The Louisiana Democrat., 1891-11-18
SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT.

SINGLE TAX DEPARTMENT..
SOCIALISM AND THE SINGLE TAX.
In his well-tempered criticism, pub
lished this week among Letters to the
Editor, VIM. e. Chancellor, of Pratt in.
stitutc, questions The Standards policy
of calling socialism the antipodes of
the singletaS This is not sound OBJ
lection. The two are diametrically op-
posed. and every attempt to identify
them makes an occasion for clearly
and emphatically restating this truth.
And SO far from being in any wise
harmful or impolitic. this is beneficial.
Intends to remove prejudice against
the single tax from the minds of men
to whom socialism-not socialism"
the epithet- but socialism itself-is re.
pugnant; and it is to, such men that SIM /;
gle tax must appeal for support. They
are its natural allies; socialists are its
natural enemies ie7*i : k3t3
The single tax movement does not
want the support Of socialists, as such.
This is said deliberately. but in no IN.
friendly spirit However worthy Of
respect they may personally be, they
can be regarded in the great conflict
upon which society is about to enter
indeed, has already entered--only as
adversaries. The single, tax and so'
cialism, like free trade and protection.
/ OF democracy and paternalism, are ir.
rsvoeably at war; If they were enemies
in nothing else. they would, be in the
fact that, socialism aims to abol-
ish competition, while of the sin.
gle3G tax !. competition is the corner
stone, It is one yof the most important
conditions of warfare, a condition that
applies as well to this bloodless conflict
as to the sanguinary struggles of armed
legions, that each side shall distinguish
| its friends from its foes; and this we do
for our side when we. differentiate 80
cialism from the single tax If social
lists, take personal offense, we deplore
their morbid sensitiveness. If, ac-
knowledging the distinction. they re-
tire within their own lines and seek
association with other paternal sects,
we recognize their candor and respect
their powers OF intelligent discrimina-
ton. And II believing us some OF them
do,-our. correspondent for example
that the single tax is step in the di'
rection Of socialism, they give us the
benefit ,.m their influence and voting
strength, as we give ours under, similar
circumstances to the free trade wing Of
the democratic party we are gladtc
acknowledge their conduct ,as proof oI
their sincerity But If, protesting to
believe that the single TAX Il step to.
ward socialism, they oppose as because
we, deny it, how can they be, regarded
otherwise than as pretenders? Either
/ their fealty to socialism, or their notion
thattthe single tax leads to 1t, or both,
must be but q pretense, if they, are
changed from friends to enemies BY
i such petty pride Of opinion 9ssSY
i Mr.. Chancellor's conception of dem.
ocracy, If he expresses himself correct.
ly,, is curiously distorted. It is not tie
Essential purpose of democracy u
Observation-Disclosures in mems positions
by, the accident OF birth" Itwould
however. level the inequalities that
? arise from special privileges conferred
by lamaeand since these. privileges are
often inherited, our correspondent, b
an ellipsis of thought similar to thai
which causes him to 'confound The sin
gle tax 0swith socialism! may have
nothing but special privileges in mint
when he speaks of 1.-The accidents o
tbirth." s But If, tas his languages implies
fl,b includes Inherited wealth earned y.
the, ancestor; if he includes superio
| mental or physical qualities, by mean
t'of which their possessor, by. production
and not by plundeT raises himsel
above the less fortunate; if he mean
1 that it is the essential purpose OF dem
'ocracy to do more than to secure, equa
natural rights to all, with special priv
j ileges to. none, he mistakes the essen
tial purpose Of democracy. 50 %,
r. II fsociety we're a producer, we shoul
agree that ndividuala ownership Of II
4 gal power TO take increments produce
a by society isat variance with the ei
j csentialpurpese, of democracy. But ss
u ciety produces nothing. The contrar
: notion constitutes the fallacy of, all tha
class who, like, Mr., Chancellor, identif
the single tax with socialism, The
regard society as q distinct producer
i producing by means Of land producin
by means Of machinery; and its produ,
:. as something over and above what til
individual produces. To this class, b.
RI lieving in the single tax. because the
}, .bclieyea first of all in socialism tt
t single tax appears to be plan for gi
I ing back to society what society pr
) duces BY means Of land. It draws II
line, ,atmachinery; but, as Mr.. Chancel!,
/ says "it IS socialist:c in Its result" ]
!, other words, II is socialism as far as
$ goes. sss's- atisss 1851 -
q But when the law of rent is compr
i. hended, this fallacy stands expose
Though society does not produce, eth
by means of machinery or OF land, the
: is in the aggregate Of individual pr
] duction what Mr. Chancellor calls I
\ ..increment, that justly belongs
= none of the producers individually. b
does belong to them all in common.
n is called economic rent. But econom
. rent is not prodnct over and ,abo
! the produce of individuals, It is n
: b 6dnced by Society, but by individua
ssi And, If .it does not in. Justice belong
! the individual who produces II, that
- because his producing site Is more 8
- - ~ rori,s s4hon tho c;tes ~ ,v1,,;rh !