Arguments Against Political Organization
to Promote the Single Tax

Frank Chodorov

[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, September-October 1940]

A discussion on the value of organization as an instrument advance Henry George's philosophy will be made clear if we define the term organization.

This word, like so many other words, is used in a variety if ways. When we speak of the organization of a business we refer to the departmentalization of the work. For greater productivity the various parts of the one enterprise are assigned to various specialists, each one of whom makes a contribution to the general objective.

But in the field of political or social activity organization has an entirely different meaning. Its central idea is that of grouping together a number of people who have a common interest, for one of two purposes: 1, To enjoy one mother's company because of this common interest, or 2, to impose on others their common interest by the strength of their numbers.

There may be some division of labor in a social club or in a political society. These organizations do have officers and committees. But since such specialization is necessarily limited, the vast majority of the members have very little more to do with the group's activities than the paying of dues and the attending of meetings.

Social groups have a tendency to become self-centered. When we have met with a number of people of common interest for a long time the pleasure of such meetings tends to create resistance toward including people with whom we re not acquainted, even if they happen to have the same central interest, and even though we think we want new members. We are not sure that the newcomer will adjust himself to the new environment. The "mutual admiration" atmosphere might be disturbed.

The political organization has for its purpose the election of an individual to public office, or the adoption of some political measure. In so far as it shows signs of succeeding in its purpose it will gain adherents who hope for some advantage as a result of this association. If it does not show signs of success it will not gain adherents, because the political minded person is not anxious to be connected with a failure. The idea which drew together the original organizers of the political society does not spread because the members are not primarily concerned with spreading the idea; they are, rather, interested in imposing the idea through political action. The teaching of a philosophy to others always becomes a secondary consideration with every organization, no matter what its original purpose may be.

The history of the Henry George movement since 1897 is the history of one organizational attempt after another. Those of us who have been in the movement any number of years remember how few Georgeists there were. When we went to a Single Tax meeting we met the same faces, we listened to the same speeches.

We were not growing. And the reason we were not growing is that we were not making new Georgeists. There may be some other explanation of this decadence, but we cannot escape the fact that fifty years of organization and political work had not prevented it.

Those of us who have devoted years to soap-boxing, lecturing, campaigning, contributing to this or that effort which at the time seemed quite worthy, must now decide whether our remaining years should be spent in the same kind of unproductive work; or whether they should be devoted to the only kind of work which apparently has produced results commensurate with the effort, namely, education.

It is eight years since Oscar Geiger started the Henry George School of Social Science. In those eight years there have probably been more new Georgeists added to the cause than during all of the previous years since Henry George died. A recent commencement exercise in New York City was attended by over 500 people. Several weeks ago Chicago assembled 300 people. And so it goes all over the country, wherever there are classes. Some 20,000 people have taken the course either in these classes or by mail.

All this has been done without organization, save in the sense that organization is the division of labor. In that sense the School is an organization. There is work for everyone to do. Some teach, some address envelopes, some lecture, some do research work, some write articles, some bombard editors with letters. But the objective of the School is to make more and more Georgeists, not to consolidate in social or political groups those who have already subscribed to the philosophy.

The Trustees of the Henry George School of Social Science recognize the danger of crystallization which results from organization and have therefore established it as the policy of the School not to encourage such activity among its graduates, although recognizing the fact that these graduates are at liberty to carry on as they see fit. Obviously an educational institution must be devoid of any political effort, even by implication.

When or how the fiscal reform advocated by Henry George will be put into effect is something none of us can definitely answer now. But it is a certainty that the reform will never come about until it has many more proponents. Therefore, we must recognize the essential importance of spreading our philosophy far and wide through the most effective means at hand. Fifty years of organization have not had this effect. The educational method initiated by Oscar Geiger is accomplishing it.