The labor journal. [volume] (Everett, Wash.) 1909-1976, 1921-09-30
THE RUSSIAN CAPITALISTS
LESSON
From the Bulletin Of the National
Single Tax League.l

single AK League
In the New York Times, of June
10th, appears an account Of a meet
ing in Paris OF Russian exiles, OF
the class that prospered under Gar
ism, to devise ways and means tC
better their condition. The meet
ing was addressed by an ex-noble
who dreamed Of the restoration Of
the ancient regime and incidentally,
OF his lost estates. That line OF
talk would proba..y have been well
received had hf " st..ad a meet
ing OF American IN, - Iaries, but
ne was unlucEy enough TO have in
his audience some fellow exiles with
open minds ur0 have profited b.
their experience. These were formel
business men II Russia. men who
had been engaged IN productive en-
terprises, 1-- who had imagined
that the whole world was fed be
cause they themselves mad three
meals & day One OF these arose
and told the noble some plain
truths. We are in exile he said.
holders Of big estates" And then.
according 70 The Times, ne carried
the assembly with him by declar-
ing that the peasants should be left
IN possession II the confiscated es-
-a-es ana Substantially proclaiming
that us=t1. business has nothing in
common with land monopoly but is
dependent On the prosperity Of the
peasant class. The meeting took a
definite stand by an overwhelming
majority against restoration Of land
lordism.
Il took Z revolution to teach
these Russian capitalists an import
ant economic truth, which had they
them from exile and loss. They
had probably heard Of the land
question long before a revolution
seemed possible, for progressive
Russians like Tolstoy were constantly
discussing II. But, it is also prob
able that they received the message
in much the same spirit as a GER
tain type Of American capitalist
listens to the message of Henry
George and Of Single Takers gen
| orally. Because the law fails to
distinguish between property in the
gifts Of nature and property in
labor products they refuse to take
the trouble TO note the difference in
| principle between the two Cling
ing to economic ignorance they do
| not see that the monopolist, whose
power is based on a legal privilege
to levy tribute on wealth produc-
| ers, is not a capitalist whose func-
| ton is to engage with others in
making use of labor products in
further useful production. In their
blindness they oppose efforts to get
rid Of the monopolist, foolishly be-
lieving such efforts to be aimed al
them. And they go so far as tc
help in perpetuation of laws anC
institutions which enable predatory
| interests to prey on capitalists as
well as laborers. These are the
business men who become brighten.
ed at the suggestion to abolish al
taxes on labor and its products anC
to appropriate the rental value OF
land for public use. The land mon.
opolist exploits them and taxes
weigh heavily upon them but they
fear some dire evil will result from
| their release. Their prosperity de-
ponds entirely on the purchasing
power of farmers and city labor.
ers, and yet they let themselves be
deluded into opposing economic
changes that will increase this
purchasing power because that i'm.
plies abolition of monopoly.
Unlike their Russian prototypes
the American business men have ne
revolution to fear as a result OF
| their ignorance But they are ex
periencing other evil results. They
have a serious industrial depression
on their hands, the natural result
of a system which allows land mon
opoly to interfere with production
The same economic ignorance which
leads them to class capital and mon
! opoly as one, leads others to insti
tute income and profits taxes which
fall more heavily on earned than OF