Hearing that land isn't capital and shouldn't be owned had me completely rethink the marxist vs capitalist debate.
Something has clicked for me about capitalism, which is that we don't live in a capitalist world, but instead a monopolist one.
I heard Adrian Wrigley talking about economics, and describing, very elegantly, that resources (land, minerals, the atmosphere) are *not* capital, and should not be able to be owned, as we cannot create more.
This has interesting implications. Many at the camp might say (on a banner, for example), "Capitalism causes Climate Change". That banner needs to change. What we have been calling capitalism, is in fact monopolism.
To have a banner reading "Monopolism causes Climate Change" would almost certainly be accurate, as the atmosphere is something that we all share and need, but is being monopolised by the wealthy without paying to use it.
In the same way, ever increasing house prices are not due to capitalism - capitalism is bring the building costs down - but due to the monopolisation of "land" (which as an economic term includes all fixed resources). Highly valuable land, which is the land with planning permission, roads, nearby schools, etc., is being monopolised. It is that which is putting up land prices.
Adrian Wrigley's proposal was not to sort out "capitalism" by replacing it with "marxism" (quotes deliberate, as I'm talking about people's perception of Marxism), but instead to replace monopolism with capitalism.
This, though I suspect is going to be an interesting challenge. Why is it that we have been seeing the debate as "capitalism vs marxism"?
If you think about it, it all makes sense. Who are the monopolists? They are people like Rupert Murdoch. People who control the media, and who influence and lobby political parties. It suits them to leave us thinking that the only choice we have is to replace "capitalism" with "marxism".
Well, let's take his choice away, let's start talking about our global economy as what it really is: a monopolist economy that transfers wealth from the workers *and* capital investors to the *land* owners.
A true capitalist is that small business owner who rents a factory off his monopolist landlord. Both he, as an innovator and employment provider, and his workers, are working to transfer the fruits of their collaboration to the owner of the land in rent.
The alternative is known. Some call it Georgism (see link to Wikipedia), after Henry George. A brave person might even just call it capitalism, for it sounds to me to be all the things that we are told are good about "capitalism", but without the things that are so abhorrent.
Lastly, consider our target this week, BAA. Are they merely capitalists? No. They are monopolists who control most of the airports in the south of England.
So. Let's start using the more accurate terms: let's use "monopolist" and "monopolism", and give ourselves a fighting chance.
I heard Adrian Wrigley talking about economics, and describing, very elegantly, that resources (land, minerals, the atmosphere) are *not* capital, and should not be able to be owned, as we cannot create more.
This has interesting implications. Many at the camp might say (on a banner, for example), "Capitalism causes Climate Change". That banner needs to change. What we have been calling capitalism, is in fact monopolism.
To have a banner reading "Monopolism causes Climate Change" would almost certainly be accurate, as the atmosphere is something that we all share and need, but is being monopolised by the wealthy without paying to use it.
In the same way, ever increasing house prices are not due to capitalism - capitalism is bring the building costs down - but due to the monopolisation of "land" (which as an economic term includes all fixed resources). Highly valuable land, which is the land with planning permission, roads, nearby schools, etc., is being monopolised. It is that which is putting up land prices.
Adrian Wrigley's proposal was not to sort out "capitalism" by replacing it with "marxism" (quotes deliberate, as I'm talking about people's perception of Marxism), but instead to replace monopolism with capitalism.
This, though I suspect is going to be an interesting challenge. Why is it that we have been seeing the debate as "capitalism vs marxism"?
If you think about it, it all makes sense. Who are the monopolists? They are people like Rupert Murdoch. People who control the media, and who influence and lobby political parties. It suits them to leave us thinking that the only choice we have is to replace "capitalism" with "marxism".
Well, let's take his choice away, let's start talking about our global economy as what it really is: a monopolist economy that transfers wealth from the workers *and* capital investors to the *land* owners.
A true capitalist is that small business owner who rents a factory off his monopolist landlord. Both he, as an innovator and employment provider, and his workers, are working to transfer the fruits of their collaboration to the owner of the land in rent.
The alternative is known. Some call it Georgism (see link to Wikipedia), after Henry George. A brave person might even just call it capitalism, for it sounds to me to be all the things that we are told are good about "capitalism", but without the things that are so abhorrent.
Lastly, consider our target this week, BAA. Are they merely capitalists? No. They are monopolists who control most of the airports in the south of England.
So. Let's start using the more accurate terms: let's use "monopolist" and "monopolism", and give ourselves a fighting chance.
e-mail:
Homepage:
Comments
Display the following 3 comments