Remember -- Land Is Not Capital
Oscar B. Johannsen
[Reprinted from the Henry George News, July,
1968]
"WHEN Lenin strode upon the stage a roar arose from the crowd
such as I had never heard before. It was the cry of the downtrodden
for a god who was to lead them into the promised land." This was
the impression of one of the two or three foreigners who were present
when Lenin appeared before a meeting of the Bolshevik leaders shortly
after they took control over Russia.
But the promises of the zealots failed to materialize and the
socialist paradise they anticipated turned out to be far worse than
anything experienced under the Czar. In the Western world some people
were saying that the Communists could not remain long in power, or if
they did Russia would be forced sooner or later to become a capitalist
nation. Now, however, contrary to the prediction the Bolsheviks do
control Russia and, directly or indirectly, many of the surrounding
countries.
While it was obvious to any knowledgeable person that the Soviet
experiment would not produce a wealthy or just nation, it did not
follow that it could not work, at least to a degree, even though it
could not be administered well or permit its citizens freedom. Armies
are notoriously inefficient, and freedom of soldiers to do as they
please is patently unthinkable. The same rigid principle governs
socialistic nations, and it is idle fantasy to dream that freedom is
possible.
To suppose that such a system could not endure, however, or that it
would evolve into a free market economy, was indeed premature. More
likely it would work until it broke down under the weight of its own
inefficiency or as the result of a war or revolution, when some
version of a private enterprise would of necessity emerge. The fact
that Soviet Russia has of late instituted an elaborate framework of
incentives has in no way changed its fundamental structure. Armies
also enforce discipline with incentives such as titles, medals and
pay-differentials.
Twenty years before the Russian revolution Henry George pointed out
that practicing socialism was analogous to attempting "to secure
by cardboard and pinholes the definiteness of vision that can be far
better secured by spectacles."[1] In other words, socialism might
work, but so poorly as to be worthless - and he warned that it "inevitably
works injury, hindering even what it is intended to help."[2] How
unfortunate that Lenin and his colleagues read Karl Marx instead of
Henry George.
There are only two ways in which men cooperate. One is by spontaneous
voluntary action, without forethought, as for safety or survival, and
in the West this comes about quite naturally. For instance in a
private enterprise system it is the people who make decisions about
the production or non-production of goods, simply by their choice of
purchases in the market.
In contrast to this, men in the army work together in directed
cooperation - their activities must conform to the arbitrary demands
of a central agency. Socialism embraces the same principle and
operates on the same basis.
In the U.S. where a majority may view socialism skeptically there are
some among us who look upon it tolerantly because it forbids the
private ownership of land. Perhaps they assume that this measure would
achieve the result envisaged by Henry George. It should be remembered
that under socialism land is nationalized, and George himself
inveighed against land nationalization. Where land is nationalized it
belongs to the state and is directed according to political or social
expedients.
Land nationalization does not work in the Soviet Union, but those of
a liberal persuasion are not convinced. Socialism has lasted fifty
years in Russia, but that does not prove its soundness. Its apologists
believe the failure is due merely to faulty administration and they do
not recognize, nor will they ever confess, that a directed economy can
never keep its promises to its citizens.
Persuaded no doubt by arguments against the private ownership of land
some students lump land and capital together and define them as "capital."
Thus they are led into believing that private ownership of wealth is
wrong. Only the followers of Henry George have explored thoroughly the
necessity of separating land from capital and the importance of
treating land as common property. Capital is the private property of
individuals. This needs to be emphasized and studied.
REFERENCES
- The Science of Political Economy, p. 394.
- Ibid., p. 391.
|
