Tolstoy: Conservative and Counter-Revolutionary
Edward J. Dodson
[A paper delivered at the Henry George School, New York, April 1985]
Nearly all of us involved today in this discussion of "land rent"
are to some degree familiar with the influence Henry George had on the
great Russian thinker. Tolstoy's writing began to make reference to
George's ideas as early as 1884, and the two of them corresponded on
the abolition of private property in land and the single tax. George's
untimely death prevented a planned meeting at Tolstoy's home,
Yasnaya Polyara. Tolstoy's respect for George is expressed in
the oft-quoted:
People do not argue with the
teaching of George; they simply do not know it. And it is impossible
to do otherwise with his teaching, for he who becomes acquainted
with it cannot but agree.
As child is father to the man, Tolstoy (apparently with little
disagreement) found in George's words written exposition of ideas and
truths he had known all his life. This is related to us in a letter
from Tolstoy to Tatiana, his daughter:
I have long ceased to interest
myself - and in fact I never interested myself - in political
questions; but the question of the land, that is of land slavery,
though it is considered a political question, is
a moral
question, a question of the violation of the most elementary demands
of morality, and therefore that question not only occupies my mind
but torments me.
He was much earlier also tormented by the repressiveness of the
State, which made him a kindred spirit of the celebrated French
anarchist, Proudhon; and from whom Tolstoy acquired his appreciation
of the anarchistic political analysis. From Paris in 1857 he wrote to
Botkin:
for me, political laws are
such a horrible lie that I do not see in them anything either better
or worse
I will never again look at such a thing and I will
never anywhere serve any government.
As did Proudhon, Tolstoy came to view private property as theft,
government of man by man as oppression and the union of order and
anarchy as the highest form of society. Tolstoy is also known to have
read Herbert Spencer (whose positivist philosophy he rejected). If
Spencer's original treatment of the land question in Social
Statics found its way into Tolstoy's reading, this may have
planted a see later watered by George's Progress and Poverty.
What is evident is that because of Proudhon and George, Tolstoy came
to understand why his earlier philanthropic scheme to distribute his
estates among the peasant farmers had failed and the reasons by
governments cannot but eventually become either totalitarian or
authoritarian.
Individualism, anarchism, pacifism, and Georgism are intricately
weaved together into his personal philosophy. He may not have been, as
some of his critics have taken pains to note, an original thinker;
there is no question as to his ability to recognize sound and original
thinking in others.
Tolstoy's denial of private property and his anarchistic views on
government are, to most Georgists and Libertarians, philosophically
extreme; and, in our interdependent modern world, impractical. His
world still provided the opportunities of a vast frontier.
Importantly, there is a great deal one can learn about the human
condition from Tolstoy's writing. His thinking derives from a long
history of intellectual dialogue among conservative
counter-revolutionaries in Europe who benefited by the evolution of
Jeffersonian democracy.
George's personal attachment to the democratic experience was a
distinct advantage as his own political thinking matured. He
instinctively tied together as necessary preconditions to democratic
society both free access to land and individual freedom. That the
English colonies in North America become the breeding ground of
democracy was largely fortuitous because it could not have occurred
even in England, where the political economy was ripe for class
struggle. The colonials were largely ungovernable without the
expenditure of tremendous sums, and so were able to construct a
government of very limited power while taking advantage of the free
frontier.
The ideal conditions of free soil and benign government have long
since disappeared from civilization; however, in 1776 the tide of
despotism was temporarily pushed back. Peter Drucker, in The
Future of Industrial Man, without really appreciating the
dynamics, accurately presents the impact they had on world history:
The American Revolution brought
victory and power to a group which in Europe had been almost
completely defeated and which was apparently dying out rapidly: the
anticentralist, antitotalitarian conservatives with their hostility
to absolute and centralized government and their distrust of any
ruler claiming perfection. It saved the autonomous common law from
submersion under perfect law codes; and it re-established
independent law courts. Above all, it reasserted the belief in the
imperfection of man as the basis of freedom.
I cannot help but think that we have again reached the point where
only a second such revolution can again push back the despots. Since
the frontier is gone, that revolution must take place not on the
battlefields but in the heart and mind of each individual. As did
Tolstoy, I have found no better teacher than Henry George and no
better peaceful method than to collect the rental value of land for
the common good. In these respects, I stand with Proudhon, with
Tolstoy and with George as a fellow conservative
counter-revolutionary.
|