The Resurgence of Henry George

Robert Clancy

[Reprinted from the Henry George News, September, 1955]

The crucial thing about Henry George's teaching is, of course, the rent of land. And once it's out in the open, the rent of land can be as embarrassing as Banquo's ghost. It is of no account, they say, but will strenuously battle any talk of taking all of it in taxation. Communists hate the idea because it spoils the lure of "giving land to the peasants" (i.e., collective farms). Planners of all sorts hate it because it spoils their blueprints. Landowners hate it for obvious reasons. Perhaps academic economists hate it because it cuts the Gordian knot of their incomprehensible jargon. The George philosophy cuts at an awkward angle across almost every modern way of doing things.

Every so often there is a flury of interest in Henry George-a spate of articles in the press, a mention or two in halls of learning and legislation-but it hasn't yet "taken hold." Every so often Henry George gets rediscovered -- but he doesn't quite "stay discovered," as Mark Twain said of pre-Columbian discoveries of America.

Last year and this year (1954-1955) we have witnessed such a period of "resurgence." [Seventy-fifth anniversary of the publication of Progress and Poverty, new biography entitled Henry George by Professor Charles A. Barker of Johns Hopkins University, and notable international expansion by means of correspondence courses.] Another "resurgent" period was 1939-1951. Will it stick this time? Hard to say…

What Truth Will Prevail?

The tides of interest in Henry George ebb and flow. Our enthusiasm must be tempered by a realistic recognition of how very little it still adds up to, even during a "flow" period. Looking at the wide world and then at our accomplishments, we may well stand aghast at the disparity. And, taking the long view, we cannot silence the question, "Is the progress we're making enough? Are we going too slowly? Will the world seize hold of other ways of doing things that will sweep aside our way?

After all, this has happened before. The land-value tax movement in Britain reached a crest and then was swept aside in the catastrophe of 1914-1918. In Russia, the movement was strong and getting stronger, and then was destroyed in the Bolshevik holocaust. Going farther back, the Physiocrats had attained a very high influence, but could not stem the French Revolution. And in the remote past, we may even read the same lesson in the attempted land reform of the Gracchi, the one thing that could have saved the Roman Republic was swept aside, leading to chaos and despotism.

We can always console ourselves with the recognition that the truth must ultimately prevail -- and that is not sheer poppycock. But some hard thinking on the matter is also called for. If we keep at it, land value taxation will fall?

If we keep at it land value taxation will again eventually get a hearing. How can we prevent it from being swept aside again?

There is one thing we must remember. We might get very far with a resurgence of the Georgist philosophy, we might get close to "the summit" (as they say these days), but there would be powerful forces to pull it down. There would be outright and determined hostility. There would be apathy. There would be the never-ending intricacies, complications and cross-currents of politics. There would be compromise proposals and watering down. There would be rival philosophies and distractions. There would be the "realistic needs of the moment." There would be the non-comprehension of masses of people to whom something concrete and visible held before them would mean more than the invisible magic of freedom and opportunity. There would be millions of land-hungry peasants to whom a little slice of land would mean more than the entire rent of land.

Something more would then be needed than a high-minded band of idealists. The Physiocrats, the Liberals, the Nihilists were such, and were swept way. The idea would have to be stretched on the rack. Its survival would depend on a thorough understanding of the extent of the terrific world forces uncoiling. It would have to develop a flexibility and durability, a canniness and a tenderness, a profound spiritual strength, in order to meet and match and cope with all the fearful forces and triumph over them.

May I project a little further? As I see the Geoigist movement, and watch it grow, I sometimes wonder if it is a movement. We are, traditionally, individualists. I wonder could we ever all get together and agree on a program and unite in carrying it out?

Or is it our mission, rather, as "Georgists," to be bearers of a great idea to mankind. And will the executing of this idea be in the hands of others with skills different from ours? When I behold the marvelous performances of our teaching and propagating on the one hand, and the endless involvements of our deliberations in our councils, I sometimes see ourselves as playing a role not unlike that of the ancient Greeks, or the modern French. They were the teachers of mankind, but couldn't organize a government! They thought too much! Their ideas, however, gave form and direction to others who had the necessary organizing skills. This is not a bad role to play -- it is a great role!

But whatever the future may hold, however things may develop, I think we all have the faith in us that in some way or other, the ideas of Henry George must find expression in this world. We rejoice when we see a resurgence of his ideas and hope each time that "this is it." But even if it isn't, we keep at it because we know it will come again.