u/K-Ve

Here is the thing. Georgism is based on classical liberalism, and it supports markets and private property. So it’s capitalism, right?
You could certainly say this. My problem with this framing, is if we reject our current model of landownership, then the natural conclusion of this train of thought is that the system we are living under blatantly violates property rights and the free market. In other words, real capitalism has never been tried.

This might be a view supported by some people here, but in my opinion it doesn’t make sense, historically speaking. Adam Smith and David Ricardo never used the word “capitalism”. That is a term coined by its opponents, and a term used to criticize the market economy as it existed, rather than some ethereal perfect market. It was used to describe a very non-Georgist system that was built on the enclosure of the commons (what Marx called “primitive accumulation”).

While Georgists offer a very different diagnosis and solution, they too should be critical of this system.
For this reason, while Georgism is a form of economic liberalism (and perhaps its most consistent application), I don’t think that calling it a pure form of capitalism is appropriate.

The term socialism likewise is very blurry, since it has countless definitions depending who you ask, ranging from “economic democracy” to “state control of the economy” to “worker ownership of the means of production” to “the abolition of unearned income” and many more.
If we compare Georgism to Marxism then yes, they are clearly opposed, but Marxism is not all of socialism, and some form of socialism have more common ground with Georgism.

What I am trying to say is that we really need to stop obsessing over labels. I have been on this subreddit for a short time and I can already see that almost every day there are posts discussing, often very superficially, whether Georgism is left or right, socialist or capitalist.

This is counterproductive, since you end up spending most of the time talking not about Georgism, but about other ideologies, and for what? Let’s say you are correct, and Georgism truly is a right wing libertarian, staunchly capitalist ideology. You have now successfully alienated every left wing person, who will recoil at your framing and not listen to a single word you have to say.

One of the biggest struggles promoting Georgism is that people still interpret politics though the lens of the Cold War. The mental map of most people is one with a Marxist-Leninist command economy on the far left (with all of its negative connotations), anarcho-capitalism on the far right (with all the negative connotations), and various capitalist welfare states in between.

Georgism breaks this model because it is very left wing in regards to the ownership of land, and very right wing in regards to the ownership of capital. It also combines the economic efficiency of the market economy, with the egalitarian goals sought by the left. This is a package deal and should be sold us such. If you present it as capitalism/socialism, then people will project onto you position every negative/positive opinions they have about the popular depiction of these systems, and that’s a very risky strategy.

Instead, we should present Georgism as an alternative to both state socialism and crony capitalism. This way you can appeal to both sides while hopefully shielding yourself from some of these criticisms.

What do you think, am I making sense?