Socialists and the Single Tax

Oscar H. Geiger

[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, January-February 1930]

The "fight" you started in your last issue is evidently not of a private nature, and as long as it is a "free-for-all," perhaps even I may have a chance.

My answer to Friend White's objections and remonstrances is Yes and No; that is, whichever fits and according to the point of view. But, seriously, White isn't thinking of taking a trip with Amundsen, is he?

Of course, White is in Kansas City (perhaps through no fault of his own)and a trip to the New Orleans Mardi Gras from Kansas City is understandable and forgivable, even by way of the North Pole, though I admit that such a route would be a little inconvenient.

But suppose White and Amundsen were seeking human perfection and an ideal life instead of amusement; suppose, too, both had agreed to go in quest of such an ideal life, but that each had a somewhat different idea of what constitutes an ideal life. Amundsen having been everywhere and seen everything might say the North Pole approximated more nearly than anything or anywhere else his ideal, while White being in Kansas City would naturally cast favoring eyes upon New York City. And supposing now that Amundsen had asked White to go with him in quest of this ideal life, expressing his opinion, of course, that they would have to journey to the North Pole to find it, what would White have been likely to say in view of the fact that his own ideal life was epitomized and glorified in the City of New York, and in view of the further fact that New York was situated between Kansas City and the North Pole, and that the road from Kansas City lay, generally speaking, through New York.

Would not White, being an intelligent man, be likely to say to Amundsen, "Well, I believe New York to be the ideal place, and as you have got to go by way of New York anyway to reach your ideal place, the North Pole, why not let us go to New York together? White would have said this to Amundsen not only because he wanted good company on the way, but also because Amundsen had a vision of an ideal life (though blurred and not perhaps so clear as White's White admits this in his letter to the Editor), Amundsen's was yet the vision of a kindred soul that was willing to go in quest of his ideal and pay foi and suffer in its attainment.

Yes, and there would still be another reason why White would journey as far as New York with Amundsen. White is one of those fellows with a great deal of confidence in his own ideals; and knowing New York City to be the quintessence of culture, progress and achievement, he would know that Amundsen, being also intelligent, would see the obviousness of his, White's, contention when they got to New York and would gladly remain and sing its praise. If he didn't, Amundsen could still go on, while White could remain and keep up a correspondence with him, pointing out the features of New York that Amundsen had overlooked and keeping "A" in mind of the hardships and pitfalls of a trip to the North Pole, for by that time they would have become real friends, respecting each other's good faith though quarrelling (as good friends will) about the incidentals of their various opinions and beliefs.

Is it necessary, Mr. Editor, for me to draw analogies? Is it necessary for me to point out that the "North Pole" of the Socialists and the "New York City" of the Single Taxers are both but visions, both goals still to be reached? Fortunately (or unfortunately, as some may view it) the road to both lies along the same general path and over the same obstructions. At some points there is no roadway, forests must be cleared, streams forded, planking laid, bridges built and in some places almost insurmountable obstacles overcome.

We can multiply the Whites and the Amundsens, but as yet we cannot find a sufficient number of men with vision and ideals to cooperate and make the work of "clearing the brush" and building the road light enough even for those who have set themselves the task of carrying on.

Shall we, then, who have the vision that urges us on, and a goal that requires such effort and sacrifice, shall we make the quest harder by dividing the hands that can help at least to the point where our figurative paths branch off? And who can say that in such work thus communally done there shall not arise a mutual understanding that will make for the survival of what is right.

For myself, Mr. Editor, I am somewhat in the attitude of mind Mr. White displays in his letter I am sure I am right. But there the similarity ends. I am so sure I am right, so confident of the reasonableness and the justice of the philosophy of Henry George, that I am not afraid to trust it to the consideration of our friends the Socialists, or to trust myself in their company while pursuing our common ideals so far as we know them to be common; and I am further confident that by the time we together have cleared away the brush on the way to Human Equality, and have achieved our common goal, the Equal Right to the Use of the Earth by the Nationalization of the Rent of Land and the Abolition of All Taxes, our friends the Socialists will have become Single Taxers because their ideals will have been realized.

Now, Mr. Editor, just one more thought. Mr. White, in inveighing against Socialism and in his desire to get into the "fight," as he expresses it, loses sight entirely of what you said with reference to the gradual disintegration of the Marxian .dogmas. He evidently has taken no notice of your illuminating quotation from Arno Dosch Fleurot in the New York World of Dec. 9, and surely has omitted to note the words of Norman Thomas, Socialist candidate for Mayor of New York in the last election, and which with your permission I will quote again. Referring to assessments Mr. Thomas demands:

"HONEST AND EXPERT ASSESSMENTS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAND-VALUES BELONG TO THE COM- MUNITY WHICH CREATE THEM."

And in stating the principles upon which the Socialist Party might consider affiliation, Mr. Thomas says:

"THE SOCIALIST PARTY WILL NOT, HOWEVER, GO ALONG WITH ANY GROUP THAT AVOIDS OR HEDGES ON THE CAUSE OF NEW YORK'S TROUBLE LANDLORDISM. THE PEOPLE MUST GET THE BENEFIT OF THE LAND- VALUES THEY CREATE."

This from the Socialist candidate for Mayor of New York! Does Mr. White stand any squarer on the essentials of the Single Tax? This from the man who in this rock-ribbed seat of conservatism polled 174,000 votes, while playing the light of far-seeing radicalism on the maladministration of government without an unkind word against or smirch upon anyone! Can White point to a better or more worthwhile leadership.

Let me suggest to Mr. White and to others who think or feel as he does, that we can do no better than to cooperate with Norman Thomas "Amundsen" on our way to White's Single Tax New York and confidently trust to the intelligence of all who are with us when we reach a safe and sure haven to determine for themselves whether the journey's end has been reached. Let us demonstrate our confidence in our own philosophy by casting it in a common cause, and ourselves following to see that its principles are kept clean and unsullied. My guess is, Mr. Editor, that if we will do this The Single Tax Philosophy will emerge as a pillar of light guiding the mass, and remain enthroned at the end as the realization of all hopes and all ideals.