A Response to Charles Fracchia
on Henry George
William W. Beach
[This letter appeared in an unnamed periodical in
1979, in response to the essay "The Prophet Of San Francisco,
written by Charles A. Fracchia]
NOTE REGARDING CHARLES
A. FRACCHIA. He received his B.A. in history from the University of
San Francisco, and did graduate work at the University of San
Francisco Law School, the University of California at Berkeley, San
Francisco State University, and the Graduate Theological Union at
Berkeley.
He currently (2005) teaches at City College of San Francisco and at
the University of San Francisco. He is the author of three books on
the history of San Francisco and lectures extensively throughout the
San Francisco Bay Area on various aspects of the city's history. Mr.
Fracchia founded the San Francisco Historical Society in 1988 (which
merged with the Museum of the City of San Francisco in 2002), and is
the president of the San Francisco Museum and Historical Society. He
is a Fellow of the California Historical Society and of the Gleeson
Library Associates of the University of San Francisco.
Charles A. Fracchia's essay on Henry George (The Prophet Of San
Francisco, 7/1/79) was a thoughtful and appropriate celebration of
George in all respects except one: Fracchia perpetuated George's
peculiar legacy as the intellectual titan of modern-day socialism, as
an economic critic who more than any other of his time undermined
popular acceptance of laissez-faire political economy. I do not deny
that this truly is George's legacy, and Fracchia cannot be faulted for
misstating popular history. On the other hand, George's legacy bears
little if any relationship to what he wrote and preached.
The youthful capitalist never had an ally as vigorous, loyal, and
unrelenting as Henry George. George's enemies were the monopolists,
the eager recipients of government subsidies, the rapacious landlords,
and the speculators whose wealth came from buying an asset and holding
it while the labor of others, workers and capitalists alike, made it
more valuable. The reforms George advocated were directed at these
types of economic beings. He urged an end to tariffs in order to make
economic life more competitive and strip away from the few the unfair
advantages that protection conveyed. He sought to tax away the
speculator's "unearned increment" on fixed assets and use
these tax revenues to provide public services for the productive class
of workers. George's reforms were aimed at freeing productive people
from the heavy burdens imposed on them by the actions of government
and the growth of land values. No more eloquent statement in support
of youthful capitalism exists in land-nineteenth century economic
literature than George's frequently neglected Protection or Free
Trade (1886).
It is not surprising, then, to find George consistently critical of
the planned, socially directed economy. George writes:
"It is a proposal to bring back mankind to the
socialism of Peru, but without reliance on divine will or power.
It
is more destitute of any central or guiding principle than any
philosophy I know of.
It has not system of individual rights
whereby it can define the extent to which the individual is entitled
to liberty or to which the state may go in restraining it. And so
long as no individual has any principle of guidance it is impossible
that society itself should have any. How such a combination could be
called a science, and how it should get a following, can be
accounted only by the 'fatal facility of writing without thinking,'
and by the number of places which such a bureaucratic
organization would provide" (The Science of Political
Economy, p.158).
Enough said for George's alleged support of state planning.
In this year of the centennial of George's Progress and Poverty
(1879), it is time that his true sympathies and convictions come
forward. Whether or not one subscribes to everything George wrote (and
I, for one, do not), intellectual honesty requires that he be given
fair treatment. George has suffered long enough from a legacy that
distorts his economic writing.
|