.

(Retired professor of social ethics, dissertation on Russian philosophy, has been president of the Fellowship of Reconciliation, in 1972 president of the alternative conference in Stockholm on environment up against the one by the United Nations.)

George's ideas have always appealed to me and still do, rather: do so anew. I had to admit intuitively that land cannot and should not be anybody's personal property. So, the rise of the land value as land-rent increase shouldn't flow into the pockets of individuals or small groups, but should benefit all for the good of the whole community. The fruits of the cultivation of the land and of all urban and rural activities, belong to those who exerted themselves for them, but the land itself is not a product of human exertion. One may doubt the righteousness of all kinds of taxations and disagree about it, but there is no need to doubt George's one and only taxation: the collecting of all land rent by the public institutions; the righteousness of this hits the eye.

And not merely logical. It occurred to me that it is concurrent with fundamental precepts from the Bible, of prophets and apostles, concerning property. The earth has not been created by man, but by God. He gave her not to a few, but to all of mankind, to cultivate and utilize. "Woe unto you who usurps acre after acre, until you own all the land", says Isaiah the prophet, and the institution of the Jubilee Year constitutes a lasting criticism for any bartering of land and for all land speculation. A century has passed since. Where Marxism has come into power, private ownership of the means of production has been done away with. But the trend for the investments, the distribution of the national product, the educational and cultural policy, the remuneration of labor, etc., etc., everything is being decided by a small party elite, which has claimed monopolies in every field, maintaining them with the instruments of violence of the state, which are at its unrestricted disposal.

Topical again.

Why are these ideas of Henry George topical again?

Henry George was a junior contemporary of Marx. As is known, Marx has expressed himself extremely unfriendly about George, reproaching him - unreasonably so - for propagating a panacea (a cure for all ailments). George actually did hope that his socialization of the land would create the conditions for the continuation of a just development of the society, but this development could not be prognosticated by him, since his central theme was the freedom of the people in the society. Marx saw this as a defense of (all the injustices of) capitalism and reproached George for not attacking the private ownership of all means of production. One could call the abolition of private ownership of all means of production Marx's "panacea"!

Probably the worst of these monopolies is that of information, being in the hands of the party elite. Its consequence is that within the party (let alone outside of it) no elaborate alternative with potential options in whatever economic or political domain, ever comes on the table. The results are: stagnation, sudden swerves, stagnation again, but no tools to make the advancement of the society benefit from the creativity of its members. As a consequence Marxism finds itself in a crisis; this is also admitted by many Marxists.

In every, society exists a continuous tension between private, personal, and group interests and desires on the one hand, and common interest on the other hand. The public authorities and their institutions have to look after and ^promote the interests of the community, the so-called common interest. The community has, as have individuals and groups, short term as well as long-term interests.

In order to have a strong case in the midst of this struggle of conflicting interests, facing all kinds of pressure from the short term interests of individuals and groups, the public authorities must have at their disposal social wealth, a social fund, which could compete in legal claims and power with the legal claims, power and property in private hands. George's allotment of all land-rent to the public authorities and their institutions would provide a firm basis for this fund, so that the community will not be confronted time and again with the frustrating dilemma of either curtailment of public expenditure or a raise of tax.

In The Netherlands land is extraordinary scarce because of population density. This to me seems an additional reason to begin thinking at last in a more Georgist way and return the land to the community. This would pull away the base of the scandalous land speculations.

Open question

George surely didn't envisage an almighty socialist state, nor an economic social order, characterized by monopoly-capitalism. His image of free association in equality could not admit either of these. His vision was: a cooperative society: "By a thousand different roads (would) the public revenues be made subservient to the promotion of the common interest and happiness. We would achieve the socialist's ideal, but not by means of suppression taken by the state. Government would change its nature and become the administration of a large cooperative society.

As a first step he advocated: to render the land communal property. This doesn't bring about an instant cooperative society, but as long as we haven't even ventured considering and advocating that first step, we are still trailing way behind George.