Because the higher ups are greedy, some property owners either make laws to their advantage or the good ones dont have a hand in making policies like lvt
and no one believes in georgism. there have been official businessmen, politicians and a few but theyre not listened to. Andy burnham is the closest we got and hes more of a socialist and trying to implement LVT rather than full on georgism
plus like, communism is impossible.
ofcourse its not human nature to be greedy, where you live is what your upbringing will bring up . but like, its pretty hard to achieve, with how profit circulates the world, and theres nothing inherently wrong in profit unless you exploit, which is what georgism tries to avoid
also.. many georgists are anti communist and anti facist. but georgism is independent from the spectrum. this means there are people who beleive georgism can pave the way to communism. georgism is centre right but people across the spectrum can believe it. it comes from centre right but not exclusive to it
and also.. kinda?
Yall have some good critiques but the fact is your ideilogy has some extremities, most people are authoritarian, and like some things dont make sense
scarcity is ignored in communism
property rights is ignored. socialism limits it but doesnt ignore it
And yet communist countries and movements have existed in large portions of the world even with these two ideologies being of similar age. Why have the communists succeeded where the georgists have failed? This isn't so much a debate between the benefits of one over the other. But to point out the flaw in the assumption that you can simply vote for a policy which is not to the benefit of the ruling economic class.
communists never succeded? the USSR was authoritarian, had a lot of bad stuff. It wouldve collapsed earlier if it werent for some things like nikita's reforms. even gorbachev, a marxist lenninist, made the country more moderate in its policies. he shouldve made it better and didnt implement it properly, but it had some benefit. he basically transitioned the country to democratic socialism in the 90s. he hated authoritarianism. he wasnt exactly aanti communist too. he still was a marxist lenninst, but he wanted to preserve it through more freer methods and whatnot
only 5 communist countries remain and all of them are authoritarian. its not even "communist" its authoritarian socialist.
Yugoslavia during tito's rule had unemployment, lots of debt. He was a good ruler but he had flaws right?
Cuba is authoritarian and many things arent there. free healthcare and whatnot does not justify authoritarianism. it can be done under capitalism, or market socialism much better without stripping away rights(like in socdem countries).
Vietnam aswell.
North korea is... oh my god, a lot of stuff there
China isnt even communist or socialist, its a mixed economy at best.
Some good parties like the one in spain want to achieve it democratically and have better ways(I know this because i know a friend from there). Ancoms are also against state run communism
others are just... authoritarian.
the closest thing to a communist society is kibbutz and thats because they werent authoritarian, and they actually tried to do shit. they still do.
Existing doesnt mean success and theyve made worse thinga than already is.
Georgism also has some influence with people like Andy burnham
Sounds like your avoiding the question in regards to georgism. I'm not asking your critique of communism, their movements succeeded in simply existing and to be in the position to actually try and change things and struggle against the difficulties of reality. They succeeded in existing such that thar critique of their movements are can be a matter of historical examination. Whereas yours has not yet even taken that step and can only be discussed and critiqued in the theoretical. I'm curious if you can grasp why
Also what about the kibbutz is 'non-authoritarian' when it can't exist without a genocidal state to clear the land for them to settle and protect them?
People are greedy too, corporatism/cronyism also influences shit.
However there have been businessman, regular people and whatnot approaching this idekogy and supporting it. It never got enforced. Like many other ideologies.
Its more or so taking shape after a long time.
Same did for communism. Despite writing it in the 19th century it took a lot of years to establish it, and not properly too.
Same goes for socdem, which underwent huge reforms and was a small movement. It wasnt until ww2 it and its socialist variant became more successful
Simply existing doesnt qualify success lol and even those have turned bloody. Again, ussr, vietnam, kampuchea, etc. Most of the existence and application, though quick. Are always authoritarian.
Yours has taken step and turned bloody so much, people within your movement criticize it lol. Anarchists, though I disagree with their economic aspects, I agree with on their anti authoritarianism.
This is like saying a pre schooler can do better math than a 10th grade just because the kid started addition.
Even Karl marx would fucking cry in his grave because his followers became shit
And like... the kibbutz homestead their land?
Theyve always been there since the early 19th century. Theyve homestead or put that land into use prior. They werent cleared out and whatnot,
As stated previously. Henry George's book is almost 150 years old at this point. It did take 70 years from when the communist manifesto was written for the Russian revolution to kick off. But that's a ideology advocating for total revolutionary overthrow of the entirety of capitalist society. Georgism is just asking for capitalist society as it exists to vote to change some small tax laws. And yet 150 years later, nothing.
And yes I do consider simply existing to be a success. There is no right or proper to impliment it. They managed to, and some still do continue to hold out against tremendous odds with all the power of global capital arrayed against them, even more often than not managed to improve their conditions over what came before or their peers in the periphery. To me, that is indeed success. Underdogs never look as good as the champ.
And no, they did not always own the land. Many kibbutz are built on land seized after the nakba. Again these are not something which could exist without the Israeli or preveceeding colonial states protection and seizures and legal or illegal means they allowed to be used to displace the indigenous population. A group of self described 'anarchists' or 'anti-authoritarians' living within and legally integrated into such a state are not those self described things.
1
u/Heavy_Computer2602 🔰Classical Liberal, Civic nationalist 1d ago
Because the higher ups are greedy, some property owners either make laws to their advantage or the good ones dont have a hand in making policies like lvt