Georgism in Vietnam?

Adam Smith said that all three factors of production (land, labor and capital) should be left in the hands of the free market. Karl Marx wanted them controlled by the state. Henry George, realizing that reality is never found in any polar opposite, wanted to look at each factor of production objectively and dare to ask, "Which factor actually produces something of economic value?" He came to the conclusion that it was land (that is, anything that conceivably falls into the category of "natural resources"), by itself, that doesn't produce anything of lasting economic value. It is only until we do something with that land that economic value is created. Labor and capital do produce value simply because they are essentially economic activities. Land is not an activity, but rather an asset.

What George proposed was really radical at the time and remains so today. Neo-classical economists have done everything in their power to blunt the brilliance of George and to neglect him to the dusty shelves of economic theory. He proposed the eventual ownership of land by the state--something that people like Rockefeller, an oilman, and real estate tycoons, would bitterly oppose. That would mean the end of their gaming of Mother Earth.

What I see emerging in Vietnam is something in the order of what George proposed. It seems to be a slow admission that George was right. I see busy shopkeepers and restaurants, but I also see government controls.

George's ideas have never been tested in "real-life." But Vietnam would certainly be one of the best candidates for experimentation simply because it is an economy that is close in resemblance to George's ideas. It would not take much for Vietnam to make the transition over to a truly Georgist society. They would simply need to stop taxing the labor of individuals and instead tax land owners and businesses that use the natural resources, or what George called simply, a single tax.