[Nodrog]

While your land-based communism is slightly different from other flavours, I think it shares the same basic flaw - namely a pathological fixation on the part played by material forces in determining the value of goods rather than the concretised ideas and visions which have allowed their production. The labour theory of value is the most explicit example of this fallacy, but it seems to be always present in the background whenever communism is discussed.

I was reading the German Idelology last month and the part that really stands out is just how dated it all sounds - the account of production and general wealth-creation given by Marx probably made a lot of sense in 1850 whem the average worker was involved in either agriculture or factory-based production with no real social or employment mobility, but it has very little relevant to modern Western countries where most work is technological and/or service based with many opportunities for specialist training, career changing, and general ladder climbing.

The most obvious example of this involves the nebulous 'means of production'. Someone who uses this term is probably thinking about factory conveyer belts and tractors, but in the modern world a few computers can be all you need to generate a fortune. Some of the world's most profitable companies are investment banks, and the only 'means of production' they own are offices filled with computers and telephones. Law firms can make huge profits without really producing or consuming anything, and IT companies can require even less - there are many websites with gigantic turnovers which started out as bedroom projects.

Your focus on land shares this problem - placing such a large value on land makes sense in an environment where most wealth is created by factories and farms, but that just isnt the world we live in any more. Noone has large amounts of land in London, Tokyo or New York, yet these are the richest cities in the world by quite some margin. The Citigroup skyscraper at Canary Wharf takes up a tiny area of land, yet the offices in it are generating profits in the millions. Land isnt that valuable in its own right - it's what you do with it that counts, and modern technlogy makes it possible for larger and larger profits to be generated by smaller and smaller areas of land. Yeah, you could bring in some system where all land is communally owned and noone gets to occupy more of it than anyone else, but I doubt that this would reduce income inequality in the longterm, because some people are always going to be able to use their land in a far more productive way than others.

Regardless of the system you bring in, there will be people who - whether by luck, hardwork or genius - can use what theyre allocated to become far far richer than those around them, and this will necessarily lead to significant longterm inequality unless you have something in place explicitly banning people from owning more than others even when they are producing greater amounts.