By John James
Not all of Thomas Paine’s ideas were new or original. It was the man himself who was one of life’s originals. It’s hard to imagine an environment antagonistic to free thought when we are so accustomed to such freedom of thought now. Yet Paine discovered and developed his principles for all that and then devoted most of his life trying to get them cast in stone.
Nowadays his thoughts are not so contentious, if they were his name would doubtless be in the tabloids daily and common verbal currency. The universal franchise has long been absent from political manifestos. Monarchists and republicans are stalemated by a constitutional monarchy, although we have not yet a written constitution! Goodness knows what he would have made of the new House of Lords. The adoption of human rights laws into our own, over fifty years after Britain signed the original treaty would probably have puzzled him. Freedom of religion has been won but the church remains to be disestablished. The European Union would doubtless have exercised his talents. Important unfinished business remains to be done.
This is where I must declare an interest. I discovered the Works of Thomas Paine after having read the books of Henry George, another political hero of mine. Both men were mainly self taught, strong characters, both experienced humble beginnings and hard times. They were both attacked for their views. George was born in the country Paine helped to nationhood, but he concentrated not on human rights in general but on economics and the ethics of property rights.
Paine, of course, has never been regarded as a political economist as such, but in chapter five, ‘Ways and Means’ of Rights of an he gives us more than a clue about his views on economics and the economics of taxation. He deplores the fact that government revenue from the land was 20% less than a hundred years before, yet many rentals had doubled since, and complains that as a result consumption is taxed more causing wretchedness and poverty. He called the aristocracy (land- owners) mere consumers of rent, “they are drones”.
He is on firm ground when he demonstrates that war and imperialism divert production from bread and butter to bayonets and ball-shot. He believed increased trade would help extirpate war, a feeling also held by George, but George saw further than this. What Paine overlooked was the law of rent, the ever increasing economic surplus, or in simpler terms, the increasing economic values commanded by land and other natural resources; the value of the world, each and every man’s heritage.
The USA was not just a new land where folk could exercise their new found personal rights and freedoms, it was also a land of economic opportunity. Unfortunately, the USA had adopted the Anglo-Saxon model of land tenure and free land was running out, the last frontier being reached.
When George wrote, Progress and Poverty the USA was beginning to exhibit the same human economic disparities that Dickens portrayed so well. What prompted him to write it? He was then just a 29 year old newspaper man on a visit to New York in 1868. He walked the streets, overwhelmed by the manifestation of vast wealth. Why, amidst such abundance did strong men vainly look for work? Why was there so much poverty amidst so much plenty? He vowed to get to the root of it.
He has been accused of being a socialist, he wasn’t, he was a radical. His conclusion was that as land was a gift of nature, that any natural value it may possess, was not in justice private but belonged to society as a whole. His proposal was that these values be taxed into the public coffer to defray the cost of public expenditure, and that other taxes which kill jobs and cause wretchedness and poverty be reduced.
He was twice New York mayoral candidate of the labour organi- sations. The second time against his doctor’s advice. A few days before the vote in the second campaign he was introduced to an audience as ‘the great friend of labour’. He exclaimed, “I have never claimed to be a special friend of labour. Lets have done with the calls for special privileges for labour. Labour does not want or need them. What I stand for is the equal rights of all men”. Paine could not have put it better. Before the votes were cast he died.
His book, Progress and Poverty, was first published in 1879. It was written in layman’s terms and was the most popular book on political economy ever. In twenty years over two million copies had been sold world wide, in all the major languages. At the turn of the century, every major town and city in Britain had a ‘committee for the taxation of land values’.
The book offered a third way. It persuasively argues for people to drop the divisive ‘mine and thine’ view of economics and taxation and instead adopt a ‘mine, thine and ours’ approach. The problem with capitalism was that it had developed in such a way as to allow the natural rent producing resources to be treated as capital. Even Marx saw this in the third volume, part VI of Capital, published in 1894, the least noticed of his three volumes. For many it led to a sea change in attitudes towards taxation. Land value, by virtue of being ‘surplus’ does not affect the price of goods and services and thus ditto a tax upon it. Suddenly, there was the prospect of a natural fund being available to finance revenue without recourse to the damaging taxation which Paine complained of.
Apprehensive that the condition of the masses might incite revolution, the Roman Catholic Church roused itself to address the situa- tion, thus the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, was published in 1891. George felt it was a direct challenge to his proposal, which to be fair, on close reading it is. Items 5, 7, 8 and 51 are a definite refutation of his theory and proposal. So in the same year he published The Conditions of Labour in reply, a translation of which was presented to the pope. The book takes the form of an open letter and in it he replies to the arguments and confusion of thought of the encyclical and indeed the policies of other schools of thought.
These must have been heady days for revolutionaries and reformers of whatever persuasion for in 1882, the Rev.Dr.McGlynn, a priest in New York, allied himself with George’s ideas. In 1886 he was warned by his archbishop to end his relationship with George. He ignored the warning and actively supported George’s candidacy for mayor in. In 1887 he was sacked and excommunicated (another hero). In 1892 another archbishop was asked to examine McGlynn’s case and thus George’s ideas on the ‘Land Question’. Nothing was found contrary to Catholic teaching. Thus by implication was George’s ideas vindicated.
He also turned his attention to Herbert Spencer, one of the greatest philosophers of his time. Spencer had dealt with the ethics of land ownership in Social Justice in 1850 but had subsequently recanted his views in Justice some years later. Thus George published A Perplexed Philosopher. In it he asks the reader to compare Spencer’s original reasoning to his subsequent declarations on the matter and judge for themselves. Spencer’s reasoning had not really changed, only his conclusions. George saw there was a gap in his thinking and filled it.
Like Paine George has inspired millions with his principles of economic justice for a fairer society, but what of his ideas today? There is no doubting that his principles are still valid and his proposal is even a more practical proposition today than it ever was. But where are the standard bearers, the people with principles and ideals? Society seems only to have kept a lust for political and economic conformity.
The torch is carried by several groups worldwide. There is the International Union, which will be meeting in Scotland this year. In Scotland there is the fairly young Land Reform Scotland, who are trying to shape the country’s future tax policy now that the Scots have more freedom. There is the Henry George Foundation of Great Britain, who publish Land and Liberty, supply educational material and are also trying to get the government to sponsor a pilot survey. The Land Policy Council has recently been active in Russia. Both the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats have pressure groups working-work the Liberal ‘Democrats have pressure groups working in similar directions. Like all voluntary groups they do the best they can and they can always use help.
Of course, just because land is now more widely owned than it was does not alter the ethics, and the economic arguments are stronger than ever. George’s, Ode to Liberty, is just as much a political indictment of society now as it was when written.
George, like Paine, never penned many original ideas, arguments or principles, but he did put them into a readable persuasive book and then spent his life trying to get them cast in stone. He failed, as have others since. Thus there is unfinished business which needs the support of all principled people. Should you wish to discover more about George, his ideas, or contact one or more of the groups mentioned above, contact me. My address is: 23, Malyons Road, Ladywell, London, SE13 7XD. Phone: 020-8690-5735.