| 
 How I Came to Embrace the Principles Embraced by Henry GeorgeVic H. Blundell
 [Reprinted from Land & Liberty]
 
 One of a family of eight, was born in London, 1911. Realised the
          value of learning only after leaving a state school. Filled some of
          the gaps by attending evening classes, developing an enthusiasm for
          music, politics and his job. Worked successfully as shoe salesman,
          window-dresser and manager, studying after hours. Retail branch
          manager at 19, he served with many of the leading shoe firms, and at
          24 was appointed General Manager and Buyer of a group of 26 shoe
          shops. Joined the United Committee in 1947.
 
 If my early environment had been the deciding factor in the
          formulation of my philosophical and political outlook I would have
          been a Socialist. My friends and associates were nearly all Socialists
          and all around me was "evidence" of the failure of
          capitalism. There was bitterness and anger among the working classes
          as they lost their independence in the dole queue and their
          self-respect under the "Means Test." They took it for
          granted that because unemployment and other social ills existed within
          the framework of free competitive enterprise, the latter was
          responsible for the former. Private enterprise, they were told,
          produced the wrong things; instead of houses, clothing and food for
          people in need of them, there were motor cars, smart hotels and all
          kinds of luxury goods for the rich. It was necessary to plan so that
          the right things were produced. The factories, machinery, shops, etc.,
          were built by the workers and, therefore, it was argued that they
          should be nationalised. My would-be political educators believed that
          not only was this a matter of simple justice but that it would end the
          exploitation of man by man.
 
 In the late 'twenties, while still in my 'teens, I was a regular
          visitor to open-air meetings in Finsbury Park, North London, where
          audiences filled and overflowed the large recreation ground. Squeezed
          in among the main political parties were small groups battling for
          attention and when I grew tired of listening to the mob orators I
          would invariably finish up as one of a small group around J. W. Graham
          Peace, leader of the "Commonwealth Land Party." From him I
          learned of the rights of man, economic rent, land speculation, free
          trade and all the ramifications of free enterprise and social justice.
          Urged on by my elder brother, Stanley, I began to read Progress
          and Poverty and as I came to understand the philosophy of Henry
          George more clearly the defects of Socialism became more apparent.
 
 I addressed. my first public meeting at the age of 18 and felt the
          keen edge of the tongue of the experienced heckler. Often I got into
          arguments that left me the loser. It hurt, although I knew my case was
          sound. Then I remembered my training as a salesman. The first thing a
          salesman has to learn is his stock. He must know every line thoroughly
          and be able to recite its qualities, construction, advantages, etc. As
          a young and raw economist the trouble with me was that I did not know
          my stock." In the years that followed I had to learn the answers
          to many questions on the economics and philosophy of Henry George. The
          moral basis and the clear logic of the Georgeist case were the twin
          forces that maintained my faith in what many tried to tell me was a
          lost cause.
 
 I shall always remember one of my early mentors, Mr. E. 0. Edwards,
          dealing with an obstinate heckler. Patiently, tactfully and with great
          skill he demolished one by one every argument his opponent put
          forward. In the end the questioner shrugged his shoulders and turning
          away said "All right, but you will never do it." Then I saw
          the fire blaze in the eye of the speaker who up to that moment had
          maintained remarkable self-control. Pointing an accusing finger at his
          heckler, he cried: " You will never do it, but don't you dare to
          tell me I will never do it! "
 
 The question that worried me most was not an economic one. It was "Why
          is so fundamentally simple a proposition difficult to 'put over' ?"
          I came to realise that one cannot sow seeds in a garden overgrown with
          weeds and expect them to take root.
 
 Much of the work of those who seek to influence others lies in
          pulling up the weeds of prejudice. After all if we were right then all
          the political parties were wrong! An over-simplification, no doubt,
          but not an easy position to escape from and not a good point at which
          to start an argument.
 
 I moved to Liverpool and there met the late Mr. E. I. McManus from
          whom I first learned of the existence of study classes based on Henry
          George's teachings. Subsequently I conducted classes myself in
          Nottingham.
 
 I became a member of the United Committee in 1945 and in 1947 was
          invited to join the staff at Great Smith Street to assist Mr. Madsen
          in the many aspects of his work and in producing LAND &
          LIBERTY. The School, starting as a spare-time activity, grew to
          absorb the greater part of my time and with the help of ex-students
          who have built up classes in their own areas or become tutors
          themselves, it has expanded year by year.
 
 The School is not an end in itself but one of the roads that leads to
          our objective, and it has been of special interest over the past few
          years to watch and to follow the development of thought in the minds
          of students as they go through the courses. I have witnessed dogmatic
          political "sectarians" emerge after three courses as quite
          different people.
 
 There is no uniform approach to those we are seeking to influence. In
          the classroom, attention must be paid to every individual student and
          it is something of a challenge to the tutor when he is charged with
          the task of harmonising by the tenth lesson the outlook of
          personalities whose political outlooks spring from diverse origins.
 
 It is an accepted maxim in advertising, as in window-dressing, that
          the first job is to capture and hold the attention of the person one
          wishes to interest.
 
 The principles taught by Henry George and the many who preceded him
          cannot change with the passing of time but we must be ready always to
          adapt our methods of presentation so that we gain the respect of all
          with whom we come in contact. People today are more sophisticated than
          ever, more suspicious of radical change, less responsive to the
          emotional appeal, and more than ever conditioned to the planned
          economy mentality. Where possible we must meet people on their own
          ground or we will not be heard at all.
 
 Let us face it. The ordinary voter understands very little about
          economic theory -- has little desire to understand it -- does not
          regard it as particularly important, and has no inclination to do more
          than pass judgment on superficial issues or on mere political slogans
          and catch-phrases. Many vote from habit, prejudice, fear, or from a
          mere consciousness of belonging to a certain class. Yet Keynes' ideas
          of full employment (monetary manipulation and inflation) have never
          been understood by the masses of the people; these ideas were
          introduced from the top and not from the bottom.
 
 So that the fact there are few opportunities for nation-wide
          publicity need not give rise to pessimism-it is not a condition of
          success. The instigators of, and agitators for, a local income tax, a
          turnover tax, capital gains tax and other specifics are not waiting
          for or seeking the support of the broad masses of the people. They are
          busy lobbying in the realms of local and national Government, among
          trade associations, unions and the many varied spheres of political
          influence. The same techniques are open to us. The objectors to the
          Egg Marketing Scheme were a mere handful of people-not more than ten
          in one million of the adult population of Great Britain, yet they came
          within an ace of success.
 
 We, too, are a force out of all proportion to our numbers and we are
          winning the support of people who have the will, ability and
          opportunity to shape policy in the political parties.
 
 This is not to under-rate the value and effectiveness of reaching the
          general public when the opportunity offers. For example, a small group
          of ex-students of the Welling Henry George School, now banded together
          as the North West Kent Branch of the Land Value Taxation League,
          recently collected more than two thousand signatures to a petition
          calling upon their local council to set up an enquiry committee to
          examine the merits of site-value rating. The Council has agreed.
          Generous publicity has been and is being given by the local press and
          it would be fairly safe to assume that two years ago hardly anyone in
          that area had even heard of site-value rating. There is room for all
          approaches, the individual doing that for which he is best fitted and
          for which he has the best opportunities. The Henry George Schools are
          charged with the special task of ensuring that those who can be 
          persuaded to join us know the case thoroughly, for any weakness in
          understanding shown by those responsible for leadership will
          correspondingly weaken our effectiveness. The Schools are an
          instrument of policy-not the policy itself; complementary to other
          forms of action-not an alternative. My experiences at Great Smith
          Street over the last ten years have shown me the need to be always
          ready for changes in the general political scene so as to grasp
          opportunities as they arise, to be flexible in outlook and not wedded
          to one approach.
 
 Henry George said that the truth he tried to make clear would find
          friends -- it has. We have had, and still have, in our movement all
          over the world, people with knowledge, ability, personality and
          buoyant enthusiasm -- people who have succeeded in educating, training
          and winning the support of others. Yet the credit is really due to the
          power of that truth which Henry George made clear. Nothing can obscure
          the force of it and nothing can enslave it. The seed once sown becomes
          independent of the sower. It is a great joy and satisfaction to me to
          listen as I often do to one of my ex-students explaining a particular
          point or summarising our philosophy in a way which shows he i£
          speaking from his own mind and heart; that the seed is sown, that
          there is an understanding and feeling in what he says far and away
          removed from the mere parrot-like repetition of lessons learned by
          rote. It is the crowning joy of all to realise that he is captured,
          not by myself but like myself, with a Great Idea.
 
 
 
 |