Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

A love story to Capitalism and Distributism

Expand Messages
  • David Reed
    Lets hope Michael M is not hankering after Distributism. Distributism is pretty well the enemy of Georgism as HG well understood when issuing a direct rebuttal
    Message 1 of 4 , May 1 12:29 PM
      Lets hope Michael M is not hankering after Distributism.
      Distributism is pretty well the enemy of Georgism as HG well understood when issuing a direct rebuttal to Pope Leo's encyclical Rerum Novarum .In this contest HG wins hands down, even managing to out-pontificate the Pontiff.
      But of all the fringe movements in the UK  pre 1930 (whatever happened to Guild Socialism  or the National Guilds?), Distributism with its notion of distributing property of all kinds to ordinary people has entered the farthest into the mainstream, particulary in respect of home ownership, where fixing up working people with their own houses (that continually rise in value) is seen as a way for right-of-centre political parties to trump the Socialists' efforts to provide well-paying jobs .It helps that the "homeowners" are tramelled with mortgages and so inhibited about going on strike.It is a way of bribing the people using the people's own money with the added benefit of keeping them industrially quiescent.
      The Fact Sheet :America's Ownership Society is still available on Google .It shows Distributism's farthest development .President Bush Jnr was so proud of it that he left it on the Net complete with White House stationery headings all the way through the big bursting of the American property bubble :
      "The President believes that homeownership is the cornerstone of America's vibrant communities and benefits individual families by building security and long-term financial stability .In June 2002 issued  President Bush America's Homeownership Challenge to the real  estate and mortgage finance industries..." That worked out well did n't it?But Bush had some right on his side since his main concern was to raise the minorities, as he calls them up, to the same level of home-ownership as what he calls the non -minorities.
      However if you read Ownership Society on Wikipedia ,it suggests that the whole shebang stemmed from the UK where there was no concern over minorities -just a concern to get the workers to throw in their lot with parties privileging propery ownership .And part of this tradition stems from Distributist Liberals like the Unservile State group (the Servile State being Belloc's most accessible book) which conjoined with Tories to form the current Homeownerist hegemony .
      The outcome of all these movements is continual land price inflation ,property bubbles and busts .Georgism+ Keynes+ general leftiness offers low rents ,high wages .Homeownerism the reverse.
    • DavidH
      ... The Fact Sheet :America s Ownership Society is still available on Google .It shows Distributism s farthest development .President Bush Jnr was so proud of
      Message 2 of 4 , May 1 2:50 PM
        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        The Fact Sheet :America's Ownership Society is still available on Google .It shows Distributism's farthest development .President Bush Jnr was so proud of it that he left it on the Net complete with White House stationery headings all the way through the big bursting of the American property bubble :


        Well, "pure" distributism would not be so sanguine about handing such privilege to big banks. But Bush did invoke a sort of bastardized spirit of distributism to cloak his pro-privilege policies.

        dh
      • David Reed
        As a self dubbed socialist of the type Walto refers to,I certainly see the Georgist tax as redistributive and once ventured to say so on this site thinking
        Message 3 of 4 , May 2 11:58 AM
          As a self dubbed socialist of the type Walto refers to,I certainly see the Georgist tax as redistributive and once ventured to say so on this site thinking that this view was uncontentious .But apparently not.I was soundly rebuked on the grounds , as I remember, that the present distribution of landed wealth was hopelessly compromised and that any " redistribution" would only make matters worse.
           
          Contrary to Walto's implicit assumption, I tend to feel that George's tax was more radical than Marxism because i) it could be, and was, introduced by majority legislation in the UK and ii) would put a whole unproductive class out of business virtually at a stroke. I have only favoured the milder JS Mill version because the landed class has recruited electoral majorities through Ownership Society outflanking movements which have protected landed elites with electoral cannon fodder prepared to vote against their best interests as workers in order to preserve property values.
           
          The Mill "fix" of not allowing land values to inflate combined with the more modern " Keynesian" element of the public ownership of credit creation ,(perhaps nothing so extreme), could hold down landed wealth while productive wealth rose quite quickly around it,producing the supremacy of productive over passive investment which George envisaged--- but not so fast or as likely to provoke reaction.
           
          Anyway enough of all this: enjoy the latest LVT proclamation in the UK's Guardian this time by Philip Inman entitled "Tax property not people" (May 2) Maybe Brit lefties (or left of centre) are doing better getting LVT into the mainstream national media than Americans frightened silly of union action and supporting Michael Moore as in some remake of "Momma told me not to come " by Three Dog Night.
        • walto
          ... As I ve mentioned several times, I have no problem with the Mill tax--if it s all that s politically feasible. Politics is the art of the possible, and as
          Message 4 of 4 , May 2 2:27 PM
            --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, David Reed <dbcreed@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            > As a self dubbed socialist of the type Walto refers to,I certainly see the Georgist tax as redistributive and once ventured to say so on this site thinking that this view was uncontentious .But apparently not.I was soundly rebuked on the grounds , as I remember, that the present distribution of landed wealth was hopelessly compromised and that any " redistribution" would only make matters worse.
            >
            > Contrary to Walto's implicit assumption, I tend to feel that George's tax was more radical than Marxism because i) it could be, and was, introduced by majority legislation in the UK and ii) would put a whole unproductive class out of business virtually at a stroke. I have only favoured the milder JS Mill version because the landed class has recruited electoral majorities through Ownership Society outflanking movements which have protected landed elites with electoral cannon fodder prepared to vote against their best interests as workers in order to preserve property values.
            >
            > The Mill "fix" of not allowing land values to inflate combined with the more modern " Keynesian" element of the public ownership of credit creation ,(perhaps nothing so extreme), could hold down landed wealth while productive wealth rose quite quickly around it,producing the supremacy of productive over passive investment which George envisaged--- but not so fast or as likely to provoke reaction.
            >

            As I've mentioned several times, I have no problem with the Mill tax--if it's all that's politically feasible. Politics is the art of the possible, and as George conceded, a tax on unearned land gains is certainly better than nothing.

            I don't see it being any sort of solution to the long-term woes connected with concentration of wealth such as outsourcing, loss of democracy because of special interests, etc. though. It could make somethings a little better, and I would never scoff at that.



            > Anyway enough of all this: enjoy the latest LVT proclamation in the UK's Guardian this time by Philip Inman entitled "Tax property not people" (May 2) Maybe Brit lefties (or left of centre) are doing better getting LVT into the mainstream national media than Americans frightened silly of union action and supporting Michael Moore as in some remake of "Momma told me not to come " by Three Dog Night.
            >

            Brit lefties are to me much preferable to their American counterparts (as well as their American non-counterparts) in many ways--not just in getting messages to the media, but in having more sensible things to say in the first place. That ain't saying a hell of a lot though. The U.S. is a weed garden of stupid views about nearly everything at present.

            W
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.