Whose Failure Is It Anyway?

Fred Harrison

[An address delivered to the Board of Directors of the
Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, December 2001]

An Assessment of 20th century liberal democracy, the performance of the Georgist movement, and Prospects for the 21st Century

"As for his reputation - that went straight into the underworld of economics, and there he exists today; almost-Messiah, semi-crackpot, and disturbing questioner of the morality of our economic institutions"

Robert Heilbroner, The Worldly Philosophers, p. 190


1.1 A "peculiarly suitable" tax

IN 1879, Henry George rescued from near obscurity the theory of public finance that had been elaborated by Adam Smith as "peculiarly suitable" for financing industrial society.

The theory affirmed the positive characteristics of rent as the taxable income. Two hundred years of model-building and practise have confirmed Smith's theory of public finance. The ethical dimension to rent as public revenue was famously stressed by John Stuart Mill, who noted that landowners could hibernate and they would still grow rich in their sleep. It was not surprising, therefore, that the veracity of this policy was endorsed as recently as 1990 by Nobel prize-winners Franco Modigliani, William Vickrey, Robert Solow and James Tobin.[2]

Despite both the efficiency argument, and the justice of the case (usually presented in terms of land being God-given, and therefore we all had an equal right of access to it), the policy now associated with American social reformer Henry George has not been adopted by the leading liberal democratic societies. The two most remarkable cases in which the policy was adopted, with profound economic benefits, were Japan (the emperor exercised absolute power) and Taiwan (when the nationalists had their backs to the seas). The democracies, with the remarkable exception of Denmark, failed to adopt this ancient policy. Why? Was it due to the failure of Georgists, or is the explanation rooted in the structure of the Western democratic system?

1.2 A structural flaw in politics

WESTERN democracies were offered the fiscal reform. Both the USA and UK, for example, engaged in a passionate public debate about the need to fulfill their mandates by responding to the will of the people. In Britain, this will found its expression in 1910 when legislation was successfully enacted. We need not go into the detail of why there was no progress beyond this point, for the point I wish to make is this. Democracy failed.

The failure to adopt Land Value Taxation (LVT) exposes the structural impediments in democratic politics. Despite its popularity, governments persistently managed to obfuscate, prevaricate and denigrate a policy that would have delivered balanced budgets, rates of economic growth in excess of those achieved in the 20th century, which would have moderated (if not abolished) the business cycle, and removed institutionalised poverty.

1.3 Betrayal of the markets

LVT delivers a revenue process that deepens the efficiency of the free market.

The efficiency argument was heavily promoted as a justification for not yielding to the Marxist argument that planning was the fair way to share the benefits of the industrial economy. And yet, despite the official doctrine, governments administered tax regimes that systematically reduced the efficiency of entrepreneurship, investment decision-making, the pattern of consumption and the conditions that prevailed in the labour market.

Thus, on the economic front, we see that the liberal democracies failed to comply with their declared principles. Why this was (and remains) the case, must be a subject for extensive investigation: it is sufficient, here, to note the failure of policy-makers to deliver on their self-declared aim -- of enhancing the competitiveness of the free market economy.[3]

1.4 Markets and Marxism

HENRY GEORGE'S groundwork -- his lecture tours of three continents, his editorship of a newspaper, his mayoral campaign -- helped to establish a global movement that was committed to promoting this fiscal philosophy. Clearly, it failed to make an impact: if the liberal democratic governments that were committed to optimum policies for governance were not willing to undertake the change, arguably there was little that could be done by a movement that was committed to the democratic process. This stands in contrast to Marx's acolytes, who determined on a course of violence to achieve change.

If it can be said that Georgism, as an organised movement, failed, then that failure stems from the naivety in accepting the principles of the prevailing paradigm!

  • Throughout the 20th century, Georgists promoted LVT on the basis of justice. That argument cut little ice with the political parties, which are driven by expediency.
  • Georgists published studies that demonstratedthat the markets would fall far short of optimum levels of efficiency, for so long as monopoly rents remained in the private domain. Georgists believed that reason, and the logic of the markets, would prevail. They were wrong.

Faith in the liberal democratic model was misplaced. Georgists retained a naivety that was to disappoint generations of activists. They sought to negotiate change within the terms of a rationalist model of knowledge and politics that did not correspond with the reality. The Georgist model was perceived as standing outside the realms of the paradigm. Contrast this with the Marxist model which, inspired by the Romantic reaction against the Cartesian dualism model of knowledge and of society, could be accepted as an intelligible adversary.

The liberal democracies are not free market-based systems. They are planned (to a more or less degree), to suit the privileged expectations of clients ranging from the multi-national corporation to the homesteading farmer. Marxist planning, therefore, was not an alien concept. Georgist concepts of freedom were alien, because -- ironically -- they sought to achieve the ideals embedded in the US Constitution. Georgism holds that all men and women are born free, and are entitled to equal access to the opportunities of life. They saw that these goals were thwarted by the monopoly power inherent in the land market. That power needed to be neutralised, and there was one free market solution only that could deliver a free market: LVT. But governments, by their actions, remained determined to resist the policy. The significant exceptions were the UK's Labour Governments after World War II; they did try to capture the "unearned increments". But their laws were so imperfectly crafted that the Tories were justified in removing them from the statute book on three occasions.

Failure in the 20th century, therefore, was systemic. This must be the starting point for any attempt to realign reform action. Knowing the "enemy" is the first task, before selecting the strategies that may deliver the goals (the goal is not controversial: a Georgist society).

We may now ask: could Georgists have done more to overcome the systemic resistance?


2.1 Don't flog a flog dead horse

MY OBSERVATIONS are based on personal experiences of the kind shared by many people in the second half of the 20th century.

I have spent 30 years studying the ramifications of the philosophy contained in Progress and Poverty. For the past 15 years I have been engaged full time as a Georgist activist, and for the last 9 years I have been closely engaged in debates in a society that was actively seeking to transform itself from one form of social organisation to another (Russia). By profession a communicator - hand having spent 20 years as a journalist with a national Sunday newspaper - I ought to have enjoyed some advantage in communicating the philosophy of Henry George.

Whether my record is one of failure, or not, ultimately depends on the answer to the question: Have the lessons of this activism been learnt, and will they animate new strategies that might work?

In the last few years, as my studies and direct action crystallised into an understanding of the challenges faced by Georgists, I came to appreciate the nature of the problems that confront those who question the legitimacy of ownership rights to the rent of land. The first point is this: / now know for certain what does not work! My conclusions, therefore, may have some value to activists who are exploring alternative strategies to the ones that have hitherto failed.

2.2 The lessons of history

THE 20th century presents us with hard historical evidence that is irrefutable.

At the beginning of the century the English colonies of New Zealand, Australia and South Africa drew the bulk of their revenue from the rent of land. This was not the result of the work of Henry George (as far as we know). They did what came naturally: use the taxable surplus to finance the infrastructure of new social systems. Rent is the measure of the surplus that can be spent through, and on behalf of, the community. The three colonies were joined by Denmark in acknowledging, in a socially significant way, an understanding of the logic of rent as public revenue. It has been downhill ever since (with the sole exception of Hong Kong).

As the colonies matured, the retreat was driven by the wish of a minority to appropriate rent as private revenue. The Land Tax in the four above countries is now so insignificant as to be hardly worth worrying about.4 The focus on the local property tax became almost wholly irrelevant as the centralised economy evolved during the century. In Scotland, for example, the local property tax now constitutes just 9% of general government receipts. The debate about land reform in Scotland is directed by the political parties to the local property tax, which has become the traditional way to sideline discussion about structural reforms to the fiscal system controlled by the national exchequer.

Complementing the fiscal realities is a body of scholarly literature that is safely sanitised against the Georgist paradigm. Although the scientifically correct logic of land taxation is occasionally allowed to intrude into economic discourses, the impact is neutralised by the disclaimers and sarcasm about Georgists being zealots, members of a cult. This ensures that the credentials of the authors are not impugned through association with the Georgist philosophy.

In summary, then, in the 20th century we observe the regressive closing down of the politics and epistemology associated with the most conservative and honest of public revenue raisers -- the rent of nature's resources. This was a failure of governance in the liberal democracies, for which Georgists are not responsible.

I have made no measurable impact on this history despite being the single most productive originator of new materials published in the past 15 years, in my roles as author or editor. I have questioned whether this may be due to imperfections in my skills as communicator, but such an explanation would trivialise the nature of the problem that confronts us. Nor would it explain why equally competent Georgists (deploying their skills in other professional spheres) have been similarly ineffective. So how would I account for the total lack of public interest in Georgist doctrines? And can we derive, from a deeper understanding of the problem, fresh strategies targeted more precisely at the obstacles that undermine people's willingness and/or capacity to accept the philosophy of Henry George?

2.3 The constraints on Reason

IN A rational society, advocacy based on Reason ought to be sufficient to commend new ways of improving the quality of people's lives. The logic of Georgist economic theory is impeccable.

Furthermore, our science-based culture, with its fascination for empirical studies, ought to have readily grasped the Georgist paradigm. For abundant studies verify the doctrines.

  • Historical events include Japan (1870-90) and Taiwan (post 1955).
  • Field studies confirm the administrative practicalities of the reforms (see, e.g., the two pilot studies of Whitstable in Kent in the 1960s and 1970s).
  • Longitudinal studies (HK: 1850-2001) confirm the sustainability of the benefits.

  • Pilot reforms provide local endorsement and empirical evidence (the Pennsylvania two-rate tax, to say nothing of the century of data from NZ, Australia and South Africa).

Despite this wealth of evidence, which in other spheres of social policy would be deemed to be more than sufficient to justify government action, politicians continue to prevaricate when approached with the recommendation that they consider this fiscal reform. They resort to a few standard cop-out lines:

  • "If this is such a good idea, why hasn't it been adopted elsewhere?"
  • "You need a pilot study to prove the effects".

The rule of Reason is suspended in the discourse on Georgist philosophy. Academics, who ought to have been of central importance in the quest for the truth, have proved to be one of the key obstacles: they are compromised by the desire to protect their intellectual and professional investments in conventional wisdom.

Thus, pursuing the strategies employed in the 20th century to "prove" the case appears futile. It distracts, by sending people into circuitous decline (known as "chasing your tail"). In economics, for example, there is little more to be gained by following the red herrings that are floated by cynical academics, who merely wish to distract Georgists from their mission.[5]

But we cannot place all the responsibility on social scientists for their lack of objectivity. The Georgist movement itself must share some of the responsibility, for allowing itself to be trapped into a dead-end approach to the discussion of science and policy formulation.

It is not sufficient to attribute the problem exclusively to self-interest. Most politicians are well intentioned. They do wish to improve the lot of their constituents, and they don't usually look gift horses in the mouth. Ours is the greatest gift they could hope to receive, and yet we have failed to make them understand. Are Georgists now part of the problem?

2.4 A Simple Idea?

INCOMPREHENSION. That is the key concept. 1 have come to learn that it constitutes the single most telling way to summarise our problem.

I can spend two hours talking to a seemingly open-minded person who will then conclude: "Yes, but, we must have income taxes to redistribute income to help the poor in society". / might as well have spent the two hours talking to a blank wall.

Georgists are perplexed because they think their proposal to shift taxes on to the rent of land is "a simple idea". This tells me that advocates of the Georgist paradigm have also become victims of the epistemological process by which Henry George is safely denigrated as an "underground" philosopher.

During the 20th century, Georgist philosophy was boiled down to a simple idea: the simple expedient of capturing rent (or, in the USA, applying the two-rate tax) in place of other taxes (or not, in the case of the 2-rate tax). This simplification came with a heavy mental price tag.

People whose imaginations were animated by the simple idea peered into a hinterland that was a vision of what society could be like. But that hinterland was not peopled by anyone. It was a private domain. Each of us was the sole occupant of that blurred future.[6]

We have not shared our visions with others. Publicly, we talk about minuscule shifts in the local property tax, which perplexes people: they wonder why we are so fixated on this philosophy, when they are actively concerned with grand schemes (such as ameliorating poverty). They hear proposals for marginal change in a petty tax. They don't see the broad picture, because they are excluded from the hinterlands of our minds.

In fact, the Georgist philosophy entails a complex prospectus. We claim that it would deliver a wonderful future, based on organic evolution: but we do not spell out how this would be achieved, step by step. We claim that it would be a non-violent transformation. But we have failed to share with others some of the possible visions of what society might look like, depending on what they freely chose it to be.[7]

Georgists are now frozen in time. To break out of the inertia that cloaks our minds entails hard labour. It means study, evaluation, testing; meticulous documentation, visionary summaries; the combination of passion and reason; and an unwillingness to compromise with the integrity of our philosophy.

2.5 Defining the end-game

THE GEORGIST project is not fiscal reform, but the freedom of people to achieve the possibilities latent in our genes and in our cultures. The re-socialisation of rent - and the privatisation of people's savings and earned incomes - is a pre-condition for fulfilling this goal. But since people have been schooled into accepting the privatisation of rent, our initial challenge is to evolve a new theory of history.

Our starting point is the hard economic fact that the arts, institutions and processes that are collectively deemed to constitute civilization are primarily the product of social activity financed out of the rental surplus of agricultural communities. That being so, the privatisation of rent necessarily leads to the perversion of society, which in turn necessarily debases the attitudes and behaviour of individuals.

To make Georgist fiscal reform a credible political project, then, we need to shift the terms of debate away from trivial real estate-based arguments. We need to document the awesome reality that many of our social pathologies may be traced back to rent privatisation. This is such a startling proposition that an enormous amount of work has to be undertaken (of a research and writing nature), if we are not to be written off as crackpots.

Our initial project needs to be nothing less than a comprehensive review of civilisation, combined with a re-appraisal of the approaches to knowledge about nature and society in the past 300 years.

  • Language itself has been perverted. Mason Gaffney illustrates this in a particular case (neo-classical economists). A similar exercise needs to be undertaken for philosophy (e.g., the significance of Ludwig Wittgenstein to the Georgist mission needs to be explained).
  • Law as a process of social control needs to be re-analysed, to re-evaluate glib phrases like "the rule of law". Language as it was deployed as a tool of coercion in jurisprudence needs to be assessed in a historical context (cf Olivia Smith's The Politics of Language 1791-1819).
  • Politics needs a similar investigation, particularly with reference to the social contract theories on which the modern theories of rights of the individual are based. Especially important is the reappraisal of John Locke, and the manner in which modern constitutions have been skilfully drafted to close our collective minds to our natural right of equal access to the resources of nature, and to narrow our options for achieving personal freedom.
  • Sociology is the discipline held in lowest esteem, except that the young Herbert Spencer revealed how lethal it could be as a tool against the land monopolists. We need to rehabilitate the subject so that it may serve as a major tool of policy-making.[8]
  • Environmentalism is an approach to the Georgist society that will not work if people fail to integrate their emotions and aspirations into an understanding of what makes the world really go round. That understanding will not be realised without a new insight into history of the kind that would demonstrate the compatibility of Science with Spirituality. Environmentalists direct their animosity in a most unhealthy way against science (attributing responsibility for ecological havoc to the Cartesian mind-set). This is an example of poor workmen blaming their tools. This assertion, however, must be documented, if it is to be perceived as credible.
  • Spirituality: We need to explain that the secularisation of techniques for acquiring knowledge does not necessarily entail the abandonment of faith. The separation of the sacred from the profane was driven by a private agenda that had little to do with epistemology and everything to do with the privatisation of nature.[9]

People want to restore meaning to their lives. That will not happen without something like a process of social therapy (which, in an informed society, entails little more than engagement in the democratic process). The goal is to repair the fabric of society by removing falsehoods and misconceptions, and by identifying the omissions in our knowledge. The cumulative effect would be to re-open people's minds, and enable them to comprehend what we mean when we talk about rent, land and the realities of a better future.

2.6 Split spaces & personalities

THE LIST of intellectual challenges is open-ended. Concrete problems, as well as abstract theories, need our attention if policy-makers are to improve their performance. An example is the disgraceful confusion over the nature of the interface between the private and public sectors.

The public versus private debate proceeds without adequate working definitions of what is meant by "the public sector" (for example). As a consequence, the rent-seekers continue to run rings around governments in the quest for subsidies.

So a major project is to redefine space. The spatial context within which we live our lives has been injured to the point where it fractures our personalities I believe that we can tease out a discourse on this theme from the works of Freud. In doing so, we begin to reintegrate personality, and work towards a healthy society from which the pathologies (e.g., institutionalised poverty) would ebb away.

The intellectual challenge that I am defining may appear daunting. The volume and depth of work that is required if we are to break through to public awareness is of a frightening order, but we have to start somewhere. Our resources appear limited, but they are not. We have access to a wide range of thinkers and sympathisers who could initiate the work, in the belief that the initial results would arouse interest of the kind that would lead to a cumulative addition to the resources at our disposal. Once the ball gets rolling....[10]

The working hypothesis is that the private control over the public side of our personalities and social lives through the manipulation of language, psychology, spirituality, etc., is unavoidable if rent remains in the private domain.

If this thesis is correct, we may begin to formulate new themes to justify the re-socialisation of rent.

Put simply, we cannot reclaim our humanity -- which originated in the social context -- unless we re-socialise the material surplus that communities need to finance the arts, sciences and forms of behaviour that constitute the civilised order.

If my diagnosis is correct, the bias of the work that ought to be sponsored by a problem-solving Georgist institution is in favour of fundamental research. Contemplation, book learning and writing constitute the starting point for a fresh approach to our mission.

The results need to be quickly disseminated in a form that mobilises further work within the existing resources of Georgism, while simultaneously animating the outsiders who are yearning for a more profound understanding of the roots of the dysfunctional global order. This makes it necessary to publish materials in a format that speaks of quality, accessibility and excitement.

This priority does not imply that we abandon an engagement with the world today. We are morally bound to help those who ask for it. It was through such an engagement that some of the most fruitful hypotheses and empirical projects of the past 10 years originated. A particularly important example: it was because of our work in Russia that Tideman & Plassmann agreed to undertake their work.[11]

2.7 A new concept of Georqism

GEORGISTS need to renew their faith in their project by resisting the categories imposed upon them by those who would neutralise people's sense of justice.

Our goal -- if we are to pitch for the property rights and the consistent application of the fiscal principles contained in Progress and Poverty -- is nothing less than a counter-revolution to the revolution of the 17th century. If this appears as a daunting mission, we need do no more than look back to the examples in history where language, truth and logic were transformed (perverted in the two cases cited below) by small bands of people in the pursuit of private agendas.

  • Locke and his band of regicidal revolutionaries pulled off a remarkable coup in the late 17th century. Locke's Two Treatises originated as a work of propaganda. It was adopted by the rent-privatisers, which meant that it would colour the minds of the constitution-writers (e.g., the American Constitution).
  • Marx was rewarded for all his time spent in the British Museum with a total transformation of unbelievable proportions in the 20th century. This was achieved by developing a new theory of history and of society from which could be teased out a few slogans fit for the streets.
  • In both those cases, it took a century or more for the original writings to find their expression in the legal documents and political institutions that shaped the governance of hundreds of millions of people in the 20th century. We may dare to hope that 1879 may soon come to haunt those who have imprisoned us in our minds. But this won't happen unless we provide the intellectual tools that free our minds.

Our problem is one of systemic proportions. This has self-evident implications when considering (a) appropriate action, and (b) priorities in the deployment of resources. For example, we cannot achieve our goal by relying on inter-personal strategies. The scale and time-frames of the problems that we need to address -- from the "clash of civilisations" to the institutionalised poverty in the rich nations -- cannot be resolved on a one-to-one contact basis. Politicians frankly admit that they have limited shelf-lives: we need to appeal for change on an inter-generational basis. Nor can we place too much reliance on any one professional group (such as academics), given the propensity to accommodate the current requirements of employers and policy-makers.

The primary problems that confront the world today not only appear to be intractable; they are intractable, because they flow from a systemic flaw in the foundations of western culture. The system has developed techniques for moderating the destabilising effects of that single flaw, but these are continually defeated: cf. cyclical breakdowns in the economy, group crises stemming from alienation, psychosomatic ailments that deprive people of the enjoyment of decent lives, ecological degradation, and so on.

As Georgists, we challenge that system by threatening to remove one of its most cherished features: the unearned income from land. To succeed, we need to demonstrate how people may empower themselves to modify or remove the buttresses that preserve injustice and inefficiency. This is a proposal that, initially, would evoke fear: we are proposing a shift in attitudes that have been ingrained by hundreds, and in some cases thousands, of years of coerced behaviour. People fear change, and they need to be sympathetically guided through to an understanding of the possibilities of a better future. Fortunately, we are aided by the fact that we are offering a win-win project: no-one need actually lose.

There are many propitious "signs in the wind" today to suggest that, with the correct comprehension, people would apply common sense and vote for what is in their best private and social interests. But this will not happen without the leadership from those who are entrusted with the guardianship of a sacred idea.

Now, with the citizens of the United States in desperate need of help to revisualise their national and personal identities, it would be a good time for us to exit the private occupation of the hinterlands in our minds, and start to construct the good society in cooperation with others.

For Georgists, the first step in this direction is the redefinition (through self-education) of our minds, to sharpen the focus of the precious visions that are contained in our minds.


[1] The views expressed in this paper are those of the author; they do not necessarily represent the views of any of the organisations with which he is associated. This document is NOT to be reproduced in any format whatsoever, or circulated, without the permission of the author.
[2] These economists were among 30 distinguished academics and real estate professionals who signed an Open Letter to Mikhail Gorbachev. Appendix in Richard Noyes (ed), Now the Synthesis, London: Shephemrd-Walwyn, 1991.
[3] The most telling piece of evidence is the poverty of data (cf rents, titles to laid) which are needed to ensure efficieney-in the land market. Despite the propaganda that stresses the primacy of the price-signalling system, the information that would maximise efficiency (and undermine monopoly) is totally neglected by governments. This cannot be explained in terms other than a congenital unwillingness to provide the information.
[4] Hong Kong is the exception that proves my general rule. The fiscal foundations were laid by the land-owning aristocracy that directed the Foreign Office in the 1840s, HK was regarded as Britain's private estate on the edge of the Chinese mainland. It was not legally possible to switch, at any stage in Britain's tenure of the colony, to property rights based on fee simple. Leasehold was the sole option for possessing land; from which it followed that a "consideration" had to be paid to the agency that held the original lease -- the British government.
[5] But we can still squeeze more political mileage out of economic projects. Two important examples of work-in-progress: (1) The quantification of losses stemming from deadweight taxes is a potent tool that was totally neglected - as a political/promotional tool -- until Tideman and Plassmann began their work. A new Losses of Nations is required (but see the forthcoming volume by Ronald Banks, Dead Loss: Gordon Brown & the Treasury, London: Othilla. (2) Integrating the FIRE sector and the Georgist paradigm, based on the work of Michael Hudson, to demonstrate the capacity of the theory to incorporate changes to the character of the economy in the 20* century - and its resilience in the face of looming changes in the 21" century.
[6] This may explain why the Georgist movement has been able to operate as a broad "church" of idealists who spanned the spectrum from the extreme right (libertarians) to the extreme left (Marxists). There was no internal conflict because there were as many visions of what society could be like as there were Georgists.
[7] Georgists have been intimidated into boiling down the vision to a few simple statements about the local property tax, but we have contributed to that process. I recall a conversation with Vie Blundell, who ran the London organisation for many decades, who cautioned us against making unsubstantiated statements. He illustrated his concerns by referring to a Georgist who lived in Birmingham, who had a list of 100 problems that would be solved if only we would introduce LVT. Those problems ranged from child-beating to alcoholism and goodness knows what else: all listed on a single page. This was a case of a good-hearted soul wanting to share his vision with the rest of the world, and not knowing how to do it without attracting derision.
[8] A start is made in Fred Harrison, "Herbert Spencer: The shaming of the science of society", Geophilos, Spring 2001 (01 [1])
[9] Fred Harrison, "The Cultured Mind: Science & the Enslavement of Nature". Geophilos, Autumn 2000 (00(1])
[10] Archaeology and anthropology currently lend comfort to discreditable opponents of the Georgist paradigm. For example, Robert Heilbroners The Worldly Philosophers (now into its 7lh edn.), claims that ancient civilisations were not based on an economic process that can be treated by what we now call economics. And: "....all societies, once they move from the level of hunting and gathering to that of Command, create categories of privilege and disprivilege, ranging from aristocracy to slavery, from class to caste, from the rights of property to the disadvantages of penury" (p.318). This implies a hopelessness about the future that is corrosive, ft is unwarranted. It abolishes from our mental landscapes the unique qualities of the Indus civilisation, for example, which we are entitled to designate a Georgist civilisation BC. Critiques of some errors in anthropology and archaeology appear in Geophilos, Spring 2002.
One essay addresses the roots of the Indus culture, in a discussion about what a post-Taliban society might look like in Afghanistan. The other reviews the Marxist prejudices introduced into archaeology by V. Gordon Child, which Heilbroner, a champion of democratic socialism, would have found ideologically congenial.
We could not have criticised Heilbroner's nonsense, had the Schalkenbach Foundation not financed projects engaging archaeologists and philologists (assembled for seminars inspired by Michael Hudson).
[11] Russia's President Putin is an example of someone in need of further help. Western commentators have greeted his signing of the Land Code on October 26, 2001, as a capitulation to the privatisation project. But in November 2001 the Duma passed a law that doubled the Land Tax rates. This should be viewed in the light of Putin's repeated declarations in favour of the standard Georgist tax-shift formula. This story receives no space in the Western media. Nor will it feature in the analyses by scholars who operate within predetermined mind-sets that defeat their quest for objectivity. It is for Georgists to provide the documented story for the Western audience.