I enjoyed very much the recent interview with Michael Hudson- so great to hear two extremely intelligent and articulate people in dialogue. From my reading of Mr. Hudson's work, I find a lot of citation of Henry George. Mr. Hudson has done a great deal of research into early Mesopotamian cultures, specifically the periodic elimination of debt in regards to land tenure- this work seems to support some of the conclusions of George as well, in terms of identifying monopolization of land value as a prime driver of inequality. I know that in their day, George and Marx were highly critical of each other and even though George was extraordinarily influential in his time, the ascendancy of Marx has drowned out the Georgist perspective as an alternate-alternative to finance capitalism. Is Georgism still relevant? Is there room under the "socialist tent" for alternative forms of socialism other than Marx? Was Marx correct in labeling "Land" as just another form of Capital? Or is it still useful to view "Land" as a unique factor of production? Many thanks!
Is there room for a "Georgist" critique in contemporary socialism?
Do you like this suggestion?
Showing 5 reactions
Sign in with
I’d love to hear Prof.Wolff talk more on Henry George. I feel like George gets underrepresented in the economics dialogues that I hear.
UBI is straight from Georgism too. Because LVT justifies dividends to the populace, because everyone contributes to the rise in land value (not just the holder of land).
Wolff comments on UBI here:
He says instead of UBI you should double jobs by decreasing work week hour.
Problem with this is, that the incentive is to work longer for those whom want more money.
The other major problem is the Automation Elephant. That means only jobs relevant are engineers who make and maintain the machines, therefore, less IQ people are less relevant and the double workers theory is less relevant.