There are several reasons why George has been forgotten in the academic study of economics. First, there was a concerted effort backed by funding to get George discounted at American universities. In George’s time there was a huge campaign led by land owners and industrialists to discredit his work and associate it with Marxism, especially in the UK.
Second, the proponents of neoclassical economics tended to reduce economics to mathematical models which took no account of the social aspects of the economy. This also led to regarding land as part of capital, thus concealing its real nature in production or use, as well as the question of legitimate ownership. Locke had already confused the question of land ownership as an extension of self-ownership through labour.
Third, Georgists themselves, with very few exceptions, have not engaged in academic discussion of economics. Instead they have tended to devote themselves to campaigning for tax reform and remain isolated from academia. Only recently with the publication of The Annotated Works of Henry George in six volumes, of which I was editor of Volume VI, has there been a scholarly edition of his works. So, while some leading economists have paid regard to George, Georgists themselves have generally not paid regard to economic theory more widely. On the contrary, they have positioned themselves as opponents of academic economics. They have also, as least some, tended to ‘demonize’ landowners as criminals and parasites. This has contributed to the impression of Georgists being ‘cranks’.
So it is worth remembering that there were very fierce campaigns against George in the UK and USA led by landowners and industrialists in his own time. This was coupled with the social theories of Herbert Spencer who regarded economic competition as part of the evolutionary ‘struggle for survival’ where the poor, as the weaker elements of the species, will gradually be eliminated through evolutionary progress. This was supported by ‘Social Darwinism’ which, again, was used against George. But the seeds of these ideas are already present in Adam Smith and his theory of self-interest and competition as the basis of ‘market forces’ that drive the economy. Smith had already removed economics from sociality. Hence there has been a continuous battle since the industrial revolution between a purely mechanistic approach to economics and a social approach that sought equity. In other words, there has always been a tension between blind economic determinism and the political quest for social justice.
I guess that I would like to add that, in the article “Geoism As Part of The Left-Libertarian Tradition”, author Martin Jacobson brefly mentions Herbert Spencer as a proto georgist:
”Geoists often point towards figures like Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and the early Herbert Spencer for their proto-geoist ideas.”
But also, Roderick T. Long:
“And in our own time, these views have been defended by thinkers like Roderick Long, Gary Chartier and Kevin Carson, and institutions like the Center for a Stateless Society.”
Long also defended Spencer from accusations of Social Darwinism.
I am sorry, but you are wrong about Herbert Spencer, the view that his ideas were social darwinists were debated and all indicates that these acusations came from people who didn’t read primary sources (Will Durant, a socialist, made no mention of any views of desiring the poor to die from Spencer in his biography of him, an, albey I didn’t read it yet, the only parts of my kindle edition of A Perplexed Philosopher that mentions “darwinism” is the introduction, writen much later, and uses Hofstadter as a source.)
It is actualy easier to put Spencer in the same camp as George, as both have a similar view of land as belonging to all but the result your laber belongs to you (at least, early own), than as a social darwinist.
George H. Smith has some good texts talking about Spencer:
thanks for this. I just have one pinpoint: Adam Smith never removed economics from society :) he was very cognizant of what constitutes profits, and what constitutes rents. and he was an early advocate of taxing land, too. Smith's self-interest has always been grounded in an unmistakeable morality
Just to clarify some of these points being discussed.
First, George originally found Herbert Spencer sympathetic to the idea that land could not be private property. He believed he had an ally. But Spencer changed his mind completely and argued it was impossible to remedy the situation. Owners could not be compensated for their future losses. Spencer also argued that only through progress towards a more just society in which the poor (the deserving poor) would be filtered out by the stronger and more deserving rich. George discusses all this in his A Perplexed Philosopher. This book is a condemnation of Spencer for changing his mind and for his dishonesty.
It is true that George found an ally in Adam Smith for a land value tax. But George is very critical of Smith’s analysis of the nature of wealth. He discusses this in detail The Science of Political Economy. He also criticises J S Mill for the same reasons. In fact he argues against all the classical economists on this ground, saying none of them understood the nature of wealth nor how it was produced.
Adam Smith had a peculiar view of what moved human nature. He writes that the desire for wealth is driven by outside forces of which individuals are oblivious, believing their desires spring from their own free will. His so-called ethics is a deformed type of Stoicism in which all things are reduced to Fate over which we have no control. It was this deformed notion of Stoicism and Fate which later planted the seeds of ‘progress’ as a law of society. The seeds of these kinds of ideas are also to be found in Hobbes’s notion of ‘war of all against all’ as a law of nature and society.
Likewise, the notion of ownership as a fundamental human right is argued by Locke in his thesis that ownership is grounded in each individual owning themselves. Private property of the produce of labour is an extension of private property in the individual. But this notion of private ‘self-ownership’ is a wholly modern idea with no precedent in history, save in the private ownership of slaves. George himself is inconsistent in advocating this idea. The right to the fruits of one’s own labour does not depend on the notion of self-ownership, but simply on the performance of the labour. Nobody would argue for higher wages on the basis of self-ownership. Nevertheless, the notion of self-ownership has taken on new life in our times and become the basis for arguing for all kinds of individual rights. But a just society is not built from individual rights but from communal justice, the common good and civil duties.
As to Social Darwinism which arose at this time, Spencer was a friend of Darwin, with whom he shared the notion of evolutionary progress. It was Spencer who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ as a principle of progress, and Darwin adopted the expression from Spencer.
However, Darwin protested that his evolutionary theory accounted only for biological evolution of species, and could not be applied to the social realm of human society. But disciples of progress became so enamoured of the notion of evolution that they indiscriminately applied it to society. Hence the term ‘Social Darwinism’. It was a fiction in the popular mind and a profound misreading of Darwin himself. But the nineteenth century was ruled by the notion of social progress. It is a basic thesis of later Herbert Spencer. Progress of society was simply a law playing itself out which would eventually eliminate all the weak members of society leaving only the strong. Karl Marx likewise believed in a law of human progress that would eventually bring about communism. Indeed, his books and Spencer’s were often placed together in bookshops and Marx himself approved of Spencer’s notion of social progress.
George’s son records in his biography a meeting between Spencer and his father while George was in London. They immediately fell out when George raised the ‘Irish question’. Spencer affirmed that the English landlords were entitled to their rents. George simply turned away from Spencer. George later remarked that he had supposed Spencer to be a great man but now saw him as almost nothing. It was Spencer’s total lack of integrity that inspired him to write A perplexed Philosopher. Spencer knew the truth about ownership of land as a young man, but for the sake reputation and belonging in the high social circles he falsified the truth through torturous arguments and evasions. That is George’s view.
As to Thomas Paine, there are no references to him in George’s works. It is true that later Georgists allied themselves with Paine, but actually there are difficulties in reconciling their ideas of society. In England, Paine did not have a good reputation. Edmund Burk and William Pitt feared that the provocation of the French Revolution would spread over Europe and the UK and wreak nothing but harm. Burk in particular argued that ‘purely abstract’ notions of society and its improvement had no ground in historical process. Society could improve only incrementally. In this respect Burk was proved right. The French Revolution was a catastrophe as he predicted. It is also true that social improvements since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have been incremental. They do not arise through merely changing the system.
George never got round to a worked out understanding of the nature of society. His concern was the elimination of poverty, which simply did not need to exist. His primary aim was to get land value tax implemented, and this led him to break away from the types of social reform others were working for in his time, including his own friends. His contemporary reformers have proven more successful than George himself. For example in establishing unions, improving working conditions, better health care and many other good things.
Modern Georgists would do well to study political philosophy, from Aristotle onwards, to gain a wider understanding of human society. For example modern philosophers such as Michael Sandel or Alasdair MacIntyre. Economic reform of itself will not bring about a more just and happy society. Joseph Stiglitz has moved in this direction. But even in his earlier work he challenges the notion that ‘market forces’ would of themselves bring about economic stability. See his Freefall 2010. Society and the economic realm need forms of regulation in order to function beneficially.
Having said all this, I do not mean to oppose the interesting discussion taking place here! I only mean to clarify a few points about Smith, Spencer and Darwin and ‘progress’ as an ideology. It is a worthwhile question to ask who may be allied with George. Georgists need to engage more with social and political philosophy. For a very long time they have been isolationist talking only with themselves and rather stuck in nineteenth century rationalist thinking. In the end, I would suggest, all hangs on our conceptions of human nature. If that is limited, so will be any understanding of society.
This is an excellent article showing how Georgists would do well to engage more widely in economic discourse. There are other good examples, such as Herman Daly’s ecological economics, or Mariana Mazzucato who shows how government policies play an important role in the economy. If taxation of land and natural resources is the appropriate revenue for government, then the proper functions of government also call for consideration. It is not merely a question of less government but of just government for the common good. There is the question of looking at society more widely. George never intended an exclusive concentration on economics divorced from the wider aspects of civil society, a divorce characteristic of neoclassical economics. That is a point Joseph Stiglitz often makes.
A really interesting read. It's a pity people don't just read *Progress and Poverty*, rather than write it off as a crank piece without knowing anything about it.
Christopher England's book on the history of the movement points out that even at the time it wasn't really used as an introduction to Georgism. Singe-Taxers generally used George's other two books, "Social Problems" or "Protection or Free Trade".
You could say the same for Dickens and Shakespeare. But really, if the quaint language slows the reader down, then all the better, as it deserves to be read slowly and thoughtfully. Although, to be honest, I had no issue with the language at all, other than economic vocabulary and concepts that I stumble on with all economic writers.
Hi, thank you for writing. I learned about Stiglitz in school but I had no idea he was Georgist, in fact Georgism isn't even taught as part of the undergraduate politics/econ major. To that end I'm wondering about Georgism's "image problem", as you put it, and I don't understand how, given its popularity during the late 19th century, Georgism seems to have disappeared from mainstream economic theory and debate in the 20th century until today. Not everybody might call themself a Georgist, but not everybody might call themself a Keynesian either, and one of those words is almost a household name, and the other feels so obscure -- why? Or do I have it all wrong, and are there actually tons of Georgist thinkers, like Stiglitz, in 20th and 21st century politics, hiding in plain sight? I’m certain I’m missing something but I don’t know how to put my finger on it.
There were a bunch of factors starting in the 20th century that began severely marginalizing it by the 1920's. The historian Christopher England has an absolutely essential book on the history of the movement called "Land and Liberty". that talks about a bunch of these factors in chapter 12. The most important by far in my opinion was how innovations in transportation (automobiles primarily) drove rents down by opening up new suburban land around cities. This obviously falsified George's apocalyptic prediction that wages would be driven to subsistence through rising rents and seemingly justified the non or anti-Georgists who analytically marginalized the gifts of nature as unimportant in modernity. Georgism flourished at a time when limited availability of land meant the issue of rent was extremely pressing and present in many peoples minds. There was enormous poverty in cities as people crammed themselves into low-quality apartments. It's not surprising that the movement is starting to revive now that the suburban frontier is largely sprawled out and rents are a pressing issue again.
I actually have a piece in the works which will go into George's error here in detail, how it existed to an extent even in his own time, etc. My argument will be that his error doesn't debunk his ideas-it actually is *required* for them to work as he claimed they would. I think I have a pretty good case, though I'm not sure when I'll be able to release the piece.
This is the core moral underpinning of Land Value Taxes and DBCFT. If the goal is to build a more prosperous “Protopian” society, we need to lift burdens off of the people who make up that society. This means abolishing income taxes and replacing them with taxes that do not depress productivity.
When switching to better forms of taxation, rent-seeking and wealth extraction would be minimized, reducing inequality without arbitrary confiscation of earned wealth.
This marries the goals of the political left and right, yet no one discusses it because the powerful vested interests have no interest in pursuing common sense-policymaking.
What’s weird to me is that though mainstream economics finds Georgism to be a fringe theory, the emphasis on stagnation versus high-economic growth seems more odd. Most of history is not-growth. Then there was the railroad which enabled more land and later on the car which enabled more land. It’s not all land, obviously, but economic growth definitely happens when you have a big cost for individuals stricken as land is found and landowners hadn’t yet figured out how to price it…
There are several reasons why George has been forgotten in the academic study of economics. First, there was a concerted effort backed by funding to get George discounted at American universities. In George’s time there was a huge campaign led by land owners and industrialists to discredit his work and associate it with Marxism, especially in the UK.
Second, the proponents of neoclassical economics tended to reduce economics to mathematical models which took no account of the social aspects of the economy. This also led to regarding land as part of capital, thus concealing its real nature in production or use, as well as the question of legitimate ownership. Locke had already confused the question of land ownership as an extension of self-ownership through labour.
Third, Georgists themselves, with very few exceptions, have not engaged in academic discussion of economics. Instead they have tended to devote themselves to campaigning for tax reform and remain isolated from academia. Only recently with the publication of The Annotated Works of Henry George in six volumes, of which I was editor of Volume VI, has there been a scholarly edition of his works. So, while some leading economists have paid regard to George, Georgists themselves have generally not paid regard to economic theory more widely. On the contrary, they have positioned themselves as opponents of academic economics. They have also, as least some, tended to ‘demonize’ landowners as criminals and parasites. This has contributed to the impression of Georgists being ‘cranks’.
So it is worth remembering that there were very fierce campaigns against George in the UK and USA led by landowners and industrialists in his own time. This was coupled with the social theories of Herbert Spencer who regarded economic competition as part of the evolutionary ‘struggle for survival’ where the poor, as the weaker elements of the species, will gradually be eliminated through evolutionary progress. This was supported by ‘Social Darwinism’ which, again, was used against George. But the seeds of these ideas are already present in Adam Smith and his theory of self-interest and competition as the basis of ‘market forces’ that drive the economy. Smith had already removed economics from sociality. Hence there has been a continuous battle since the industrial revolution between a purely mechanistic approach to economics and a social approach that sought equity. In other words, there has always been a tension between blind economic determinism and the political quest for social justice.
I guess that I would like to add that, in the article “Geoism As Part of The Left-Libertarian Tradition”, author Martin Jacobson brefly mentions Herbert Spencer as a proto georgist:
”Geoists often point towards figures like Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, and the early Herbert Spencer for their proto-geoist ideas.”
But also, Roderick T. Long:
“And in our own time, these views have been defended by thinkers like Roderick Long, Gary Chartier and Kevin Carson, and institutions like the Center for a Stateless Society.”
Long also defended Spencer from accusations of Social Darwinism.
https://c4ss.org/content/20807
F*ck, I think that you are the author of the introduction of the edition of A Perplexed Philosopher that I have. XD
I am sorry, but you are wrong about Herbert Spencer, the view that his ideas were social darwinists were debated and all indicates that these acusations came from people who didn’t read primary sources (Will Durant, a socialist, made no mention of any views of desiring the poor to die from Spencer in his biography of him, an, albey I didn’t read it yet, the only parts of my kindle edition of A Perplexed Philosopher that mentions “darwinism” is the introduction, writen much later, and uses Hofstadter as a source.)
It is actualy easier to put Spencer in the same camp as George, as both have a similar view of land as belonging to all but the result your laber belongs to you (at least, early own), than as a social darwinist.
George H. Smith has some good texts talking about Spencer:
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/barack-obama-social-darwinism-survival-fittest-part-1
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/herbert-spencer-henry-george-land-question-part-1
https://www.libertarianism.org/publications/essays/excursions/optimism-pessimism-case-herbert-spencer-part-1
thanks for this. I just have one pinpoint: Adam Smith never removed economics from society :) he was very cognizant of what constitutes profits, and what constitutes rents. and he was an early advocate of taxing land, too. Smith's self-interest has always been grounded in an unmistakeable morality
Just to clarify some of these points being discussed.
First, George originally found Herbert Spencer sympathetic to the idea that land could not be private property. He believed he had an ally. But Spencer changed his mind completely and argued it was impossible to remedy the situation. Owners could not be compensated for their future losses. Spencer also argued that only through progress towards a more just society in which the poor (the deserving poor) would be filtered out by the stronger and more deserving rich. George discusses all this in his A Perplexed Philosopher. This book is a condemnation of Spencer for changing his mind and for his dishonesty.
It is true that George found an ally in Adam Smith for a land value tax. But George is very critical of Smith’s analysis of the nature of wealth. He discusses this in detail The Science of Political Economy. He also criticises J S Mill for the same reasons. In fact he argues against all the classical economists on this ground, saying none of them understood the nature of wealth nor how it was produced.
Adam Smith had a peculiar view of what moved human nature. He writes that the desire for wealth is driven by outside forces of which individuals are oblivious, believing their desires spring from their own free will. His so-called ethics is a deformed type of Stoicism in which all things are reduced to Fate over which we have no control. It was this deformed notion of Stoicism and Fate which later planted the seeds of ‘progress’ as a law of society. The seeds of these kinds of ideas are also to be found in Hobbes’s notion of ‘war of all against all’ as a law of nature and society.
Likewise, the notion of ownership as a fundamental human right is argued by Locke in his thesis that ownership is grounded in each individual owning themselves. Private property of the produce of labour is an extension of private property in the individual. But this notion of private ‘self-ownership’ is a wholly modern idea with no precedent in history, save in the private ownership of slaves. George himself is inconsistent in advocating this idea. The right to the fruits of one’s own labour does not depend on the notion of self-ownership, but simply on the performance of the labour. Nobody would argue for higher wages on the basis of self-ownership. Nevertheless, the notion of self-ownership has taken on new life in our times and become the basis for arguing for all kinds of individual rights. But a just society is not built from individual rights but from communal justice, the common good and civil duties.
As to Social Darwinism which arose at this time, Spencer was a friend of Darwin, with whom he shared the notion of evolutionary progress. It was Spencer who coined the term ‘survival of the fittest’ as a principle of progress, and Darwin adopted the expression from Spencer.
However, Darwin protested that his evolutionary theory accounted only for biological evolution of species, and could not be applied to the social realm of human society. But disciples of progress became so enamoured of the notion of evolution that they indiscriminately applied it to society. Hence the term ‘Social Darwinism’. It was a fiction in the popular mind and a profound misreading of Darwin himself. But the nineteenth century was ruled by the notion of social progress. It is a basic thesis of later Herbert Spencer. Progress of society was simply a law playing itself out which would eventually eliminate all the weak members of society leaving only the strong. Karl Marx likewise believed in a law of human progress that would eventually bring about communism. Indeed, his books and Spencer’s were often placed together in bookshops and Marx himself approved of Spencer’s notion of social progress.
George’s son records in his biography a meeting between Spencer and his father while George was in London. They immediately fell out when George raised the ‘Irish question’. Spencer affirmed that the English landlords were entitled to their rents. George simply turned away from Spencer. George later remarked that he had supposed Spencer to be a great man but now saw him as almost nothing. It was Spencer’s total lack of integrity that inspired him to write A perplexed Philosopher. Spencer knew the truth about ownership of land as a young man, but for the sake reputation and belonging in the high social circles he falsified the truth through torturous arguments and evasions. That is George’s view.
As to Thomas Paine, there are no references to him in George’s works. It is true that later Georgists allied themselves with Paine, but actually there are difficulties in reconciling their ideas of society. In England, Paine did not have a good reputation. Edmund Burk and William Pitt feared that the provocation of the French Revolution would spread over Europe and the UK and wreak nothing but harm. Burk in particular argued that ‘purely abstract’ notions of society and its improvement had no ground in historical process. Society could improve only incrementally. In this respect Burk was proved right. The French Revolution was a catastrophe as he predicted. It is also true that social improvements since the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries have been incremental. They do not arise through merely changing the system.
George never got round to a worked out understanding of the nature of society. His concern was the elimination of poverty, which simply did not need to exist. His primary aim was to get land value tax implemented, and this led him to break away from the types of social reform others were working for in his time, including his own friends. His contemporary reformers have proven more successful than George himself. For example in establishing unions, improving working conditions, better health care and many other good things.
Modern Georgists would do well to study political philosophy, from Aristotle onwards, to gain a wider understanding of human society. For example modern philosophers such as Michael Sandel or Alasdair MacIntyre. Economic reform of itself will not bring about a more just and happy society. Joseph Stiglitz has moved in this direction. But even in his earlier work he challenges the notion that ‘market forces’ would of themselves bring about economic stability. See his Freefall 2010. Society and the economic realm need forms of regulation in order to function beneficially.
Having said all this, I do not mean to oppose the interesting discussion taking place here! I only mean to clarify a few points about Smith, Spencer and Darwin and ‘progress’ as an ideology. It is a worthwhile question to ask who may be allied with George. Georgists need to engage more with social and political philosophy. For a very long time they have been isolationist talking only with themselves and rather stuck in nineteenth century rationalist thinking. In the end, I would suggest, all hangs on our conceptions of human nature. If that is limited, so will be any understanding of society.
Joseph Milne
Excellent essay. Looking forward to reading the rest of this series.
This is an excellent article showing how Georgists would do well to engage more widely in economic discourse. There are other good examples, such as Herman Daly’s ecological economics, or Mariana Mazzucato who shows how government policies play an important role in the economy. If taxation of land and natural resources is the appropriate revenue for government, then the proper functions of government also call for consideration. It is not merely a question of less government but of just government for the common good. There is the question of looking at society more widely. George never intended an exclusive concentration on economics divorced from the wider aspects of civil society, a divorce characteristic of neoclassical economics. That is a point Joseph Stiglitz often makes.
A really interesting read. It's a pity people don't just read *Progress and Poverty*, rather than write it off as a crank piece without knowing anything about it.
Christopher England's book on the history of the movement points out that even at the time it wasn't really used as an introduction to Georgism. Singe-Taxers generally used George's other two books, "Social Problems" or "Protection or Free Trade".
You could say the same for Dickens and Shakespeare. But really, if the quaint language slows the reader down, then all the better, as it deserves to be read slowly and thoughtfully. Although, to be honest, I had no issue with the language at all, other than economic vocabulary and concepts that I stumble on with all economic writers.
Hi, thank you for writing. I learned about Stiglitz in school but I had no idea he was Georgist, in fact Georgism isn't even taught as part of the undergraduate politics/econ major. To that end I'm wondering about Georgism's "image problem", as you put it, and I don't understand how, given its popularity during the late 19th century, Georgism seems to have disappeared from mainstream economic theory and debate in the 20th century until today. Not everybody might call themself a Georgist, but not everybody might call themself a Keynesian either, and one of those words is almost a household name, and the other feels so obscure -- why? Or do I have it all wrong, and are there actually tons of Georgist thinkers, like Stiglitz, in 20th and 21st century politics, hiding in plain sight? I’m certain I’m missing something but I don’t know how to put my finger on it.
There were a bunch of factors starting in the 20th century that began severely marginalizing it by the 1920's. The historian Christopher England has an absolutely essential book on the history of the movement called "Land and Liberty". that talks about a bunch of these factors in chapter 12. The most important by far in my opinion was how innovations in transportation (automobiles primarily) drove rents down by opening up new suburban land around cities. This obviously falsified George's apocalyptic prediction that wages would be driven to subsistence through rising rents and seemingly justified the non or anti-Georgists who analytically marginalized the gifts of nature as unimportant in modernity. Georgism flourished at a time when limited availability of land meant the issue of rent was extremely pressing and present in many peoples minds. There was enormous poverty in cities as people crammed themselves into low-quality apartments. It's not surprising that the movement is starting to revive now that the suburban frontier is largely sprawled out and rents are a pressing issue again.
I actually have a piece in the works which will go into George's error here in detail, how it existed to an extent even in his own time, etc. My argument will be that his error doesn't debunk his ideas-it actually is *required* for them to work as he claimed they would. I think I have a pretty good case, though I'm not sure when I'll be able to release the piece.
"And switch from taxing good things like labor."
This is the core moral underpinning of Land Value Taxes and DBCFT. If the goal is to build a more prosperous “Protopian” society, we need to lift burdens off of the people who make up that society. This means abolishing income taxes and replacing them with taxes that do not depress productivity.
When switching to better forms of taxation, rent-seeking and wealth extraction would be minimized, reducing inequality without arbitrary confiscation of earned wealth.
This marries the goals of the political left and right, yet no one discusses it because the powerful vested interests have no interest in pursuing common sense-policymaking.
Great essay!
What’s weird to me is that though mainstream economics finds Georgism to be a fringe theory, the emphasis on stagnation versus high-economic growth seems more odd. Most of history is not-growth. Then there was the railroad which enabled more land and later on the car which enabled more land. It’s not all land, obviously, but economic growth definitely happens when you have a big cost for individuals stricken as land is found and landowners hadn’t yet figured out how to price it…
Paul Krugman is also in-essence a Georgist, and has written a number of YIMBY-friendly blog posts in recent years.