The Continuing Influence
of the Malthusian Doctrine

Raymond V. McNally

[Originally published with the title: " These Fallacies Recur in Many Forms". Reprinted from Land and Freedom, November-December 1936]

There appears to be a feeling among followers of Henry George that the Wage Fund Theory and the Malthusian Doctrine do not dominate social thought today to as great an extent as they did at the time Henry George wrote and for that reason Progress and Poverty should be revised with a view to bringing it up to date. This attitude is not only impractical in view of what is taking place in the world at the moment, but it betrays somewhat of a kinship with those people outside the movement who believe that conditions are so different today from what they were in the last century that George's ideas are no longer applicable. It is true, furthermore, that he thoroughly exposed these theories as fallacies, but in spite of this fact, current thought, when critically analyzed, is seen to be completely impregnated with them. While they have been formally rejected in academic circles, most professional economists, nevertheless, unconsciously believe in them. And there, I believe, is where the danger in large part lies in the unconscious acceptance of such unscientific theories.

The average person unquestionably believes that capital employs labor and that before labor can be employed or can employ itself, there must first be capital available for the payment of wages. They also hold the opinion that capital profits at the expense of labor. Thus the trend throughout the entire civilized world is towards communism or fascism, for both of these "isms," in the last analysis, spring from a belief in the Wage Fund Theory. In my opinion, acceptance of the Malthusian Doctrine, conscious or otherwise, is also world-wide as evidenced by immigration laws, birth control agitation, the craze for colonial expansion and the agitation for the retirement of men at the age of sixty-five, and for the displacement of women in industry by men. Even many of those people who profess to be followers of Henry George unconsciously pay homage to these fallacies. I have met many who, after finishing a course in Progress and Poverty, express sympathy for a protective tariff, for the curbing of chain stores and for such artificial devices as the NRA and AAA. Obviously they have learned nothing about economic science, for they have memorized their lessons parrot-fashion; but unfortunately they go about miseducating everyone with whom they come in contact. And are we not frequent witnesses of the curious spectacle of earnest individuals advocating land value taxation, income and inheritances taxes, public spending and government regulation of industry all in one breath?

There is no doubt that the Henry George movement is encountering greater opposition today than it did fifty years ago, because the entire world is drifting rapidly away from ideas of freedom and natural law towards a pathetically defeatest attitude engendered by an intense belief in these age-old fallacies. The recent election indicates that our own country is following in the footsteps of Europe, trying the same things, making the same mistakes; and we might as well realize that economic planning is firmly in the saddle and will not be ousted until the United States has also gone the limit in social welfare experiments and, through extreme taxation, reduced the middle classes practically to the bare subsistence level of the poorest classes. But how can we have any real understanding of the issues at stake if we fail to recognize the underlying cause of this trend? We are well satisfied with ourselves that we know the truth, and we have a sublime faith in its ultimate triumph if we can only rally enough people around us to give it holy lip-service, serenely unaware that, at the same time, these people are naively supporting the very fallacies that have plunged the world into its present state of economic insanity and that are distracting attention from our own movement. In adopting such an attitude, are we not, therefore, partly responsible for the direction in which our country is headed?

Mere reiteration of the chief tenets in George's philosophy is not enough to overcome this trend. That sort of approach makes the support of the philosophy something of a cult, and the world is already suffering from too many cults. Henry George was not content merely with repeating his conclusions and ignoring the weaknesses of the opposition. He was constantly exposing the fallacies that prevented people from understanding those conclusions. That is our job to expose the weakness in the opposition. Economic science is not a static body of knowledge. It is constantly growing and pointing lie way to deeper implications, to a wider extension and application of the principles already known. What we should do is to use our knowledge as an attacking weapon by seeking the cause of popular ignorance, focalizing our attention on it as the weak spot in the opposition and hammering away at it until it breaks ground. A The basic error from which all others stem is the persistent confusing of money with wealth, and the Wage Fund Theory and Malthusian Doctrine owe their existence to this source. Therefore, contemplating the Georgeist philosophy in general and a revision Progress and Poverty in particular, due consideration should be given to this angle of the question. Instead of losing their influence, these fallacious theories have actually been increasing their dominance over current thought.