Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1890-03-22

never was an exponent Of the single tax,
most ardently or otherwise.
To change, provided such change be
in the line Of progress, not in the line of
retrogression or of capers, is honorable.
But that distinction is not mine in this
instance. Let us be precise in our terms.
The single tax, as defined by its founders
more than hundred years ago, and re.
stated in all its fullness and purity some
40 years since by Patrick Edward Dove,
left untouched the wage system with all
its hardships to the woiklngman and its
inevitable destruction OF loans indi-
viduallty for good; it left extant the com.
petitive system of production with all its
| planlessness, wastefulness, and resulting
insutficiency of wealth for the masses of
the people; 1t gave no thought to that
| pernicious off shoot of the combined
wage and competitive systems-moneS /;
In fine, it offered 10 usher the heyday of
capitalism, and that the capitalists do
not flock in larger numbers to its support
Is but an additional evidence of the vein
of dullness that runs within them parallel
with their keen scent for self. Now,
while indeed Progress and Poverty"
repeated the single tax theory Of old with
| all Its deficiencies and economic faliacies,
1t nevertheless contained some new
matter that looked out of gear with the
single tax proper and that seemed to
point to higher, sounder theory. /
read the book from kiver TO klver" In
Its Introductory pages found Lassales
name quoted approvingly and the re.
allzatlon of that great mans golden
dreams declared to be its aim; through
out its text l came across explicit state
| ments as to the need of government
being the administrative organ of the CO.
| operative industries OF the people; and
| the quotations were not few indicative
to my mind of the writer's uncompromis-
ing hostility to the very being of the
/ .andlord as miscellaneous, wealth suck
ing parasite on the body economic. True,
Mr.. George trlpped here, stumbled there,
| and tioundered yonder, but | took his
book as whole and accepted 1t as
understood it, little guessing, as, to my
sorrow, subsequently found out, that
Mr.. George was utterly unacquainttd
with that for which Lassalle stood, or
had the slightest mixing of the import
| of The economic term "Co-operalion";
that, in a word, he had Used phrases,
| not scientific definitions. Accordingly,
| l took Mr.. George to be at least u land
natlonalizer and landlord expunger with
vague, yet ultimate, SUclallstlc tenden
cies. This impression Mr.. George him
self carefully cultivated by word and
deed among his supporters during the
campaign Of 1856; under this impression
and knowing that land naturalization
Is part of the soclalistic programme
| was indeed zone of the most ardent
exponents' Of that which MIR. George
fully warranted me in believing he stood
for-but that assuredly was not the
single tax.
Soon, however, as the campaign was
over began to be disabused. By degrees
Mr.. George shifted his ground, until
finally he now turns out to be a full.
ftedged capitalist So far from striving
with Lassalle for the abolition of the
competitive and wage systems he poses
as the loud mouthed advocate of both;
SO far from being land natonaizer, he
pirates about the sanctty of private
property and title in land; SO far from
being the foe he once pretended TO be
OF the landlord, he is the silly advocate
OF percentage, I. e., Of the principle, OF
landlordism. These principles he now
explicitly declares to be inseparable from
the single tax theory;-and SO indeed
they are! The detiulllon Of the single
tax and of Mr., Georges position now
leaves no room for misunderstanding.
No one who knows political economy
can be single taxer, as the term Is now
re defined, unless he is a capitalist with
a bourgeois soul in him. This not being
the case with me, my self with host OF
others stepped off from what we had
been cheated into believing was to be
a land Matchmaking campaign, aud
switched back into the main channel of
the labor or social movement.
L can readily understand how Mr..
Lloyd fell into the error of taking me
for an exponent of the single tax. So
vague anu confused was the meaning of
that term purposely made at the time
by Mr.. George and his political house
hold that even an earnest seeker after
truth like MIR. Lloyd himself, was, and it
seems continues 10 be, befogged. He
thinks he sees some logic in The single
tax. But let him look closely into the
question, and soon as he shall be we'll
"broke up on it, soon as the term single
tax shall convey TO him distinct idea,
inclusive of all that is of its essence,
soon as that happens he will then need
one of Edison's 1000 volt electric Jets to
find any logic whatever in the stupid
thing, while simple tallow candle viii
reveal 10 him scores of doctrines by
which the single tax makes directly
against every principle which | nave
reason to believe Mr.. Lloyd and his
honest fellow laborers hold dear.
d. De LEON.
New York, March 16, 1859.