John - I strongly agree with you about the gross wealth and thus power inequality in Israel and that there needs to be a strong focus on class dynamics in regards to the Palestine Israel conflict. You are coming through strong and clear on this. You grasp the problem of gross wealth and power inequality in the US as well, correct? The question then is, what are we going to DO about it? Because when and if we have clarity about WHAT TO DO then as we address this in the US it will also have ramifications worldwide, especially as we live in "the belly of the beast" of imperialism. I suggest we start by addressing the "land problem" and its connection to tax policy and wealth inequality.
I agree with your "The question then is, what are we going to DO about it?" I have given a lot of thought to this question and have tried to answer it in a very introductory and nuts-and-bolts manner in my "Revolutionary Movement Building 101 at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/revolutionary-movement-building-101?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web where there are links to other articles that elaborate in more detail on the points it makes in general. Here are the key ideas:
1. Class inequality (oppression of the many by the few) is the root cause of the big problems we want to solve, and so we need to build a mass movement that explicitly aims to abolish class inequality. I call a society in which class inequality is abolished an egalitarian society. (Class inequality takes the form of some rich and some poor in our current Western society, although it can manifest in different forms as it has in the past and elsewhere)
1a. Why a mass movement? Because that's what it takes to remove the rich from power, i.e. to abolish class inequality.
1b. Why must the movement EXPLICITLY aim to abolish class inequality? Because history shows that anti-establishment movements often win the anti-establishment changes that they explicitly aim to win (such as abolition of slavery, abolition of Jim Crow, abolition of apartheid, legal unions, 8 hour day) but never the ones they do not explicitly aim to win (such as the abolition of class inequality).
2. It is almost always the case that when people fight to win some positive reform that is not explicitly aimed at abolishing class inequality, those people also want to abolish class inequality (in fact the reason they want the reform they are fighting for is because it will make society be at least a little bit more like it would be if there were not class inequality, i.e. egalitarian). But these people typically self-censor their egalitarian revolutionary aspiration because they wrongly believe that if their egalitarian revolutionary aspiration were widely known it would "scare away" support from the general public. This is a wrong belief, but almost universally held today because the ruling class works very hard to make people hold this wrong belief in order to prevent them from organizing an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. This is why the strategy (today) for abolishing class inequality (removing the rich from power) is to do things that help people see that in fact they are in the vast majority in wanting to do that (a fact that I prove at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/heres-proof-most-people-want-an-egalitarian?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web .) Only then will people build a movement that explicitly aims to abolish class inequality, a movement that CAN win (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/how-we-can-remove-the-rich-from-power ).
How does this relate to the Georgist tax assessed only on land value, which you say we should start with in the sense of "addressing the 'land problem'"?
From phone conversation with you I understand that you believe that the Georgist land tax policy, if actually implemented on a large scale, would essentially abolish class inequality and essentially result in no rich and no poor, and that THIS is why you advocate it and say we should "start by addressing the land problem."
Here's the thing.
As I note above, movements can win anti-establishment goals that they explicitly aim to win but not those that they do not explicitly aim to win. A movement that explicitly aims to win large scale Georgist land tax policy but that does not explicitly aim to win the abolition of class inequality (no matter its form) may very well win large scale Georgist land tax policy but it will not win the abolition of class inequality. Those in society who want class inequality (the people with the real power today, the billionaires and those beholden to them) will perhaps allow something very much like Georgist land tax policy to be implemented (just as in the past they allowed slavery to be abolished, Jim Crow to be abolished, apartheid in South Africa to be abolished, unions to be legal, an 8 hour day law to be passed, etc.) but they will succeed in preventing class inequality from being abolished (just as in the past) because the movement does not explicitly aim to abolish class inequality. History demonstrates this over and over and over again.
For this reason, I am not opposed to the Georgist land tax movement, but I am opposed to the idea of making a movement for that reform (or ANY reform) a SUBSTITUTE for building an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. I believe that the people in ANY movement for a positive reform should explicitly declare their larger egalitarian revolutionary aspiration, and that if they did so they would GAIN MORE public support, not lose it. The evidence for this is in the second half of this video of me talking about this with random people on the street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acmNtxyzEf4 .
John - I strongly agree with you about the gross wealth and thus power inequality in Israel and that there needs to be a strong focus on class dynamics in regards to the Palestine Israel conflict. You are coming through strong and clear on this. You grasp the problem of gross wealth and power inequality in the US as well, correct? The question then is, what are we going to DO about it? Because when and if we have clarity about WHAT TO DO then as we address this in the US it will also have ramifications worldwide, especially as we live in "the belly of the beast" of imperialism. I suggest we start by addressing the "land problem" and its connection to tax policy and wealth inequality.
Hi Alanna,
I agree with your "The question then is, what are we going to DO about it?" I have given a lot of thought to this question and have tried to answer it in a very introductory and nuts-and-bolts manner in my "Revolutionary Movement Building 101 at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/revolutionary-movement-building-101?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web where there are links to other articles that elaborate in more detail on the points it makes in general. Here are the key ideas:
1. Class inequality (oppression of the many by the few) is the root cause of the big problems we want to solve, and so we need to build a mass movement that explicitly aims to abolish class inequality. I call a society in which class inequality is abolished an egalitarian society. (Class inequality takes the form of some rich and some poor in our current Western society, although it can manifest in different forms as it has in the past and elsewhere)
1a. Why a mass movement? Because that's what it takes to remove the rich from power, i.e. to abolish class inequality.
1b. Why must the movement EXPLICITLY aim to abolish class inequality? Because history shows that anti-establishment movements often win the anti-establishment changes that they explicitly aim to win (such as abolition of slavery, abolition of Jim Crow, abolition of apartheid, legal unions, 8 hour day) but never the ones they do not explicitly aim to win (such as the abolition of class inequality).
2. It is almost always the case that when people fight to win some positive reform that is not explicitly aimed at abolishing class inequality, those people also want to abolish class inequality (in fact the reason they want the reform they are fighting for is because it will make society be at least a little bit more like it would be if there were not class inequality, i.e. egalitarian). But these people typically self-censor their egalitarian revolutionary aspiration because they wrongly believe that if their egalitarian revolutionary aspiration were widely known it would "scare away" support from the general public. This is a wrong belief, but almost universally held today because the ruling class works very hard to make people hold this wrong belief in order to prevent them from organizing an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. This is why the strategy (today) for abolishing class inequality (removing the rich from power) is to do things that help people see that in fact they are in the vast majority in wanting to do that (a fact that I prove at https://open.substack.com/pub/johnspritzler/p/heres-proof-most-people-want-an-egalitarian?r=1iggn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web .) Only then will people build a movement that explicitly aims to abolish class inequality, a movement that CAN win (as I discuss at https://www.pdrboston.org/how-we-can-remove-the-rich-from-power ).
How does this relate to the Georgist tax assessed only on land value, which you say we should start with in the sense of "addressing the 'land problem'"?
From phone conversation with you I understand that you believe that the Georgist land tax policy, if actually implemented on a large scale, would essentially abolish class inequality and essentially result in no rich and no poor, and that THIS is why you advocate it and say we should "start by addressing the land problem."
Here's the thing.
As I note above, movements can win anti-establishment goals that they explicitly aim to win but not those that they do not explicitly aim to win. A movement that explicitly aims to win large scale Georgist land tax policy but that does not explicitly aim to win the abolition of class inequality (no matter its form) may very well win large scale Georgist land tax policy but it will not win the abolition of class inequality. Those in society who want class inequality (the people with the real power today, the billionaires and those beholden to them) will perhaps allow something very much like Georgist land tax policy to be implemented (just as in the past they allowed slavery to be abolished, Jim Crow to be abolished, apartheid in South Africa to be abolished, unions to be legal, an 8 hour day law to be passed, etc.) but they will succeed in preventing class inequality from being abolished (just as in the past) because the movement does not explicitly aim to abolish class inequality. History demonstrates this over and over and over again.
For this reason, I am not opposed to the Georgist land tax movement, but I am opposed to the idea of making a movement for that reform (or ANY reform) a SUBSTITUTE for building an explicitly egalitarian revolutionary movement. I believe that the people in ANY movement for a positive reform should explicitly declare their larger egalitarian revolutionary aspiration, and that if they did so they would GAIN MORE public support, not lose it. The evidence for this is in the second half of this video of me talking about this with random people on the street: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acmNtxyzEf4 .
What do you think?