Review of the Book

Christianity and Social Order
by William Temple

Harry Weinberger

[Reprinted from Land and Freedom, September-October, 1942.
Originally published with the title, "An Agnostic Applauds an Archbishop"]

One should not ordinarily read the end of a book first. But if you are an agnostic, as I am, I would suggest you first read the Appendix entitled "A Suggested Programme" in this small book written by the Archbishop of Canterbury. The fundamental economic truths found in that chapter may seem startling because of its down-to-earth economics, Whereas religion ordinarily promises "Pie in the Sky," as the old Industrial Workers of the World used to sing.

Perhaps after you read the Appendix you may want to read the rest of the book, despite its religious arguments. The Archbishop tells of the voluntary communism of the early Christians, and recognizes that "the whole character and merit of this (communism) lay in its being voluntary."

You will also find that the Archbishop tells of an agricultural people dependent on its own land who developed a great civilization, and who adopted the principle that the land belonged to all the people for use, and that every fifty years was Jubilee Year, and all alienated land reverted to its proper families. He quotes their Prophet who denounced the accumulation of lands: "Woe unto them that join house to house, that lay field to field, till there be no room, and ye be made to dwell alone in the midst of the land."

The people he talks about are the Jews. I wish he had also quoted that great sentence given out by Moses their leader: "Proclaim liberty throughout all of the land unto all the inhabitants thereof" (Leviticus XXV). These words can also be found on the cracked Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

The Archbishop recognizes that "unemployment is a corrosive poison. It saps both physical and moral strength"; and that "the fundamental source of all wealth is land. All wealth is a product of human labor expended upon … the land." He recognizes that there is no reason why we should pay certain citizens large sums of money for merely owning the land on which our cities are built, for site value is created by the community, and he then comes to the remedy. He states:

"But a great deal of what is amiss alike in rural and urban areas could be remedied by the taxation of the value of sites as distinct from the buildings erected upon them. …

"If house property is improved (a social service) the rates are raised and the improvement is penalized; if it is allowed to deteriorate (a social injury) the rateable value is reduced and the offending landlord is relieved. Taxation of the value of sites, as distinct from the buildings on them, would encourage the full utilization of the land."

Methinks the Archbishop might almost convert me to Christianity! If only some Rabbis and more Ministers would similarly break forth! And if only the Catholics would produce some modern priest like their Dr. Edward McGlynn!

Progress in the midst of poverty, realized by the Archbishop, is old to followers of Henry George -- but George's books which showed how the taking of the full site value abolished poverty and unemployment also showed the road to more freedom -- while the Archbishop .gives details of his plans which move toward the socialist dream of the Corporative State, though he denies that this is his final goal.

The Archbishop faces the social order at the present crises of civilization and calls for action, not after the war, but now. His socialistic propensities, however, incline him to regimentation, and increasing the power of the State, despite his statement: "The person is primary, not the society; the State exists for the citizen, not the citizen for the State."

He says, "No one doubts that in the post-war world our economic life must be 'planned' in a way and to an extent Mr. Gladstone (for example) would have regarded and condemned, as socialistic." But the Archbishop must learn that freeing the land as he proposes and the State taking all site value, unemployment would practically cease and regimentation and increasing power of the State would not be necessary. That is a lesson the Archbishop has yet to learn.

Government is best which governs least, as Thomas Jefferson advocated, and which we in the United States believe, except in time of war.

The Archbishop seems to prefer the socialist ideal of the nationalization of the land, while true Georgeists know that the taking of the full rental value of the land by taxes (exempting all improvements) has the same effect and is sufficient for the solution of most of our economic problems and leaves the titles to the land in their present owners' hands.

The Archbishop then enunciates the great truth, that to bring about the right solution, "no violent revolution is involved; no rigid system would be imposed."

The Archbishop advocates quite movingly that "every child should find itself housed with decency and dignity," and that "every child should have the opportunity of an education till years of maturity."

The Archbishop talks of money and interest and the monopoly by the banks of credit and other monopolies. He is in favor of the government taking over all monopolies; we in the United States favor breaking them up, when we can prove they are monopolies, under the anti-trust law. He approaches quite simply and correctly, in my opinion, the theory if you desire to borrow money you should pay interest for its use.

May I in passing also state: I would hate to see any Church enter actively into the political arena, as the Archbishop seems to propose, and make active again the issue of the combination of Church and State. We here in the United States have decided against such combination.