Organizing for Effective Social Change
Gilbert M. Tucker
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
November-December 1940]
I should like to add a word to the recent pro and con discussion in
LAND AND FREEDOM regarding organization, in which I took the
affirmative side. As is often the case, when we accentuate
differences, we lose sight of major points of agreement, and I am sure
that Mr. Frank Chodorov and myself are far more in accord than may be
apparent.
By organization Mr. Chodorov means a group united for one of two
purposes: to quote his words, "to enjoy one another's company
because of this common interest, or to impose on others their common
interest by the strength of numbers." If such are to be the
objects of an organization, let's have none of it, and I agree with
him as to the futility of any such plan. But are these the purposes at
which we should aim, or are they the purposes of oganizations somewhat
comparable to those we already have?
If Mr. Chodorov will read the objectives which I roughly outlined, he
will, I think, be largely in agreement with me. There are countless
organizations which, in a way, parallel the goal at which we should
aim, all devoid of the objectives to which Mr. Chodorov rightly
objects. Consider many of the professional associations of physicians,
lawyers, architects, nurses, educators and the like, or more
commercially-minded groups like Chambers of Commerce, trade
associations and kindred organizations. Or study innumerable
organizations working for mere correlation, avoidance of over-lapping
and general efficiency including the great problem of financing
charity organization societies, community bests and the like. True,
they sometimes do have good times together and sometimes they unwisely
yield to the temptation to indulge in ill-judged political action, but
all this is apart from their major purposes, and indeed organization
might be very useful to us in holding in check some untimely and
half-baked political campaigns.
As for some lighter activities, there can be little ejection, if not
overdone; need we always go about all our serious purposes devoid of
all sense of comradeship or of pure fun? Even the Henry George School
has its occasional dinners and jollifications and what harm do they
do, as long as they are mere sideshows while serious business goes on
uninterrupted in the big tent. Perhaps sometimes, if practised with
moderation, as should be all amusements, the greater purpose is even
furthered by such affairs as long as they remain wholly incidental.
In the same issue of LAND AND FREEDOM which carried the recent
discussion, I note that many recognize the imperative need of
association. Almost uniformly, these writers see, as does Mr.
Chodorov, that the imperative need is education, although they may not
always interpret that word in a way confined only to formal study in
the class-room. Mr. Chodorov wisely states the educational objective
of the School, devoted to and chartered for that specific purpose, but
why limit the stimulation of the countless avenues of service, which
he mentions, to work for and under the School? "An educational
institution must be devoid of any political effort" and in that I
would agree; I would even go further, for I am not at all sure that "to
bombard editors with letters" is a proper function of a School,
although training in such procedure is entirely proper. The graduates
as well as many others must be encouraged to engage in many lines of
work, which are almost wholly educational in the broadest sense but
which nevertheless do not fall directly within the province of a
chartered school.
Perhaps the greatest objectives of such an enterprise as I urge,
should be correlation and financing. It should aid and encourage many
activities, again generally educational, outside of the province of
the class-room, and it should be the great central organ for financing
our work as a whole but without the slightest interference with
operations conducted by groups of a specialized or local nature. That
many opportunities are lost for securing considerable sums for the
promotion of our great task*is a matter of positive knowledge, and the
explanation lies in the simple fact that we have no strong and stable
association which represents the rank and file of Georgeists and is
not limited, either positively or by policy and custom, to a specific
activity.
Certainly, multiplicity of national organizations is not to be
desired. Should any spirit of enterprise or cooperation be evinced,
there are two existing bodies which might well be developed to fill a
larger field the Robert Schalkenbach and the Henry George Foundations.
Both have weaknesses which must be eliminated before either can take
the place which it might assume. The Schalkenbach Foundation has no
broad membership but is only a well administered trusteeship for
handling certain funds. It is made up of busy men who can afford but
little time for its affairs and it commands no general support from
Georgeists. The Henry George Foundation, to put it bluntly, does
little but promote an annual conference and hold title to George's
birth-place. If either or both of these organizations would undergo a
renaissance and attract real support from the many Georgeists, today
so often dormant, there would be limitless possibilities ahead. Of the
two, the Schalkenbach is the most hopeful and my suggestion is that
some policy be developed for building up a membership call them
members, associates, friends or what you will to which could be
delegated some measure of responsibility for aiding its work,
broadening its field and for raising funds. Every effort should be
made to avoid its domination by cranks and extremists or by those
within our ranks who are intolerant of every endeavor not in line with
their single-track minds.
The functions of these members or associates might be only advisory
and contributory but it would seem that there could be no objection to
their representation on the board, for one may question whether a
close corporation device, with a self-perpetuating board, is the best
when a large and general support is sought. With energy and wisdom,
and particularly with tact and tolerance, a strong organization could
in time be developed, strengthening the Schalkenbach Foundation,
enabling it to expand and develop.
The new association would be but little different from the
foundations of today except in stability, vigor, more general appeal
and in the possibility which it would offer to secure better
co-operation and more adequate financing for our great task. What
possible objection can there be to such a program?
|