The Original Communist Manifesto:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
The Home-Owner-Ist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
So approximately half the original Communist Manifesto has been gleefully adopted by the Homeys.
The Georgist Manifesto
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
Only about a third of the original Communist Manifesto re-appears in the mainstream Georgist Manifesto, and even less than that in the Geo-Libertarian Manifesto (let's not niggle).
There are overlaps between the Home-Owner-Ist and Georgist Manifestos as well of course, but at least we don't need to argue over those.
So now we know: Home-Owner-Ism is far closer to Communism than the Homeys would like to admit and certainly closer to it than Georgism is!
-----------------------------------------------
It's also interesting to show the Communist/Homey overlaps in purple and the Communist/Georgist overlaps in green, bits common to both Home-Owner-Ism and Georgism are in grey:
1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of the population over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools.
There's a lot more purple than green, doesn't there?
Friday, 1 November 2013
A comparison between the Communist, Home-Owner-Ist and Georgist Manifestos
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I am not sure about the commonality of (6) betwen Communism / Georgism. It rather depends what is meant by 'means'.
News to me that the Homies want to nationalise the banks and for the State to profit from the creation of credit by FRB.Hooray!
The problem with the Communist Manifesto is maybe that it is too jam-packed with proposals that cancel each other out.You don't need to abolish inheritance when you have nationalised land values and the banks.You don't need a massive income tax for ditto reasons.
BTW the claim that Georgists would n't abolish property in land is a bit tenuous.If the State confiscates all the profits= rents in land what's the point in owning it? Just a massive tax liability ,after you've paid for the property fair and square, is all.Gesell thought that a bit of LVT would lead to a massive surrender of land to the State.
The Communist Manifesto, unpacked, might be a goer.
BTW the claim that Georgists would n't abolish property in land is a bit tenuous.If the State confiscates all the profits= rents in land what's the point in owning it? Just a massive tax liability ,after you've paid for the property fair and square, is all.Gesell thought that a bit of LVT would lead to a massive surrender of land to the State.
DBC: simples, because there´s a economical benefit in owning and/or using the property. How Gesell or you come out with the idea that suddenly people wouldn´t have use for land anymore, I have no idea.
As for the problem with falling land capital values when implementing LVT, that´s an issue, sure, but it´s not insurmountable.
The Nolan Chart sets out graphically fairly accurately how authoritarian lefties get to the same place as totalitarian righties. The former favour labour cronyism and coercion the latter rent seeking cronyism and coercion. It all leads to the same place, totalitarian government, slavery and irresponsibility. Stalin/Marxism did by basing his justification on class, Hitler on race and the current bureaucratic state on consumers. (The last is even more stupid than the former since all consumers are actual, potential or former producers).
Lola: oh it´s not always as subtle as that. Radical Marxists aren´t shy of bandying about terms like "class traitors", and making no secret what fate certain sections of society will get "after the revolution".
@KJ
After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (for their own land) to the State. So what is the difference from Thomas Spence's land nationalisation scheme circa 1775?
I notice you do not venture to lay down the law on the question of who should own the money supply (which the Spenceans seem to have taken a view on also when they broke off from the Spa Fields demo in 1816 to capture the B of E).
DBC, it's not their own land, not in the UK it isn't. All land belongs to the Crown. All the "owners" have is a freehold, basically a perpetual lease without any rent being due. That's why land "owned" by a foreign state doesn't become part of that state.
@B
But after LVT they do have to pay full rent because the Crown and its ministers decree it. I don't see the distinction you are making.I also don't see how a foreign country could own bits of the UK and frinstance promulgate non-UK law.Anyway don't embassies operate as little bits of sovereign territory abroad?
"But after LVT they do have to pay full rent because the Crown and its ministers decree it."
Who does? We don't have LVT AFAIK. Yes, embassies are different, but I am sure that embassies are not the only properties that HMG owns abroad.
DBC:
After Georgist LVT, people get to pay rent (for their own land) to the State. So what is the difference from Thomas Spence's land nationalisation scheme circa 1775?
I notice you do not venture to lay down the law on the question of who should own the money supply (which the Spenceans seem to have taken a view on also when they broke off from the Spa Fields demo in 1816 to capture the B of E).
Going off on a tangent again DBC. There´s a lot of things I didn´t lay down the law on. I suggest you review the KAALVTN-site again instead of going down this road again.
L, most people seem happy with the government or local council building and maintaining roads (for cars) and providing bus services and regulating railways etc. That's not very contentious, is it?
DBC, of course they nationalised the banks!! Obviously, they nationalised the expenses and losses and give all the profits to a small group of super-civil servants/corporatists, but a free market it ain't.
Kj, correct on all counts as per usual :-).
B: That's why land "owned" by a foreign state doesn't become part of that state."
As DBC says, for some purposes, it does. In theory rather than in practise, but hey.
KJ I am not going off on a tangent: the discussion is about a comparison between the 1848 Communist Manifesto and modern political programmes.The 1848 proposals include nationalising the banks so I am following that line up.
It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what is admissible to discussions!Especially as you are so complacent about the commercial banks creating money and charging interest on it,charges which, if nationalised the State could use to reduce other taxes,making LVT less problematic.
DBC, under Home-Owner-Ism, the banks clearly are nationalised.
Problem is, the profits go to the few and not the many (they pay for the losses and expenses). In that sense, it is very much like Communism as practised in USSR or PR China.
It is not for you to be the final arbiter of what is admissible to discussions!
Ofcourse not, but I don´t think the debating technique of "well what about something that you didn´t adress" adds any value, that´s all. I was replying to your statement about "what´s the reason for owning land", I didn´t adress banks or Herbert Spencer at all, not because those are not interesting in their own right, but because it wasn´t relevant just then. Blimey
Post a Comment