France Returns to the Soil
Pavlos Giannelia
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
January-February 1941]
Marshal Petain has said: "The only wealth you possess is your
labor. ...France will become again what she should never have ceased
to be, an essentially agricultural nation. Like the giant of
mythology, she will recover all her strength by contact with the soil."
To realize this return to the soil, we meet again the demagogical
measures which because of their appearance of justice and patriotism
have been tried in every country where the leaders have aimed to
substitute "governmental direction for the play of individual
action, and the attempt to secure by restriction what can better be
secured by freedom" (Progress and Poverty}. Why should
these measures, which have failed everywhere else to bring practical
results, have more chance of realization in France?
Here are some of the regulations that have been imposed since the
proclamation of the new Constitution: The price of wheat is fixed (100
kilograms. 214 francs). The hiring of foreign manual labor is limited.
Gangs of young people are being organized to work on farms. Industrial
establishments must dismiss workers formerly employed in agriculture,
in order that they may be returned to the farms.
In addition to the numerous regulations (there are 700 decrees!) a
vast program of public works has been undertaken totalling $350
millions (18,000 million francs). The program includes draining and
irrigation projects, construction of railroads, telegraph and
telephone lines, 2500 bridges, the setting up of electric power
stations and the electrification of the lines Paris-Lyon,
Brive-Montauban and Bordeaux-Nimes.
Besides these official decrees, there are many unofficial proposals
in the severely censored press. The following, in Le Progres de
I'AIlier, is typical: "There should be no difficulty in providing
dwellings. A law, declaring every house deserted for more than five
years and every field deserted for more than three years, to be common
property and assigned to a new proprietor, would take care of the
situation and would not be objectionable." Paris Soir has this to
offer: "For the clearing of seven million hectares (171/2 million
acres) twice the area of the Netherlands ploughs and man-power are not
always enough. A great many fields are arid, and workers should not
desert the rich fields to take care of the poor ones. The sheep would
make an efficient and gratuitous agricultural worker. After the flock
has enriched the soil, the plough can turn it and the sower fertilize
it. One shepherd and 500 sheep can do more for the clearing of the
soil than ten ploughmen and a trainload of chemicals!"
We could continue to enumerate all the decrees and proposals; but
enough has been given to show the spirit that prevails. All these
measures are well-intentioned and derive from the urgent necessity of
contending with work stoppage and poverty. A glance at the facts will
show the urgency of present conditions. France, which is considered a
rich and fertile land, is suffering in a high degree from general
depopulation, the density being 200 inhabitants to the square mile.
Her neighbors have a much greater density per square mile 360 in
Italy, 600 in the Netherlands, 660 in Belgium, and 1130 in Western
Germany. Especially serious is the desertion of the rural districts,
as illustrated by the following: A village in the fertile plain of
Forez had, in 1896, 326 houses and 1250 inhabitants; today it has only
210 houses and 710 inhabitants, the number of cultivators falling from
190 to 136. No wonder the traveller meets everywhere deserted houses
and fallow bramble-covered fields! No wonder there are three million
square miles to clear!
The facts are undeniable. And the necessity to contend with poverty
is also undeniable. But are the proposed measures really adequate? Has
there been any attempt to elucidate the causes of France's present
woes? Let us point out the objectionable features of some of the
decrees and proposals.
When the State fixes the price of wheat, who is paying the difference
between the fixed price and the world-market price? How can the
taxpayer, charged with this excess over the world-market price,
benefit financially?
When an employer hires a foreign worker, it is either because that
worker is cheaper than native labor, or because he possesses knowledge
and capacities unknown to the native. In either case, the restriction
now imposed upon foreign labor brings a rise in the price of
commodities, and an extra burden on the consumer. The same is true of
the disbanding of industrial workers and their reemploy- ment in
former occupations. If the employer needed them, he would hire them
without official enforcement. If his business does not need these
workers, then the obligation to employ them is a palliative, which
will probably result in the bankrupting of many enterprises.
As for the deserted houses and fields what is the probability that
the newcomer will succeed on the soil where the last occupant failed?
And certainly the supporter of the sheep proposal is quite right when
he says that the rich fields should not be neglected in order to work
on the poor fields. (As for this sheep proposal, incidentally just
between us neither 500 sheep nor one sheep are gratuitous in France!)
I have only suggested the flaws in the present measures. The chief
objection is that none of them goes to the root of the difficulty.
Before any reform can be attempted, the causes must be examined. There
are Georgeists who assert that speculation and the speculative
withdrawal of land is the sole cause of all the evils. As I see it,
the burdensome taxes that are now imposed are also causing much of the
difficulty.
The land prices alone cannot be responsible for the idleness of the
land. The price of agricultural land inside the margin of production
averages 3000 francs per hectacre ($30 per acre). Such prices are not
so much a hindrance as are the unjust tax burdens imposed on the use
of land. The taxes increase relatively in inverse proportion, to the
income that is, increasing as the income decreases, thus falling much
more heavily on the poor than on the rich. There is a tax of 5% on the
under-assessed value of agricultural land, but the salutary effects of
this are greatly offset by the huge burden of indirect taxes.
Every French estate today is a living illustration of the
discouraging effects of the present taxation methods on production, as
emphasized by Henry George: "The manner in which equal amounts of
taxation may be imposed may very differently affect the production of
wealth. ...Taxation which falls upon labor as it is exerted, wealth as
it is used as capital, land as it is cultivated, will manifestly tend
to discourage production. ...The present method of taxation operates
upon exchange like artificial deserts and mountains. It operates upon
energy, and industry, and skill, and thrift, like a fine upon those
qualities." Causes other than land speculation led" Henry
George to formulate his remedy for poverty in the following words: "Abolish
all taxation save that upon land values."
There are official decrees in France today that graze the truth. For
instance, in October 1940, the government abolished the custom duties
on horses, cattle, poultry, meat, dairy products, grain, and many
vegetables. In November, the following was decreed: "Inheritances
up to half a million francs are totally exempted from taxation, when
there are more than two minor children to inherit." I ask: When
the Minister of Finances has acknowledged that custom duties are a
handicap to the welfare of the people, why not suppress all the other
duties, which have the same effect? If the propriety of abolishing
taxes on small inheritances is seen, why not also look to the other
taxes, especially the indirect taxes?
In 1940, forty-two million consumers paid 43,800 million francs in
indirect taxes, as compared with the 1937 figures of 37,100 millions.
The four and a half million taxpayers paid 14,000 millions in direct
taxes in 1940, as compared with the 1937 figure of 37,100 millions. Is
the increase of 244% in the direct taxes, as compared with the
increase of only 18% in the indirect taxes, an indication that the bad
effect of indirect taxation has at last been recognized?
One thing is certain: A change for the better cannot be expected
unless the government imposes a tax on land value, restoring the real
land value, and gradually abolishing all other taxes.
|