.

The Labor party in Holland and elsewhere has reflected the improved condition of workers generally, and corresponding changes of ideology can be noted along the way. This shortened translation of an article from Ons Erfdeel (a Dutch publication) by its editor, makes a comparison which may seem novel to American readers.

A POET and politician, P. J. Troelstra, conducted the rapidly growing Dutch Labor Party for 25 years, with great success. Having given up a promising career as a lawyer to elevate the less privileged, he was disappointed to find that the people whose social positions had improved most assumed bourgeoisie airs, and that among proletarians those with a hat felt more important than those with a cap. He was considered very emotional and constantly repeated his admonition "laborers, socialize."

In contrast to this dictum, after his glory declined, H. de Mann took the view that aiming at private property was not to be condemned at all. On the contrary, property instincts were an ineradicable condition for every social morality. The individual soul claims this kind of individual property and one can't make experiments with any kind of production without taking this into account, he said. The so-called "power of disposition" became an important next step in the evolution of socialism. The redivision of the social income was narrowly connected with this and the consequence was an excessive levelling of the properties and incomes of citizens.

This levelling was highly stimulated by the principle of wages according to need which came into effect after the second world war. But when the provision of goods became normal again many of the Socialists who had invented the formula, "provision according to need" turned away from the party because they had by that time been given governmental responsibility.

Laborers felt very strongly that emphasis on material matters was not real socialism. In the next thirty years, however, much uneasiness developed around the struggle for equality. From the real Socialist we might have expected more inner growth. But it is highly Utopian to suppose that humanity can be educated to a harmonious collective totality because of the moral values held by one or a few individuals.

Marx's contribution was to shift socialism from a Utopian to a scientific setting. Later it appeared that his science was not based on the right foundation because the most important part of it, the theory about the value of labor, was soon refuted. But it was still science. As time went on there was a constantly recurring query as to whether socialism was a material or non-material doctrine. "I am sure if Marx were able to read of people trying to build up the collectivity of which man is the precursor, with feelings of solidarity and social righteousness," wrote Dr. Banning, "he would find that people are on the way back and that socialism is once more changed from a science to a Utopian doctrine."

To be sure there is group solidarity but it stops within the group. When, for instance, primary teachers demonstrate for higher wages, do the secondary teachers join them? And do the higher officials who got a raise help the secondary teachers if they put in a similar claim? (We do not hear about it.) Furthermore if all wages were raised it would result in a severe drain on the budget, and would make the pressure of taxes still heavier, to the detriment of the forgotten group.

How much firmer and clearer are the moral motives, the philosophical thought, and the economic base from which Henry George projected his social idea. The first has as its starting point the truth that all people have the same rights with respect to natural gifts as they are concentrated in the soil. George's philosophical thought considers man a "never-satisfied animal." This is one characteristic which distinguishes man from the animal, and it is beautifully expressed in Progress and Poverty.

So it is on these truths that George built his social doctrine: the moral one, that the earth is the heritage of all men; the philosophical one that man is never satisfied; and the economical one based on the reality that human beings always try to get the best result with as little trouble as possible, and at the lowest expense. This is the foundation which is responsible for the growth and development of our modern society.

These motives go far beyond such vague moralizings as "laborers, socialize" or "solidarity and social righteousness." Socialism tries to claim that its ethical principle is derived from Christianity, but actually it stands diametrically opposed to Christianity which advocates equality and willingness to be satisfied with the smallest part. Instead of preaching the doctrine of the smaller part or of suffering, as Christianity does, socialism has appealed to greediness and jealousy.

Georgism, on the other hand, aims at equal opportunity for everybody, and does not render itself guilty of distributing what has been produced by others. It is the only movement which distinguishes between what was made by men and what was created by a power which we call God. Georgism in fact wants the last part to be given to all people - not the things produced, but the source from which production is derived.

The Socialists still indignantly wave aside the accusation that socialism has a materialistic foundation, but naturally without it, socialism, which aims at destroying the capitalistic society, would be absolutely at a loss. The Georgists happily guard against this through their sense of reality, and because of this I am grateful that I can call myself a Georgist and not a Socialist.