>George was by far the truer progressive and the fairer intellect. Marxists have wasted over a hundred years sperging out arguing that slaves should be publicly owned rather than privately owned. Georgism was focused on the problem that slaves existed in the first place.
As a former Georgist, this is blatantly incorrect. Georgism does not tackle the issue of "slaves" in its totality at all, it just tackles a singular aspect of the slavery. George fails to understand that rent itself is embedded within the framework of capitalism, and that capitalist production results in what is effectively a rent extracted upon the entirety of the working class. He also, just like you assumably do, gives legitimacy to electorialist politics. If electoralism itself was a proper or practical way to implement necessary measures, why was George constantly sidelined at every turn? Why was he thrown aside for mayorship, his ideas only barely considered by those in government and only ever implemented anywhere else in half-measures? You talk a big game about improving the conditions of the working class, but if you forever lack the power to do so, are you really helping anyone at all? Marxism tackles the issue of capital as it is, at it's very roots and mechanisms, and so he consiquetially addresses rent by the elimination of its dominant conjoined twin. You would eliminate petty rent, but not do away with the larger rent on society proper, and so would condemn us to the inevitable realization of petty rent as capitalist reform breaks down. You would give the working class a boon, only for it to crumble away in its hands. But we would give it a weapon, both tool and sword to cut away its bindings and throttle it's captors.