Generally Discrediting David Harvey
- This topic has 63 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 years, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
According to this,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_Great_Britain_debates
we last debated them in August 1991 at the offices of their paper “Land and Liberty”. The subject was: “Who was right: Henry George or Karl Marx”. Their speaker was Fred Harrison of the “Centre for Incentive Taxation”. Harrison is still a leading propagandist for Georgism in Britain:
https://shepheardwalwyn.com/fred-harrison-author/
There was also a debate in November 1950 against the Henry George School of Social Science.
In that 1889 debate between Hyndman and George, Hyndman made some good points:
“The mean of production are monopolised by the capitalists, with the landlords as their sleeping partners, and those who have no other property than the force of labour in their bodies are compelled by that monopoly to sell it for practically a subsistence wage.”
“We do not particularly hate landlords more than capitalists, or capitalists more than landlords. The alligator and the crocodile; it matters not which it is from the point of view of those upon whom they feed (Laughter.) We wish to get rid of both, and what we are aiming at is the abolition of the wages system – (Hear, hear.) – and that aim can only be accomplished by the abolition of private property in the means and instruments of production including the land. (Hear, hear.)”
“The landlord, after all, in this country, and even in America, is but a sleeping partner in the process of expropriation which is carried on at the expense of the workers. (Cheers.) If you kill the sleeping partner and leave the active one at work what better are you? (Hear, hear.)”
George, on the other hand, looked backwards, promising workers that his Single Tax on ground-rent scheme would give them free access to land to work on their own. Mind you, at that time the radical wing of the Liberal Party thought promising “three acres and a cow” was a vote-winner.
I don’t agree that a tax on land values is incompatible with capitalism. Hasn’t it been implemented in a number of places? The argument against it is not that it is a fantasy but that it wouldn’t make any difference to wage earners.
In so far as it replaced other taxes it would mean that capitalists would have to pay less tax and so keep more of their profits. More of the burden of taxation would have been passed on to landowners. It wouldn’t have any effect on wages.
I don’t disagree that it is a good approach to ask those who are against ground-rent because it is a property income why they are not also against profit.
I did not take classes at HG school of sciences, for me Marx body of ideas and
capital was more than enough, I read Progress and Poverty many years agoI do not publish details of my private life in the internet.
My definition of Fascism/Nazism is a degenerated form of capitalist nationalism ( ultra nationalism ) based on the dictatorship of one single party, that is more than enough to define everything related to that concept,
It existed between two wars in Germany and Italy supported by the capitalist class of both nations After the war the left ( stalinists and Trotskyist ) have been hunting fascists and nazis all over the earth, and they were completely defeated,
There are some Neo Fascist and Neo Nazis but they are small groups without military, financial and scientific power ( Nazis had many scientists ), and some do not even know what fascism really is, they think that it is only white nationalism or white superiority,
For the anti fascists, Fascism is war, racism, xenophobia, nationalism, right wingers, etc etc. but they never go to the root of the problem which is capitalism and most of them support the dictatorship of the party and they support dictators and nationalism.
I do not equate Rightism with Fascism
Henry George has nothing to offer to the socialists and the School of Social Sciences is a school of the capitalist free market, something similar to the Anarchist Capitalists. Near that school, there was a better place which was a bookstore owned by a Russian guy who used to sell all the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin
Henry George and his followers don’t have anything to offer socialists, but using land rent as an introduction to how capital exists to extract wealth from those who don’t own capital is a good way to open the door to the more general discussion of how all capital functions in this way.
The Rent theory is in Das Kapital, and we made a good analysis in three parts in 1975 and it was published in the Socialist Standard
Are you talking about this economist? I do not see his relationship with Henry George. I had read some of his reviews, and I have heard some Podcasts He does not provide anything new that has not been provided by any bourgeoise economist, or monetarist and money is not the main problem of the capitalist society, the problem arises at the point of production, and crisis is not produced by the financial system, probably Richard Wolf and Paul Mattick have made better analysis than him. War is not produced by banks either, the cause of war is the market system
He is one of those who have said that the 2008 crisis was produced by the banks and the financial system and it is not true, it was another crisis of super-production.
His concept of imperialism is even worst than Lenin’s concept of imperialism, at least Lenin saw it as a higher stage of capitalism, which is not true either, imperialism is a consequence of capitalism, and he is not making any new contribution because that world phenomenon was analysed by Nikolai Bukharin and Rosa Luxembourg from a Marxist point of view, expansion is an inherent law of capitalism and the USA is not the only imperialist country, the whole capitalist system tends toward its own expansionism.
He calls the USA super imperialism, and the USA is not the only imperialist country, China, Russia and others are imperialists.
The Maoist during the 60 they called the Soviet Union the soviet social imperialism, and they said that it was more aggressive than the USA and the European power because they came late to the repartition of markets and resources
https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/04866134211011770.pdf. Michael Hudson
The concept of western civilization was created by the western powers and they divided the world into west and east, in the same way, that northeast Africa was called the middle east,
the anthropologist Francis Jenning used the word civilization ( only one civilization ) and the decline of the so-called western civilization, sounds like the confrontation between the west and east, and the west is advanced and the east is backward.
He does not say that competition among capitalists have eliminated the hegemony of one single power or two economic power, he does not say that the USA and the Soviet Union were competing for world hegemony and there were not any ideological differences between both, and the US is not in decline because it is a creditor nation, it is fictitious capital.
The USA has entered into world competition with other economical power looking for world hegemony like the USA, expansion is an inherent law of the capitalist mode of production and it was already explained by Marx and Rosa Luxembourg
He does not mention anything about the production of wealth by the working class, and that the USA workers were the ones who produced all the wealth for the USA capitalist class.
We have an article titled: Economists, not in this world.
The Castroists used the expression: The Empire, they are only referring to the USA only , but they made a colonial alliance with the soviet union and then they became members of a group of countries named The Third world, saying that they were not in alliance with the soviet union and the USA, but Cuba was part of the soviet union, and they went to Africa to defend the interests of the soviet capitalist class
You make good points. In Michel Hudson’s defense, I’ll say that the didn’t write the book from a particular ideological approach. This was deliberate. His life’s work is about the history of debt. His work is meant to be used by socialists to fight the intellectual battle against capitalism. Hudson give us the economic weapons. The same can be said of so many socialist economists. You might believe, as I do, that economics is a fiction. But the reality is that this fiction is made of material that is durable – over 7,000 years and private property is as strong as ever. Any ammunition that we can use is welcome, at least for me.
I’m reading your words again, and I really agree about the definitions being created by and for western culture’s and capitalism’s worldview. Your insight is a starting point towards a discussion of what real socialism is – basically the SPGB’s idea of no private property, no compulsory work, no prices, no leaders, countries, etc.
This book was also written by Economists, but this article instead of talking about understanding Marxism is about understanding Wolffism. Socialism is not going to be an economic system
Thanks for sending me this. I’ll check it out tomorrow. You are 100% correct: there is no such thing as economics. The subject is a fiction created by the institution of private property to jelly bean count. Socialism and economics are antithetical.
Economics: Theory of Rent (part 1) (1975)
From the March 1975 issue of the Socialist StandardCarved in stone above the Royal Exchange in the City of London is the Biblical legend
“The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof”, to which we reply “The earth is the
landlord’s and the rent therefrom”. In the same Biblical strain we add “And he reaps where
he does not sow”.The ancient forms of rent paid to a feudal lord, or lord of the manor, or to the Church,
were usually levied in kind, and met either by the supply of a portion of the produce from
the land, or by performing unpaid labour on land belonging to these groups. These old
social relations of feudal society have been replaced with other higher social relations of
production associated with the land and its capacity to attract rent. Land use, including
agriculture, has been specifically adapted to the needs of capitalism. The vast bulk of
society’s food is obtained from the land, and takes the form of commodities, i.e. articles
produced for sale and profit. Consequently agriculture is under the domain of capital.
Rent is the money tribute levied by one section of society (landlords) against other
sections for permission to use certain portions of the globe which they (landlords) have
appropriated and monopolized to the exclusion of others. To grow food, to build houses,
factories, shipyards, etc., a ground rent must be paid to the owner of the soil. Private
property of land, and this includes land owned by the State, is a prerequisite for extracting
rent. History is full of instances as to how the rural labourers were driven off the land by
force, bloody violence, threats of imprisonment and deportation, as in the case of the
Land Enclosures over the last few hundred years. The fact remains that permission even
to inhabit the earth has to be obtained from a group of rentier parasites who monopolize
it. Ground rent is surplus-value which has previously been extracted from the working
class. Whether this is paid to private individuals, the State or the Church makes no
difference. It is an element in the overall economic organization of capitalism.
Land has no value — that is, it contains no socially necessary labour, the source of value.
T
he labour of society has not participated in its creation. It cannot be reproduced, and is
therefore not a commodity. Not being a commodity it does not have an exchange-value,
and consequently does not contain surplus-value. Surplus-value comes from unpaid
labour, and as no labour at all has gone into its creation it cannot contain value. Land has
use-value as have commodities generally, but whereas you can have use-value (the utility
of a thing) without exchange-value (price), you cannot have exchange-value without usevalue.
The landlord cannot sell non-existent commodities; the service he provides is the
service of rent collection.
It is obvious that land is bought and sold both as building plots and agricultural land. To
that extent it assumes the commodity form. Capital can be fixed in the soil either through
the erection of buildings, land improvements like ploughing, drainage and fertilization,
mining and quarrying operations etc. This capital forms part of the labour of society
generally and does not spring from the soil. The capitalist farmer produces wheat etc. in
the same way as the capitalist manufacturer produces other commodities. They differ only
in the element in which their capital is invested. Their capital, like all other, qualifies for
the average rate of profit, and if needs be can move from one sphere of production into
another.
Capital fixed in the soil — plant, factories, office-blocks etc., as with capital elsewhere,
would be entitled (under the laws of capitalism) to attract interest, but strictly speaking
this is not the same thing as ground rent, which is specifically paid for the use of the soil
and for permission to fix the capital in it in the first place. Unlike machinery and industrial
plant which wears away and has to be replaced, the land (apart from natural catastrophe)
with normal care and attention, fertilized and drained regularly in the case of arable land,
or developed with office blocks and shopping precincts, continues to improve. To that
extent it can attract a higher price for its use in the form of ground rent, or fetch a higher
price should the landlord decide to sell it. The price of land has nothing to do with its
value, which is nil. The price of building land depends purely on the oscillations of the
market, or competition between buyers and sellers.
The location of the land is a very important factor in this competition. Land required for
building in a big commercial centre like London will fetch a higher price than land
elsewhere. With agricultural land the position is somewhat different, but the monopoly of
the land owner is a major factor in the determining of the final price in both cases.
Obviously good agricultural naturally-fertile land which can yield 2 tons of grain per acre
would fetch a higher price than land of lesser quality which would only produce 30 cwts
of grain per acre. The rent charged for the use of these lands would vary, and bear some
relation to their yields.
Certain vineyards in the Bordeaux/Medoc area — Pauillac, Pomerel, etc. because of
certain chemical properties in the soil, are able to produce fine wine. Other vineyards
which lack these properties in the soil are unable to produce such fine wines, although
the same amount of useful labour has gone into their production. The finer wines and
lesser-quality wines contain, broadly speaking, the same amount of useful labour, but
there is a considerable difference between the price of a bottle of Chateauneuf de Pape
from the Rhône valley, and a bottle of Chateau Petrus or Chateau Lafite from Pomerel
or Pauillac, as any wine-drinking capitalist will tell you — at £5 per bottle this is hardly a
worker’s tipple.
The difference in price does not arise from the labour involved but purely because of the
natural properties of the soil. The owner of land where the vines were grown would be
able to charge a higher rent for the use of this land, and the wine producer would have to
part with a larger share of the surplus- value to the landlord than would the Rhône wine
producers. Were the fine-wine producer the owner of the vineyards instead of the tenant
this would make no difference. In that case, he would pocket the extra profit in his capacity
as a landlord and not as a wine-growing capitalist. In any event, before he could become
a landlord, he would have to acquire the land from the previous owner, and spend a
capital sum in order to achieve this. To that extent, the rent that he virtually paid to himself
instead of to the landlord would merely represent the interest on the capital which he had
invested in the purchase of the land.
Rent is the way in which land realizes itself economically, and whilst rent itself is not
interest (i.e. money paid for the use of capital), it is influenced by the rate of interest, as
also is the buying and selling of land. Naturally, market conditions intervene because of
the monopoly of landlords (sellers) and the demand from other portions of the capitalist
class (buyers), particularly competition for building sites in city centres where any price
may be paid. During periods of inflation the price of land will rise with other prices, not
only because the value of money has fallen but because ownership of land provides a
certain protection against the depreciation of money. The price of farmland rose from
approximately £50 per acre in 1949 to £800 per acre in 1973, due to inflation. Prices are
now falling. They fell 22 per cent, in the first half of 1974, and are expected to fall to £582
per acre towards the end of 1974. (Farmland market, Farmer’s Weekly: The Times 3rd
February 1975). Mr. Donald Campbell, editor of the report, said “The market is highly
volatile; only a few years ago changes in value were gradual and their range was small.”
Over a period, the yardstick for measuring the price of land is by a capitalization of the
rent. That is, by assuming that the rent represents the interest on an imaginary capital. If
the prevailing rate of interest is 10 per cent, and the landlord receives a ground rent of
£500 p.a., that £500 would represent the interest on an imaginary capital of £5,000. Were
the rate of interest to fall to 5 per cent, the £500 p.a. would represent the interest on an
imaginary capital of £10,000. The price of land is arrived at under normal conditions by
the number of years it would take for the rents to reach the capital sum. In the first case
the price of land would be £5,000 i.e. 10 years’ ground purchase. The external rate of
interest can and does influence the price of land. During a period of low interest rates, the
price of land will tend to rise, and during a period of high interest rates the price of land
will tend to fall, without affecting the rent at all. In England particularly, land is usually sold
at so many years’ purchase, usually twenty years or more.
A value is therefore conferred on land by circumstances outside, i.e. the rate of interest,
and does not arise from the land itself, simply because those who own the monopoly can
prevent others from having access except on terms and conditions decreed by them. In
this the landlord is joined by capitalists generally who operate in the same way by
excluding society at large from access to the means of production and distribution, as well
as monopolizing the social wealth. As society develops, and the population increases,
and there is a growing demand for land for all purposes, the landlord will share in the
fruits of this
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.