Henry George and the Socialists:
A Debate
Henry George
[The following debate between Serge Schevitch, of the
Socialist Party, and the Single Taxer, Henry George, was moderated by
Samuel Gompers in Miner's Theater, New York. Reprinted from The
Standard, 29 October 1887]
MR. SCHEVITCH'S ARGUMENT
Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen: In coming on this platform
tonight I come to you with all due consciousness of the great task
which I have undertaken, and of my unworthiness to perform it. I ask
your indulgence from the very beginning. I want only to say that the
words I will speak tonight will be that which I consider to be the
truth without any reference whatever to personal feeling.
The subject of discussion tonight is the scheme of Mr. George of the
single land tax, to substitute which for all other forms of taxation
will, as he represents, solve the social and the labor problems of our
day. I propose to show that this single land tax system is not only
insufficient to solve those questions, but if considered alone, if
considered as a local panacea independent of all other social reforms,
it will be productive of results which will be more hurtful to labor
than beneficial.
I will in the second part of my remarks show how, on account of this
false basis on which the labor movement, so far as the united labor
party is concerned, has been placed, the whole political movement has
been side-tracked, has been distorted, has been put on a platform on
which no true labor movement can stand.
This is what I will attempt to show during my remarks.
Production, as it is organized now, is regulated by two vast
instruments of labor: machinery, with all the powers of nature which
now produce such tremendous wealth all over the civilized world, and
the land which produces the necessaries of life. Now let us see. If we
nationalize one of these instruments of production, if we nationalize
what Mr. George calls the natural opportunities given to man by
nature, that is to say, the land, will this nationalization of the
land by itself solve the problem? Mr. George does not advocate the
nationalization of land. He does not want to disturb anybody in the
title to property in land. All he wants is to confiscate the rent
which the present proprietor of the land gets by a taxation equivalent
to the whole rent. But let us study the question broadly. Let us
assume that he does want to nationalize the land. What would be the
consequence? The consequence would be that a certain lot of land which
now belongs to a private citizen, Tom Jones, will belong to the
community. The man who builds on that land will have to pay his rent,
not to a private proprietor, but to the community. That rent will,
perhaps in the long run, be a little less than the rent he pays now.
Now suppose a city in which there are ten factories. In each of these
factories one hundred men are working for wages. The factories are
supplied with all the necessary machinery. Three hundred men get two
dollars a day under present circumstances. Now the system of
nationalization of land is introduced. The man who owns the factory,
the boss, will pay his rent not to the proprietor of the land, but to
the community. Will his workingmen, in consequence of that simple
fact, get higher wages? Why should they?
If tomorrow a new machine is made which renders the men superfluous,
the proprietor will throw out half his hands. Each of these factories
will work with fifty men instead of with on hundred. The men thrown
out will come to the proprietor and say, "We are ready to work
for less wages; instead of two dollars give us a dollar and
twenty-five cents." And other men, who have no families to
support, will say, "Give us one dollar a day." The same
process of competition between laborer and laborer, ground down by
that terrible monster, the machine, will go on, whether the land
belongs to the community or whether it belongs to Tom Jones.
But Mr. George will say: "This is not true. The competition
between the laborers will be, if not entirely destroyed, at least
greatly relieved by the fact that the land is free, that these men
thrown out of employment by the machine may go out somewhere in the
uptown part of the city, take from the community for a very small rent
a lot of land, construct their houses on it and live there in peace."
How ill they build a house on it? With their hands, with their nails,
with their feet. Where is the money to purchase the instruments of
labor? Where is that engine of production capital? Does bare land give
them anything except the land? Where are they to get the necessary
machinery in order to bring materials so as to be able to subsist from
the products of that land? I don't think that nay answer can be given
to these questions. You may laugh, gentlemen, but it is nevertheless
the truth. It is not the first truth that has been laughed at in the
world.
The single land tax would be a single tax. All other taxes would be
abolished. The tremendous concentration of capital would be entirely
free of any taxes at all. It would mean absolutely free trade.
American labor would have to compete with the combined force of
capital all over the civilized world. If you introduce absolute free
trade dozens of branches of industry would drop and die.
Thousands and thousands of workingmen would be thrown out of
employment. A commercial crisis would be the consequence such as we
have never seen yet in this country. The labor market would be
over-crowded. What would we do with free land then? Sit on it or lie
on it or be tramps upon it. Land without the instruments or labor to
cultivate it is just as worthless as a boat without sails.
Mr. George takes the example of Robinson Crusoe and Friday. Suppose
Robinson Crusoe said to Friday: "You are not only a free citizen
of this island, but the land belongs to you just as well as to me. But
there is a little hitch in the matter. I expect a vessel tomorrow to
bring to me all the necessary engines to cultivate this land, and some
workingmen, but you are free to do just as well as I. "Where
would poor Friday be then, without a penny in his pocket, without a
single instrument to cultivate the land! Would he not be the slave of
Robinson Crusoe?
The whole theory of the single tax is founded on the sophistry that
the present robbery of labor centers in the one fact of private
ownership of land, which is not true. If the means of production
remained in private hands labor would be robbed just as it is now. The
great land owners will immediately form a combine to resist the land
tax. In a few years the condition of the laborer would be the same as
it is now.
But what will not be the same as this - by that single land tax you
will give to the government a tremendous power which it does not now
possess. Mr. George likes to accuse the socialists of desiring a
paternal government. I tell you Mr. George's scheme is a much more
horrible paternal government than the socialists ever proposed. To the
government still belong a vast amount of land.
Capitalists will
have the same power over government officials that they now have. The
government will fall into the hands of the monopolists of industry
just as it does now into the hands of the monopolists of industry and
land combined.
The single tax does not touch the labor question. That question
centers in the robbery committed on labor by those who hold possession
of the instruments of labor. And it is not the socialists who say so,
it is the men of organized labor. Mr. George thinks that rent is the
robbery committed on workingmen. He forgets that at the bottom of the
robbery is the competition between labor and labor, and that
competition will not be destroyed by any amount of single land tax.
The land tax scheme, whether it be wrong or right, is a utopian
theory, born in one mind, uncorroborated by the actual state of facts.
It is a theory of one man, and that theory has been forced upon the
large labor movement while that movement was unprepared to understand
or even to critically examine that idea. Mr. George may ask why did
all the trades of New York as one man support him in that last
campaign? "Where is the difference? I was the same man and my
theory was the same." We can answer that. The great majority of
the working population of this city supported Mr. George last year,
not because of his land theory but notwithstanding his land theory, as
a sincere and honest man because he had written in his book,
Progress and Poverty, one of the most tremendous indictments
against the present order of society that has ever been published. The
critical part of his work is grand. Every man who is dissatisfied with
the existing order will shake hands with Mr. George even now. The
laboring population accepted him as a standard bearer, thinking he was
broad minded enough to sink part of his petty theories in the vast,
grand labor movement, which is not one sided, but which is many sided
and is as broad as the civilized world itself is broad. The man who
can force one idea upon millions of people can be the originator of a
sect, or if he is a politician, can be the originator of a political
machine; but he will never be the originator of a great political
party of labor. When Mr. George attempted to do so he smashed the
party of united labor. As I told him on the Syracuse platform, under
the ban of expulsion: "If you attempt to force this one idea upon
the labor movement you will smash the party to pieces, and you have
done it."
HENRY GEORGE'S REPLY
Mr. Gompers then introduced Mr. George, who was received with
intense enthusiasm. He said:
I am about to speak to you on the time limit, and therefore your
applause will simply take away so much of my time. What Mr. George has
founded and what he has not founded I do not propose to discuss. We
are here tonight for a more important object. We all agree that labor
today does not get its fair earnings. I come to defend what I believe
to be not merely the best but the only possible way to emancipate
labor. I do not claim for this measure - the taking for the use of the
community of the rental value of the land - that it would do
everything. It is the beginning. After it is done all the other things
will be made easier, and until we have done that we shall be rowing
against the tide in all other reforms.
Now, the great difference between the opinions that I represent and
the opinions that Mr. Schevitch represents may be seen in Lassalle's
open letter to the workingmen of Germany. He accepted the law laid
down by the orthodox political economists - the law that wages must
always tend to the minimum which will enable the laborer to live and
to reproduce. This he calls the iron law of wages. There I and those
who think with me take issue. We do not believe that there is in
nature any such thing as the iron law of wages. We hold that it is
merely the law of wages where natural opportunities are monopolized.
This competition is a one-sided competition of men debarred of their
natural opportunities for employment. The means of production, what do
they consist of today? The answer will probably be land, machinery and
various other things. There was in the beginning nothing but man and
th earth. Human labor exerted upon the land brings out, produces, all
other means of production. Therefore it is that land is more important
than anything else. Given men and given land all other things can be
produced. Give a man everything else and deprive him of land and it
avails him nothing.
To recur to that illustration of Robinson Crusoe and Friday, Mr.
Schevitch says that Robinson Crusoe having machinery and tools, Friday
would have been perfectly helpless. Well, that I deny. Friday, without
any machinery, could certainly have gone fishing. If the island had
belonged to Robinson Crusoe he could not have done that. Friday could
have done without machinery and tools, just as Robinson Crusoe did.
Friday could have made him a hut out of the limbs of a true. Friday
could have lived and produced as a naked man, applying his labor to
the natural opportunities offered by the island. If three or four
others had come there, they oculd have lived and lived well. But the
moment Robinson Crusoe owned the land, that moment he could say to
Friday: "Unless you do so and so you walk off." Friday would
have been his absolute slave.
Wages in all branches of industry are not what they ought to be. That
increase in productive power that comes from discovery and invention
does not raise wages as it ought to do. But what is the reason of
that? It is perfectly clear that wages all occupations must tend to a
general level. Now, the broadest of all occupations in the United
States is - what? Those occupations which apply directly to nature,
which extract wealth from the soil.
The ordinary renting rate in
the state of New York today is one-half the produce. The man who does
the labor gets only one-half of what his labor produces. The rest goes
to the owner of the farm. There, in that primary occupation, labor is
divested of one-half its earnings. When, in that primary industry,
labor is shorn of one-half of its earnings, what do you expect in
those industries that rise above it? To put a tax on the value of
land, removing all other taxes that now bear upon labor and to take
for the use of the community the value that attaches to land by reason
of the growth of the community would have in the first place the
operation that Mr. Schevitch concedes. It would make the holding of
land on speculation unprofitable. That of itself would tend to destroy
that competition which tends everywhere to press wages down. I don't
mean to say that everyone would want to be a farmer. That is the one
thing that all men could be. And enough could and would become farmers
to relieve the glut in the labor market.
Here is the principle of taxation. A tax which is levied upon the
production of a thing that must constantly be produced by human labor
will, by making supply more difficult, raise prices, and the man who
pays the tax is thus able to push the tax upon the consumer. But a tax
upon the value of land has not such effect. Land does not have to be
constantly supplied in order to meet the demand. Its price is always a
monopoly value, and a tax which falls upon land value does not fall
upon all land, but only upon valuable land, and that in proportion to
its value.
It is perfectly true that were we to raise our revenue in this way we
could get along without the custom house and have absolute free trade.
On the contrary, what labor wants is freedom, not protection. Absolute
free trade in any sense worthy of the name means free production. Once
make production free and labor can take care of itself.
In what consists the value of land? It is a premium, an advantage,
which the use of any particular piece of land will give over what the
same application of labor and capital can get from the poorest land in
use. Therefore, if we take that premium for the use of the whole
community we put all land upon a substantial plane of equality. We can
abolish all other taxes and enormously simplify government. Opening
opportunities for labor, we can get rid of that bitter competition
that today everywhere tends to force wages down. Then we can go on,
not a paternal government that attempts to regulate everything, but to
a government that controls businesses in their natural monopolies.
Once put the social foundation on a firm and equal basis and then we
can march forward in that as far as may be necessary. We do not hold
that everything is done when this one single measure is carried out,
but we do hold that a firm and true beginning is made. Men have lived
and can live without the railroad and without the telegraph, but no
man ever has lived or ever can live without the land.
MR. SCHEVITCH'S REJOINDER
"Mr. Schevitch now has his second inning," said Mr.
Gompers, as Mr. George sat down.
Mr. Schevitch at once arose and was received with applause from the
reds. "I would prefer," he said with a smile, "to get
the applause from the other side of the house," pointing to the
blues. The latter cheered him heartily, and he continued.
Mr. George did not show that the competition of labor would be
destroyed by the land tax system. He did not show, he simply made an
assertion, that the natural opportunities would be open to labor. He
said that laborers might go fishing, and he very graciously said that
he did not expect a man to go naked in the city of New York. But that
man would be naked practically, and the ideal of George's free land
would be Shantytown. When I hear such things on a platform in New York
City in the nineteenth century I begin to believe that Mr. George is a
Rip Van Winkle of social economy. He actually has been born in
antediluvian times and has all at once waked up in time for the
Syracuse convention.
You surely do not expect me to compliment Mr. George. Mr. George
seems utterly to forget that we are living in the grand century of
machinery, in a great age of production on a large scale, where the
mere laborer is absolutely the slave of those who possess the
instruments of labor. This simple land tax does not free the laborer
from competition with his fellow laborer. The laborer with his free
land must have capital to construct his house, and capital to begin
farming on a small scale even. And there will be a big man with a big
boodle, who will come beside the laborer with his lot, and take not
one but ten, twelve, twenty or two hundred lots and will crush down
that free-born citizen on the lot by his side.
HENRY GEORGE CONCLUDES THE DEBATE
Then Mr. George arose and said:
The object of the labor movement is the abolition of wage slavery.
How do you propose to abolish it? That is the question. If any man has
any better plan than that which I propose let him come and state it.
Mr. Schevitch's plan, as I understand it, is that of forming a number
of co-operative societies, embracing all the working classes, who are
to be furnished with capital by the government.
Well, with machinery, then. That plan, I say, is utterly impossible.
There attaches to it the same disadvantages that attach to all dreams
of the elevation of the workingmen by the formation of co-operative
societies. You must raise from the very foundation. You must make
labor free. Now such catch-phrases as my picture of Shantytown as an
ideal city can avail nothing with any thoughtful man. What I say is
this: that even the poorest man, if he has free access to land, can
make some use of it, and the condition of those Shantytown people,
poor as it was, was very much better than that of many who are herded
in tenement houses liable to be turned out at the end of the week or
month.
Now, as to capital. When the farmer has to give up one-half of his
produce for the privilege of applying his labor to the land, when
through the other occupation the same law holds; when men have to pay
to an individual for the use of what they call their country
one-quarter, one-third, one-half the produce of their labor, is it any
wonder that the working classes find it very hard to get capital!
Capital is produced by labor exerted upon land. Here, in the fact that
we make the land the private property of some of our number, is a
constant drain of capital from those who produce it into the hands of
those who merely proprietors and monopolizers. "The destruction
of the poor is their poverty,"
Labor is the producer of all
wealth, but labor without land is helpless, and that is the reason why
any attempt to bring about more healthy social conditions must begin
with the land.
|