Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1889-07-20
SlNGLE-TAX VERSUS SOCIAL
DEMOCRACY.

bate, which took place in st. James
Hall, Tuesday, July ,;
st. James's Hall, on Tuesday, was not
nearly so crowded as on the occasion of
the Hyndman-Bradlaugh debate. This
can be easily accounted for by the fact
that then there was not, as on the former
occasion, Il large number of free seats.
But it was in the higher priced seats,
which were full on the former occasion.
that there was the. most sparse attend
ance, an it was precisely there that the
anti-s oclalst element was strongest. 1t
was from the galleries and from the back
of the hall, where the democratic shi-
ling held sway, that arose the cheers
which greeted Hyndman each time he
stood up to champion the cause of So
cial-Democracy, and it was the occu-
pants of the half-crown seats who gave
vent to the plaudits accorded to the
gloriiication of competition, to which
Mr.. George treated the audience after a
brief speech by the chairman, Prof
Beesly.
Mr.. George opened by saying that
both he and his opponent were agreed as
to the injustice and wrong of the present
social conditions. They only differed as
to the means to be used for changing
these
Both single-tax men and cial-Demo.
Gratis reject as superficial the explana-
ton that the evils of poverty and degra-
dation with which society is afflicted are
due to over-production over'population,
or to the improvement in the means and
methods of production. Man, he told
us once more is land animal, and it is
to the fact that land, essential to ALL has
been made the property of some that are
to be traced all the evils of modern So
ciety. The ideal method Of dealing with
the land would ba to let any man who
wanted use it, to hold and possess it,
and pay to the whole rent for any nat
ural advantage. This would be secured
by abollshing all other taxes for a single
tax on land, which might be re assessed
every year. They were called single-tax
men; they might be called liberty men,
as by the institution of the single-tax
they would secure free access to the
land for every man, which was all that
was necessary to abolish poverty and
give the fullest individual liberty to all
This was the burden of Mr.. Georges
argument all through the discussion, but,
though repeatedly asked to do SO, he
never once attempted to show how the
taxing of land values to the outside limit
would make land more accessible to the
, laborer than at present,
In his opening speech Hyndman first
dealt with the point on which both were
agreed; That wages were not drawn from
capital. but from the product of labor
; for which wages were paid; that indus
trial depression and poverty were not
; caused by over-population that neither
thrift, temperance, trade.unionism nor
I cooperation can change the conditions
which produce these depressions. But
Mr.. Georges remedy was as fallacious as
any of those. 1t was not correct to say
that wages fell as rent rose. Rents fell
considerably from 1873 to 1888, but wages
did not rise. The capitalist only would
benefit by the taking of the rent. The
laborer would have no greater freedom
. of access to the land than before, as there
= was no proposal to reduce the burdens
upon land. The rent of the kingdom was
only go millions, but the annual average
production Of wealth was estimated at
? 300 millions, of which the workers re-
ceived in wages from 300 to 500 millions.
There was, therefore, difference of
many hundreds of millions. Where
l did these go to? Why, to the Roths-
o childs, the Barings, the Chamberlins,
& the Mundellas, and all the other big
i capitalists, who were amassing large
fortunes, not out of rent, but by profit
r and interest. In India under this system
r of land taxation for governmental pur-
y poses the people suffered the most terri
bic poverty, due to the drain from the
country and not to the monopoly OF
~ land. Social-Democrats would not ma
+. tionalize land alone, but all the means
and instruments of production, and
o place them under municipal control foi
t the good of all.
Q Mr.. George again insisted that the
= single tax would free land to the laborers
r and again refrained from telling how
: The amount of the tax did not matter, the
I. thing was to make it free. There seemed
/ TO be a contradiction here in proposing
to make thing free by taxing it, which
Mr.. George did not explain. In India
however, he said the tax was not on land
a but on cultivation. Socialists talked oi
destroying competition. 1t was th'
restricted competition that needed to be
s abolished.
a a Hyndman wanted to know how it wa
. If industrial depression were due t.
, rent, that while rent was permanen
4 these depressions were periodical?
r Mr.. George said that the single tal
would free land to the laborer becaus,
it would make it improbable to holt
land. Tax land values to the full, h
said, and the land which had no valu,
} could then be had by the laborer fo
nothing, though what good valueles
j. land would be to him or any one else h
It did not explain. He ignored the eco
nomic development which has made 0