisticated, class-based analysis; mapping the correlation of forces, predicting strategies for a struggle, evaluating who would be an ally or an enemy and in what circumstances. Marxism is the quintessential conflict theory.
What I've tried to explain here is that we now have enough historical experience that should put to rest any delusions that Georgism can have success as a mistake theory. There is a very powerful class of people who understand our objections the land monopoly and don't think they are incorrect but are nonetheless going to do everything in their considerable power to stop us. Therefore, what I hoped to do with this three-part essay was explain how the process of strategizing for a protracted and bitter struggle against an intransigent foe could proceed.
-Long Live the Third Republic!