Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty

Summary

Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty is an edited volume published in 1979 by the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, edited by Robert V. Andelson (1931–) of Auburn University. The book was funded by the Schalkenbach Foundation and Basic Economic Education, Inc., of San Diego (Andelson 1979, p. 14). It comprises 24 chapters by multiple contributors, including Mason Gaffney, and was published to mark the centenary of Progress and Poverty (1879).

Andelson's thesis is that the highest tribute to Henry George's memory is to present his critics' arguments as fairly as possible and weigh them against both abstract reason and empirical evidence (Andelson 1979, p. 3). The book is the first comprehensive effort to review and evaluate the main critiques of George's contribution. Andelson argues that George's "unwarranted suspicion, even contempt, for the academic world" created antagonism among the very people whose endorsement he needed (Andelson 1979, p. 19). The volume covers critics from the 19th century British/continental and American traditions through 20th century figures, concluding with a chapter on "Neo-Georgism."

Core Findings

Structure and Coverage

The book is organized in four parts (Andelson 1979, pp. 11–12):

• Part I: "The Essential Henry George" by George Babilot, plus an introductory chapter by Andelson and Dr. Louis Wasserman (A-claim; factual)
• Part II: Nineteenth-century British and continental critics: Laveleye, Marshall, Longe and Wrightson, Mallock, Moffat, Cathrein, Huxley, and Rae (A-claim; factual)
• Part III: Nineteenth-century American critics: Dixwell, Walker, Harris, Gronlund and other Marxists, Rutherford, Ingalls/Hanson/Tucker, Atkinson, Clark and Patten, and Seligman (A-claim; factual)
• Part IV: Twentieth-century critics: Davenport, Carver, Ely, Alcazar, Ryan, Rothbard, and Oser, plus a concluding chapter by Andelson on Neo-Georgism (A-claim; factual)

The Conspiracy of Silence

Andelson cites Tolstoy's 1905 assertion that "people do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it" (Andelson 1979, p. 7). He argues this had validity, as economic textbook writers tended to dismiss George's contribution "with a few patronizing sentences" displaying "a lamentable absence of real acquaintance with his thought" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). Schumpeter, however, spoke appreciatively of George in his History of Economic Analysis (Andelson 1979, p. 20). (D-claim; interpretive)

George as Self-Taught Economist

Andelson places George in a "long succession of political economists — including Adam Smith, Malthus, the two Mills, Ricardo, Chalmers, Sidgwick, and Marx — with no official training in the discipline" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). George launched his theory just as economics was becoming a specialized profession, signaled by the founding of the American Economic Association in 1885, which contributed to his marginalization as an "amateur" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). (D-claim; interpretive)

Key Critics Examined

Alfred Marshall is treated as the professional economist who "guarded the purity of his discipline" (Ch. 4). Marshall's critique targeted George's wage theory and the single tax proposal. Andelson and his contributor analyze Marshall's Early Economic Writings (1867–1890), permission for which was obtained from the Royal Economic Society (Andelson 1979, p. 15). (E-claim; objection)

Francis Walker is described as the general who "led the charge" against George (Ch. 12). Walker's critique was among the most influential American responses to Progress and Poverty. (E-claim; objection)

E.R.A. Seligman is examined for his critique "from social utility" (Ch. 19), adapted from Andelson's own 1968 article in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (Andelson 1979, p. 15). (E-claim; objection)

Murray Rothbard represents the 20th-century libertarian/Austrian critique (Ch. 25). (E-claim; objection)

The Single Tax Assessment

Schumpeter is cited as assessing that the single tax "is not economically unsound, except that it involves an unwarranted optimism concerning the yield of such a tax" and "should not be put down as nonsense" (Andelson 1979, p. 20). Schumpeter noted George was "a very orthodox economist" who was "thoroughly at home in scientific economics" up to and including Mill's treatise (Andelson 1979, p. 20). (D-claim; interpretive)

Policy Recommendations

The book itself is primarily analytical rather than prescriptive. Andelson's concluding chapter on "Neo-Georgism" (Ch. 26) explores modern developments in Georgist thought but does not advance specific policy proposals beyond the general framework of land value taxation. [VERIFY: specific Neo-Georgism proposals require direct reading of Ch. 26]

Nuances and Limits

Editorial Perspective

The volume was produced with support from Georgist organizations (Schalkenbach Foundation, BEE), which Andelson acknowledges. While Andelson states the aim of fairness to critics, the project's institutional context is Georgist. Contributors include Mason Gaffney, a prominent Georgist economist (Andelson 1979, p. 14).

Coverage Gaps

Not all significant critics of George are covered. The selection focuses on published academic critics; popular and political critiques receive less attention. Some 20th-century critics (e.g., Stigler, Samuelson) are not examined.

Key Quotes

"People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it." — Leo Tolstoy, 1905 (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"He was a self-taught economist, but he was an economist. In the course of his life, he acquired most of the knowledge and of the ability to handle an economic argument that he could have acquired by academic training as it then was. In this he differed to his advantage from most men who proffered panaceas. Barring his panacea (the Single Tax) and the phraseology connected with it, he was a very orthodox economist and extremely conservative as to methods." — Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"Even the panacea—nationalization not of land but of the rent of land by a confiscatory tax—benefited by his competence as an economist, for he was careful to frame his 'remedy' in such a manner as to cause the minimum injury to the efficiency of the private-enterprise economy." — Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"Property in land ought not to be as absolute as property in chattels." — Samuel Smith, M.P., The Nationalisation of Land (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"After twenty pages of highly technical analysis accusing George of inconsistency, special pleading, and inattention to empirical facts, this critic concludes by acknowledging the truth of three of the most salient Georgist principles: that land is the gift of nature rather than the product of human toil; that its value is owing to the activities of the community rather than of the owner; and that a tax upon it is not, generally speaking, a burden on industry." — Robert V. Andelson, on Edgar H. Johnson's critique, Critics of Henry George, Ch. 1

"It was the role of land in society that constituted the massive preoccupation of Henry George, and the fact that the publication of his major work in 1879 generated sympathetic rumblings throughout much of the world indicated that he had touched upon a fundamental theme of political economy. It is strange, then, that the subject of land economics, particularly in its theoretical aspects, receives such scant attention at present." — George Babilot, 'The Essential Henry George,' Critics of Henry George, Ch. 2

"The land, according to both Genesis and geology, preceded the advent of man into the world, and there is no doubt that landed wealth has enjoyed a more persistent history than any other form. Even today, when a sophisticated economics has transmuted every kind of wealth into some variety of liquid capital, the land has continued to play its unique role. It is the very assumption upon which human existence is based, and the taken-for-granted foundation of all productive activity; it can be modified by man, but not created or destroyed except in tiny patches, and its essential qualities are impervious to either boom or depression." — George Babilot, 'The Essential Henry George,' Critics of Henry George, Ch. 2

"His is one of the great names among the world's social philosophers. It would require less than the fingers of the two hands to enumerate those who from Plato down rank with him. No man, no graduate of a higher educational institution, has a right to regard himself as an educated man in social thought unless he has some first-hand acquaintance with the theoretical contribution of this great American thinker." — John Dewey, 'An Appreciation of Henry George' (quoted in Critics of Henry George, Ch. 1 notes)

Bears On

• Henry George — central subject of the volume
• Progress and Poverty — the work being critiqued
• Single Tax — the primary policy proposal under examination
• Objections to Land Value Tax — the volume surveys major objections
• History of Economic Thought — contextualizes George in the discipline
• Mason Gaffney — contributor to the volume
• Robert Schalkenbach Foundation — publisher and funder

See Also

• Henry George
• Progress and Poverty
• Single Tax
• Objections to Land Value Tax
• Mason Gaffney

Sources

1. Robert V. Andelson (ed.), Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty (New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1979). — primary text
2. Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, posthumously published — cited in Andelson p. 20 for assessment of George as economist (D-claim; interpretive).
3. Alfred Marshall, The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890, ed. J. K. Whitaker (Macmillan, 1975) — source for Marshall's critique (Ch. 4) (E-claim; objection).
4. Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 75th anniversary edition (Schalkenbach Foundation, 1954) — quoted throughout the volume.
5. Andelson, "Where Society's Claim Stops: An Evaluation of Seligman's Ethical Critique of Henry George," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 27(1), 1968, pp. 41–53 — basis for Ch. 19 (E-claim; objection).