Review of the Book
Safeguard Productive Capital:
Tax Ground Values and Untax Industry
by Louis Wallis
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
September-October, 1935]
Here is a work typical of much that is being written in these days,
and useful within limits.
Prof. Wallis has his fling at Henry George. It has become the habit
of those who derive all they know from the master to present what they
want to think is an original approach to the problem, so much more
reasonable than Henry George himself, but which turns out to be the
same thing under another name and a new setting, or some very much
diluted form of it. For example, one of the subtitles of this work is
"A New Approach to the Business Problem." It would be new if
Henry George had not indicated the same avenue of approach fifty-five
years ago. We wonder if it is just crass egotism that leads these
writers to wrest piecemeal rocks from the great mountain and exhibit
them as original discoveries. There is not a single statement in this
book of Prof. Wallis that is not derived from Progress and Poverty.
Perhaps the reader will ask for justification for these comments of
the reviewer. We have it on page 58 and 59 of the work as follows:
"Mr. George, as we have shown, was not the first
writer who pointed to land as a peculiar tax base; but he attracted
worldwide attention for a time by linking economics, in oracular
style, with Utopian emphasis on Single Tax as a panacea for social
ills. I concur in much that Mr. George says, but cannot count myself
a disciple, and have experienced considerable difficulty in working
with those who regard him as their master.
On the whole, then, the influence of Progress and Poverty
at the present time is an obstacle in the way of sane economic
readjustment; and with regard to this point, the views of many
scholars are expressed by Prof. Edward A. Ross, of Wisconsin
University, who writes me as follows: "I agree with you that by
rearing a Utopia on the exclusive taxation of land, Henry George
interrupted the rational evolution which was getting on toward
recognizing land as peculiarly able to bear taxation."
This is pretty astonishing. Mr. George did much more than point to
land as a peculiar tax base. Nor did he set himself to build a Utopia.
If he dwelt upon the subject "in oracular style" (by the
way, this sounds like a sneer) he did so because he saw the kind of a
civilization that would result from the solution he offered. He had
linked the law of wages with the law of rent. This was his great
contribution to economic science. There had been many land reformers
before him, but none had built the bridge over which in a much feebler
way inferior thinkers had stumbled, or walked uncertainly. It is not
surprising that Prof. Wallis found "considerable difficulty in
working with those who regarded Henry George as their master." It
is clear that he has only imperfectly sensed the teachings of Henry
George in all their implications.
We are sad to learn that Progress and Poverty is "an
obstacle in the way of sane economic readjustment." The remark is
amusing, for it is doubtful indeed if Mr. Wallis' present volume would
have emerged at all if Henry George had not inspired it.
But let us be grateful for small things. This book will be read by
many who have not the intellectual capacity, nor perhaps the leisure,
to examine what Henry George really taught. Much that precedes what we
have quoted is well worth while. In this we include his examination of
Marx, his explanation of the nature of capital, his relation of land
to production, and the evils wrought by land speculation. These are
all well done, and other comments of Prof. Wallis call for
commendation.
Prof. Wallis suggests as a substitute for the name Single Tax, "Capretax,"
which strikes us as a name of equal futility.
It may be said, too, that the rejection of rights, or "Natural
rights," on which George laid peculiar emphasis, forces Prof.
Wallis to an acceptance of Bentham's principle of "The greatest
good to the greatest number," the fallacy of which was pointed
out by the clear-eyed Alexander H. Stephens many years ago.
All the points raised quite admirably by Prof. Wallis will find
further augmentation in a better knowledge of Henry George, to whom
all these arguments may be traced. And for the benefit of the student
let us say that Henry George did not teach that land was "peculiarly
able to bear taxation." It is not the taxation of land that he
taught, and we wonder if it would not have been just as well to insist
upon this throughout in the interest of truth and a better
understanding. Indeed this has been done in what precedes the passage
we have quoted and which is a negation of what has gone before.
All in all, it will still have to be said that this little work will
do good among those who prefer to get their knowledge in derivative
form.
|