I have left some more colorful denunciations of Hudson's view out of this family journal, but they could stand up just as well. There is simply nothing to the charge that Henry George was racist, classist, or even in the traditional sense, a free market libertarian-capitalist in the way it is meant today. As Hudson himself has pointed out on several occasions, when classical economists like George talked about the "free market" they meant a market where the economic rent was collected and business and individuals were otherwise free to produce and keep what they earned. It certainly didn't mean "free to do whatever you want and can get away with." That is a 5-year-old's definition of a free market. Not only is such a market immoral, it is unworkable and criminogenic. George recognized that and railed against it with sophisticated arguments for hundreds of pages in all of his books. It is why, as much for his economic theory, he continues to be read today, when his near-contemporary apologists like Malthus are not - except by those who love doomsday scenarios and do not wish to expend the energy to change them. (A whole sub-industry of economic doomsayers has sprung up to feed, and, in some cases, take money from, those who are too lazy, ignorant, scared, inept, or otherwise incapable of changing external events, or even their own lives. I recently wrote an article about this, "Countering Disaster Porn" for Opednews here. I suspect some Disaster Porn aficionados were in the audience of the Left Forum, as these kinds of events attract passive onlookers looking for affirmation and inclusion, more than activists trying to change things. Often, they cheer the most those who promise the possibility of reform the least. This creates a cycle of passive-aggressive approval that few speakers may be able to resist catering to).
Hudson also seemed to be channeling his 2008 article in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology 67 (January 2008), pp. 1-46. My comments are in brackets [ ].
Henry George's Political Critics
By MICHAEL HUDSON
ABSTRACT. Twelve political criticisms of George were paramount after he formed his own political party in 1887: (1) his refusal to join with other reformers to link his proposals with theirs, or to absorb theirs into his own campaign; (2) his singular focus on ground rent to the exclusion of other forms of monopoly income, such as that of the railroads, oil and mining trusts; [George, writing in 1868 in "What the Railroad will Bring Us" said: " The truth is, that the completion of the railroad and the consequent great increase of business and population, will not be a benefit to all of us, but only to a portion. As a general rule (liable of course to exceptions) those who have it will make wealthier; for those who have not, it will make it more difficult to get. Those who have lands, mines, established businesses, special abilities of certain kinds, will become richer for it and find increased opportunities; those who have only their own labor will be come poorer, and find it harder to get ahead-first, because it will take more capital to buy land or to get into business; and second, because as competition reduces the wages of labor, this capital will be harder for them to obtain. (http://www.grundskyld.dk/1-railway.html)] (3) his almost unconditional support of capital, even against labor; [Not so. In an article by Richard Giles, Giles refutes Hudson's repeated charge specifically:
Here one may surmise is the truth about (Hudson's) criticism of George "his almost unconditional support of capital, even against labour' and the "alliance of his followers with the right wing of the political spectrum.' They were not a consequence of actions that George had taken. Nonetheless, this still represents a reformist movement akin to that of the physiocrats, one designed to make capitalism work more honestly, equitably, and efficiently. Hudson just does not regard that movement as a reform movement.
Right from the start George opposed (single-tax movement leader) Shearman's narrow and fiscal-driven doctrine of the "single tax limited" but, seeing him as a "fellow-traveller', George also opposed those who would expel Shearman from the movement.
His "alliance' with Shearman in the opinion of some like Dr. Kenneth Wenzer did not serve the movement well. Hudson makes reference to Wenzer (2000) but does not point out as Wenzer does how Shearman helped turn the movement "from a philosophy of freedom to a nickel and dime scramble" (see esp. 2000, 75). These considerations make it difficult to accept the view that it was George who turned to "capital' for support against "labour' and that, in turn, later Georgists followed his path. REFERENCES: Wenzer, Kenneth C. (2000). "The Degeneration of the Georgist Movement from a Philosophy of Freedom to a Nickel and Dime Scramble" In: The Forgotten Legacy of Henry George. Kenneth C. Wenzer and Thomas R. West. Waterbury, CT: Emancipation Press.
Above all, it is critical to remember that George did not conflate Capital with Land, unlike some of his contemporaries, and even more so today. Therefore, to say George was pro-capital owner is not to say he was pro-Landowner.] (4) his economic individualism rejecting a strong role for government; [Writing in Social Problems, albeit in 1883, before George formed a political party, George said: " It is the more necessary to simplify government as much as possible and to improve, as much as may be, what may be called the mechanics of government, because, with the progress of society, the functions which government must assume steadily increase. It is only in the infancy of society that the functions of government can be properly confined to providing for the common defense and protecting the weak against the physical power of the strong. As society develops in obedience to that law of integration and increasing complexity " it becomes necessary in order to secure equality that other regulations should be made and enforced; and upon the primary and restrictive functions of government are superimposed what may be called cooperative functions, the refusal to assume which lead, in many cases, to the disregard of individual rights as surely as does the assumption of directive and restrictive functions not properly belonging to government." George's view was much more nuanced and cogent than Hudson would have us believe.] (5) his opposition to public ownership or subsidy of basic infrastructure; [See previous citation.] (6) his refusal to acknowledge interest bearing debt as the twin form of rentier income alongside ground rent; (7) the scant emphasis he placed on urban land and owner occupied land; [It's hard to understand where this is coming from; George clearly understood the high relative value of urban vs. rural land -- indeed, concentration of population created high land value in George's view, in his theory. How could it not be thus?] (8) his endorsement of the Democratic Party's freetrade platform [this is true and acknowledged by even many of George's strongest supporters, though it could also be said that George's views on free trade don't contradict his theory, they exist outside of it, and are presumptive of Land reform already being in place]; (9) his rejection of an academic platform to elaborate rent theory [at the time, universities were already being corrupted by land-holding interests, though that is perhaps not an excuse for not trying to change the system from the inside]; (10) the narrowness of his theorizing beyond the land question [not so; besides advocating Free Trade, for better or worse, both Stephen Zarlenga (Henry George's Concept of Money) and the present author (World Economics Association: A Brief History of American Paper Money, with emphasis on Georgist Perspectives) have written of George's support for monetary reform along the lines of his early-contemporary, President Lincoln, who introduced the nation's first debt-free paper money, United States Notes]; (11) the alliance of his followers with the right wing of the political spectrum [many of whom actually came along well after George's too-short life]; and (12) the hope that full taxation of ground rent could be achieved gradually rather than requiring a radical confrontation involving a struggle over control of government. [Point 12 is contradicted several times by George's own writings that it was even more urgent to right the wrongs of economic impoverishment via Land monopoly than to abolish chattel slavery; George said the absence of access to land meant immediate absence of life, whereas slavery at least afforded that possibility, however curtailed. George neither called for "gradualism," nor for compensation to landowners for a wrong perpetuated for centuries, though others of his day did].
Hudson also contradicted his negative views
of George or at least emphasized George's positive contribution so strongly,
that they overshadowed George's other alleged failings, with his own earlier
video interview here: "The old man (Henry George) was right."
In this video interview, Hudson traces the classical idea that
collecting economic rent "would eliminate the need to collect...any other
taxes and result in the lowest labor costs in the world." Hudson ranks George among those
economists who understood this, along with J.S. Mill, Veblen, etc. (22 seconds
in). Taxes on broadcasting
spectrum, and ALL other income are used, Hudson said, as a "tollbooth to
resources provided by nature."
Property taxes would not have gone up if property was taxed at full
rental value, and all other taxes would have gone away. "Rent is conflated with earnings and
profit"Rental income needs to be disaggregated from other income, which can be
done by going to (the) Federal Reserve's fund accounts and making (a)
distinction between value of land and value of buildings and you'll find land
represents over half of value of property." This is a refinement and a practicalization of Georgism, not
a refutation. In this video,
Hudson went on to say "(if the) original income tax (supported by Georgists of
the day) did what it was intended to do and taxed the wealthiest"(the tax would
fall) on the wealth, most of which took the form of Real Estate - Real Estate is
the largest asset form in any modern economy - (The) original income tax fell on
the wealthy. Over the last 100
years, the wealthy's lobbyists chipped away at the tax system and - tax shifted
to lower wealth brackets (particularly labor). In 1913, the original income tax taxed capital gains."
So, Hudson admits that George's first followers, however misguided ultimately, were trying to get back the value of Land through income taxation.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
