The Single Tax And Socialism
Joseph Dana Miller
[Reprinted from the Single Tax Year Book,
published
by the Single Tax Review Publishing Company, New York, 1917]
Modern Socialism, as distinguished from various former social
theories which have gone by that name, is that social philosophy which
advocates the reorganization of the present system of economic
relationships by a series of steps leading to the establishment of the
"cooperative commonwealth." The term also applies to the
state of society which it is the aim of Socialists to bring about. In
the Socialist commonwealth, the land and all the machinery and tools
of production would be collectively owned, and their use in production
determine& by organized society as a whole or by the entire body
of producers in each particular industry. The distribution of the
product would be likewise determined by the collective will.
In the details of their programme, Socialists differ very widely
Certain elements favor a gradual step by step policy, while others see
no hope for even an effective beginning, until the reins of government
shall have been seized by a revolutionary and class-conscious
proletariat, politically organized along national and international
lines. Equally marked differences exist in Socialist views concerning
the distribution of the products of labor in the ideal commonwealth.
Those inclined to the historical Communistic position accept the
formula: " From each according to his ability; to each according
to his needs." The doctrine of the type of Socialism represented
by Edward Bellamy and the Nationalist movement founded by him calls
for complete equality in the distribution of wealth, regardless of the
share taken in its production. Other Socialists hold that each worker
should be rewarded in proportion to the Value of his contribution to
the general production, those unable without fault of their own to
labor, or exempt by reasons of service fully performed, or any other
accepted cause being supported as wards of the commonwealth. Others,
again, refuse to give a positive answer, but assert with Kautsky (The
Socialist Republic: Chapter 9, passim) that the solution
will be found when the conditions present themselves.
"Orthodox" or Marxian Socialism, the form under which
Socialism is best known and most coherently presented, holds, in the
words of A. M. Simons (Single Tax vs. Socialism, p. 4-6) "that
at any time the social institutions are determined by the mode in
which society gets its living-the manner in which goods are produced
and distributed among members of society. It maintains that up to and
including the present time this manner of production has been such as
to render one class of society a ruling class of idlers and the other
a subject class of producers. This ruling class has determined all the
institutions of society to suit itself and in its interests. But in
every stage of society the manner of production upon which the whole
of society rests has been changing; and when it reached a certain
point, it brought a class that had hitherto been subject into
prominence in the production and distribution of goods. This gave them
power with which to overthrow the ruling class, and form a new
organization in which they should be rulers. In every age of society,
the most prominent feature of the ruling class, and the one upon which
their power was based, was that they owned the essential factor in
production. In the middle ages this was the land. The landlords were
then supreme. Because they owned the land, they owned the laborers who
must use the land in order to live.
But about the close of the
last century another factor in production attained prominence. Up till
this time, the tool had been of little importance. Each laborer owned
his own tools, and if he could but get access to the land could
produce. But now, with the invention of the power loom, the
spinning-jenny, the steam engine, etc., it was impossible for each
laborer to own the tools with which he worked. The tool became
transformed into the great factory, which now became the principal
factor in production. The men who owned the factories now owned the
thing that men must have in order to produce and to live; and
consequently they owned the men-the laborers. Because of this, they
were able to overthrow those who owned the now less important factor,
the land; and the landlord gave way to the capitalist as the ruling
class. Competition among the capitalists ending in combination and
monopoly has divided society into two clearly defined classes, of
capitalist and laborer, the former ruling because of his ownership of
the essentials of -'production, which makes the laborer his slave. At
the beginning of capitalism, the most essential function in production
was the organization of the new forces. This was done by the
capitalist. But now that this organization is completed, it is handed
over to the laborer; and the capitalist has no active functions, but
con-fines himself to the passive action of drawing dividends because
of his ownership. The laborers thus became the essential factor in
production. But when any class occupies this position, it is a
certainty that it will soon be the dominant class in society." In
accordance with this comforting conviction the Socialist goes on to
conclude that the laborers will organize themselves politically into
class-conscious bodies to capture the powers of government now held by
the capitalists, and will vest the ownership of the land and tools in
all of society, thus forever rendering economic slavery impossible.
The central doctrines of the Marxian creed are thus seen to be those
of economic determinism, still referred to by many Socialists under
the awkward and indefinite earlier appellation of "the
materialist conception of history," and the class struggle. The
present mode of production and distribution is known to Socialists as
"the capitalist system." Holding as they do that the
evolution of the tool has relegated ownership of the land to a
position of secondary importance, and that the tendency towards
large-scale production and huge inclusive industrial combinations is
destined to become irresistible in all branches of productive
activity, thus ultimately rendering their absorption by organized
society both inevitable and logical, they have generally looked with
small patience on the Single Tax movement, and have neglected a
careful study of its economic basis. Holding as they do that
capitalism is necessarily monopolistic by reason of its control of the
tools of production, they refuse to concede that capital and labor can
by any possibility have a common interest, both being the victims of
monopoly.
For a number of years during the early history of the Single Tax
movement, after a temporary political alliance which finally brought
to light the radical differences of viewpoint as well as of tactics
between the two schools of economic thought, the attitude of most
Socialists toward Single Taxers was one of contemptuous hostility.
This spirit is reflected in the pamphlet of Simons, previously
referred to, which reflects an entire misconception of the Single Tax,
due to bitter hostile animus, which prevented a study of Progress
and Poverty sufficiently careful to have preserved the Socialist
critic from various glaring errors. At present, a change of sentiment
is noticeable among the more progressive and far-sighted
representatives of the Socialist movement. The collection of social
revenues by the taxation of land values is appearing in Socialist
platforms as prominent among the "immediate demands." That
the Single Tax is good "as far as it goes," and is a
necessary step in the process of economic regeneration, is a sentiment
often heard in Socialist circles. A not infrequent human phenomenon at
the present time is the "Single Tax Socialist," who insists
that there is no incompatibility between the two movements, and that
he is equally loyal to both. (A noted liberal religious preacher once
publicly defined himself as a "SingleTax-Socialist-Anarchist.")
The exponents of reconciliation declare that the Single Tax argument
is unassailable, and that the absorption of economic rent by the
community is the necessary first step in social transformation. They
believe, however, that while this basic reform will be of enormous
value in the direction of the freeing of labor, it will require to be
supplemented by the socialization of the tools of industry, owing to
the economies ~f large business enterprise and the difficulty of
maintaining free competition against the owners of the elaborate
machinery required for modern modes of production.
The attitude of Single Taxers toward the Socialist movement has been
a subject of much dispute; "The ideal of Socialism" said
Henry George, (Progress and Poverty, Book VI, Chap. 1), "is
grand and noble; and it is, I am convinced, possible of realization;
but such a state of society cannot be manufactured-it must grow."
Single Taxers reject the dogma of the class struggle and recognize
only a limited validity in that of economic determinism. As a body,
they are strong individualists, although not approaching the extreme
no-government attitude of the Anarchists nor the cold-blooded
interpretation of laissez faire of the Manchester school.
Without the necessity of quibbling over the idea of "natural
rights," in either an eighteenth or a twentieth century version,
they find the sole guarantee of social harmony and justice in a full
recognition of the "law of equal liberty," clearly defined
by William Godwin in his famous Enquiry into Political Justice,
and much later repeated and popularized by Herbert Spencer, with whose
name it is commonly associated. According to this principle, the
legitimate freedom of the individual to act is bounded only by the
equal freedom of every other individual; so that an act or course of
conduct, to deserve social condemnation, must be essentially invasive
in its nature or must become invasive under the special conditions
surrounding its performance. Organized society, being made up of
individuals grouped in such a manner as to enable them to promote
their common or collective interests, can have no lawful powers
superior to the aggregate of those which may be claimed by its
constituents. The police power, for example, is simply an extension of
the individual right of self-defence, and has clearly defined
boundaries beyond which it must not pass. It is within its functions
in protecting the lives and property of individuals or in putting down
armed revolt against organized society or acts or conspiracies tending
toward the overthrow of social order. But when it is used for purposes
of religious persecution, or to suppress free speech, or to interfere
with purely self-regarding acts which are disapproved by the majority
or by members of the ruling class but do not in any way interfere with
the principle of equal liberty or with that of social order, it
becomes a tyranny and a malign social influence. The same principle
applies to the constructive labors of organized society. The
construction of highways, the carrying of the mails, the maintenance
of public education, the weather bureau and the life saving service,
are types of collective activity which plainly concern society as a
whole. Individual initiative, unsupported by special powers conferred
by the collectivity, would be hopelessly inadequate to the performance
of these tasks in the interests of all. The extension of governmental
functions to the nationalization of the railroads and the telephones,
the establishment of a more rigorous federal and State supervision
over the conservation of the natural resources of the land, the more
complete development of public sanitation, represent lines of further
progress, which do not trench upon individual rights, because they are
distinctly in the interest, not of any class however large but of all
members of society and of the preservation of society itself. On the
other hand, sumptuary legislation, determining the exact nature of
uniform clothing to be worn by all citizens, an exclusively
government-owned press or a State church, the fixing of set hours at
which every citizen must retire at night and rise in the morning,
would be no less distinctly recognized as infringements of individual
initiative, unwarranted by the legitimate relation of society to its
members. Between these extremes, there is a large borderland, with
reference to which the average mind rests in a state of some
confusion. The democratic philosophy accepted by Single Taxers would
give the individual the benefit of the doubt in all obscure cases. In
the main, however, the principle is too clear to be mistaken. The
normal type of productive activity is that carried on by individuals.
Where no form of monopoly or special privilege exists, free
competition develops in accordance with a natural law, whether under
primitive and simple or under modern and complex methods of
production, and thus secures to each participant in the work of
production a return equitably proportioned to his share in the
process. Only conditions which destroy free competition, by rendering
it impossible for him without loss to transfer his energies to other
forms of productive activity, impede the working of this natural law.
The Single Tax, by destroying land monopoly, the basic and most
dangerous form of special privilege, restores free competition to a
condition of full vitality, giving to every worker the freedom
characteristic of primitive and pioneer conditions of production,
while increasing his powers to produce and his share of the common
product by the enormous advantages gained through modern machinery,
intensive large-scale production, expert supervision and the most
efficient division of labor and specialization in the direction of the
expenditure of energy. The only industries possibly retaining a power
to levy tribute on either their own employes, other producing classes
or the general public, would be what are known as natural monopolies,
industries dependent on special franchises giving exclusive privileges
chiefly consisting of use of special forms of land, water power,
rights of way and the like, which by their very nature exclude free
competition. As these privileges relate to natural opportunities to
which all have an equal right of access, organized society,
representing the equal rights of all, is fully warranted in exercising
over the franchise-holders a degree of supervision capable of giving
to all members of the community advantages fully equivalent to those
secured in other industries by the law of free competition. If
experience proves that supervision is insufficient to accomplish this
end, the law of equal liberty both permits and requires society to
refuse to bestow franchises in the premises and to take over in behalf
of the public the operations hitherto carried on by private
individuals. In the case of each such industry, the specific test must
be made on its own merits.
This, then, is the answer of the Single Taxers to the Socialist claim
of the breaking down of free competition under modern conditions. Free
competition, so far from having proved itself a failure, has never yet
been even given a trial. The restoration of the land to the people and
the support of public activities by the natural revenue created by the
people as a whole are fundamentally just and basically necessary. When
this elementary justice is secured, it will be easy to test the degree
of power remaining in the hands of the possessors of large capital,
whether in the form of immense fortunes already accumulated or in that
of huge buildings and elaborate machinery. The Socialist who is firm
in his faith should have no fear of meeting the test. If his analysis
is correct, the establishment of the Single Tax will bring him one
step nearer to reaching his goal. It will destroy one huge class of
parasites upon labor, and will weaken all the other classes. It will
give the workers at least a larger measure of independence than they
now enjoy, and hence a leverage for more effectively pressing their
advantage. This is the very least that it will accomplish. On the
other hand, if the result is that claimed by the Single Taxer, not
merely to bring labor a step nearer to securing its rights, but also
to ensure that it shall receive its full product without the necessity
of upsetting the present system of production; if free competition
actually ensures an equitable distribution of the wealth produced
between labor and capital in a just proportion to the contribution of
each to the work of production; if the "class struggle"
between those who exploit and those who are exploited comes to an end
by the disappearance of exploitation through the abolition of monopoly
and the relegation of capital to its proper position as the partner
and assistant of labor: the true end of Socialism will be achieved by
the transformation through natural law and not by the revolutionary
overthrow of what Socialists term the capitalist system. While the
Single Taxer, confident in an analysis based on fundamental economic
principles, is assured that the last-given supposition is the correct
one, he is, with Henry George, prepared to recognize the noble aims of
Socialism, though sharply dissenting from its current tactics and from
its assumption that exploitation can be cured only by so drastic a
measure as the seizure of all the tools of production and their
collective operation. Capitalism, under the Single Tax, could not by
any possibility be the ogre that Socialists picture it today. But it
is not the purpose of Single Taxers to discount the future. Their aim
is to set the economic pyramid, now wabblingly poised on its apex,
firmly on its base, by eliminating the direct and indirect
exploitation of labor and paralyzation of industry involved in the
monopolization of natural resources and the private appropriation of
economic rent. With this major task accomplished, it will be far
easier to trace any remaining industrial or social disorders to their
exact source, and to adopt whatever measures judgment and experience
may dictate to correct them.
|