Review of the Book

The Problem of War and its Solution
by John E. Grant

A.E.R.

[A review of the book The Problem of War and its Solution, written by John E. Grant, published by Allen and Unwin. Reprinted from The New Age, 13 April 1922]

IF authors knew with what misgivings reviewers read such a title as this,* they might be willing to forgo a little emphasis for the sake of the livelier interest that a more reasonable title could evoke. For the reviewer who, like myself, has had to wade through innumerable treatises on the subject, who knows that the proposed "solutions" are as many and various as the stated "problems," is not disposed to admit that this method of approach is valid. If war were a problem, it might be solved; if it were an idea, it might be refuted; but it is a destructive activity to which most, at least, of civilised human beings are at some time tempted, and for which some civilised human beings have a natural propensity trained, perfected, and organised. Every attempt to prove that only man goes to war is beside the mark; it is not true, for even the ants have their armies, and if it were true it would only demonstrate that war is a specifically human activity. To examine the arguments of the militarists, and to show us that they are absurd, is easy; but in that phase the problem is to convince the militarist that they are absurd, and Landor's "Imaginary Conversation" with Cromwell shows us (even if we had ho other proof) that it is impossible. Cromwell put forward argument after argument, and was refuted; but his final argument: "I must breathe a vein in the neck of Charles," cannot be answered. Argument itself is only a "sublimation" of the fighting instinct, which has converted the first resort of men who differ into the last resort; indeed, in political affairs, the threat of war is one of the arguments that may be used. To demonstrate the calamitous effects of war, then, is beside the mark; for it is precisely for its calamitous effects that it is threatened and waged. It is an attempt, as the phrase goes, to bring disputants to reason; and certainly, as the Treaty of Versailles shows, agreements may be reached after a war that were not possible before it. War is simply an extension of policy; and even if the policy of nations were limited by the considerations put forward by Mr. Grant and others, unless that policy met with general agreement a nation would either have to I go to war or forgo its policy. It is not easy for a nation to forgo its policy; for the policies that lead to war arc usually the expressions of national energy seeking an outlet, behind the political expression usually lies the economic cause, and energy will not be frustrated.

Mr. Grant does not seem to consider war as an extension of State policy. He covers an extraordinary amount of ground, shows a good deal of varied knowledge that he does not co-ordinate, and does not enable me, at least, to regard as relevant. It is very interesting, for example, to discover that "crystals cannot multiply so as to outrun subsistence," but the fact is not the most obvious or convincing refutation of the Malthusian law of population. I have made it clear on other occasions that I do not accept the Malthusian law; but we need something more relative than this to show itsl invalidity. But Mr. Grant wastes a lot of time and space on "The Biological Aspect" without ever coming to grips with war as an act of State policy.

But Mr. Grant apparently does believe in the economic cause of war; although it is impossible for me to see in what way his particular theory works in practice. We may grant that, according to English law, no subject can own land; and we may further grant, if we like, that the economic rent of land should therefore be the revenue of the State. It is easier to grant this because the Fabian Essays, published a generation ago, argued that Socialism meant the socialisation of rent. But Mr. Grant nowhere demonstrates in what way the private monopoly of land in this country precipitated the European war; and therefore it is impossible to see how the socialisation of rent would prevent the next war. All that he has to say about profiteering, and usury, and taxation, and so forth, is quite well said; but it is very familiar, and does not help us towards a solution of the problem of war.

Mr. Grant, if I understand him rightly, proposes a single tax on land values as the solution of the problem of war - but without showing either its relevance to the problem or even suggesting a scheme or defining his terms. He sings a paeon of praise of the millennium that will be inaugurated when no one is taxed according to his ability to pay, but the revenue of the State is limited to the economic rent of the land. It is argued on the authority of the classical economists that a tax on rent is the only tax that cannot be passed on; but as the classical economists have never been able to convince anybody of this, as everybody believes that the rent of land is an arbitrary, and not a specific quantity, as everybody knows that only the economic man pays economic rent while the ordinary human being pays monopoly rent, Mr. Grant's assurance that the landlord must pay the single tax is not convincing.

But even if it be so, this is a cantankerous world; and the landlord may well ask why he alone, of all classes, should be singled out for taxation. One grants that he does nothing for his money; but the underwriter of shares, the shareholder in a limited liability company, does no more. It is worth while looking a little more closely at the facts than Mr. Grant does; and in the first instalment of the minutes of evidence given before the Royal Commission on the Income Tax I find some figures. I find that the net produce of the Income Tax for 1918-19 under Schedule A - i.e., Income Tax on "Profits from the Ownership of Lands, Houses, etc." - amounted to 15.8 per cent, of the total; under Schedule B, "Profits from the Occupation of Lands," amounted to 2.9 per cent., a total of 17.17 per cent. The "Profits from Businesses, Concerns, Professions, Employments, etc.," for the same year amounted to 62.3 per cent., or, including the amount extorted from weekly wage- earners, 64.9. Apparently Mr. Grant's argument is that if the State limits its taxation to the economic rent of land there will be so much more money for every body in the country - although the fact that the weekly wage-earners only contributed 2.6 per cent, of the Income Tax suggests very strongly that there is a problem of the distribution of wealth that is not solved by Mr. Grant's limitation of the basis of taxation. Without some reconsideration of the functions of the State, which Mr. Grant does not make, it is impossible to believe that the State will voluntarily limit its power of taxation; it is equally impossible for me to under stand why, if it did so, the nation as a whole would benefit, and also impossible for me to understand in what way his proposal would prevent war. For a State promptly levies new taxation when it goes to war, and therefore no restriction of its basis of ordinary taxation would prevent war.