The week’s reading, after August 25Недельное чтение после 25 августа
On the Liberation of the Land, According to the Teaching of Henry GeorgeОб освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа
Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа
S. D. Nikolaev’s account of Henry George’s teaching on the land, edited by Tolstoy; each paragraph follows George’s Progress and Poverty, The Land Question, or The Condition of Labor. In the second edition it took the place of Tolstoy’s legend “Work, Death, and Sickness.”
«Земля божья», — говорит народ, всё более и более начиная понимать, что почти все его беды от того, что земля может быть частной собственностью. Беды от того, что у одних людей ее много, и они не заботятся о том, чтобы ее хорошо обрабатывать, им не нужно этого, они знают, что и без обработки земля приносит им доход тем, что год от году дорожает. У других же людей ее мало, так мало, что нельзя ею толком и пользоваться. От этого люди бегут в города, на фабрики, в конторы, всюду сбивая цены на труд, и от этого главные беды людей.
“The land is God’s,” say the people, as they begin more and more to understand that almost all their troubles come from the fact that land can be private property. The troubles come from this: some people have a great deal of it, and they do not take care to cultivate it well; they have no need to, for they know that even without cultivation the land brings them income by rising in price year by year. Other people have little of it, so little that they cannot even make proper use of it. Because of this, people flee to the towns, to the factories, to the offices, everywhere beating down the price of labor, and from this come people’s chief troubles.
Но как же сделать, чтобы не было этого и чтобы все люди могли равно пользоваться землею? Отнять ее силою у тех, у кого ее много, и разделить поровну между теми, кто ее работает, так же, как делят крестьяне свою мирскую землю? Но и мирскую землю в одной только деревне трудно разделить поровну между всеми ее жителями, и еще труднее сохранить этот равный раздел, не увеличивая до крайности чересполосицы и не затрудняя ведение хозяйства. Уже и теперь есть люди по деревням, у которых насчитывается в каждом поле по двадцать и по тридцать полос и которые при всем их желании ничего не могут сделать путного со своей землею именно из-за такого раздела. А как же всю-то землю разделить так между всеми, кто хочет владеть ею, чтобы было всем равно? Ведь по всему миру земли, много больше, чем в одной деревне, различаются по своей доброте. Есть земли песчаные, стоящие рублей 15—20 десятина; есть земли черноземные, стоящие по 300, 400 рублей; есть заливные луга, стоящие по тысяче и больше рублей; есть земли рудные, нефтеносные, земли с каменным углем, такие, что стоят десятки тысяч рублей десятина; есть земли городские, там, где одна сажень стоит тысячу и больше рублей. Кроме того, цены земли меняются. Пройдет железная дорога, прибавится где народа, и цена на землю поднимается.
But how can things be arranged so that there is none of this, and so that all people can make equal use of the land? Take it by force from those who have a great deal of it and divide it equally among those who work it, the way the peasants divide their commune land? But even the commune land of a single village is hard to divide equally among all its inhabitants, and harder still to keep this equal division without carrying the intermixed strips to an extreme and making husbandry difficult. Even now there are people in the villages who have twenty or thirty strips in each field, and who, however much they may wish, can do nothing worthwhile with their land precisely because of such division. And how, then, is all the land to be divided among all who want to hold it, so that everyone has an equal share? For all over the world lands differ in their quality far more than in a single village. There are sandy lands worth some 15–20 rubles a desyatina; there are black-earth lands worth 300 or 400 rubles; there are water meadows worth a thousand rubles and more; there are ore-bearing lands, oil-bearing lands, lands with coal, such as are worth tens of thousands of rubles a desyatina; there are city lands, where a single sazhen is worth a thousand rubles and more. Besides, the prices of land change. A railroad goes through, somewhere there come to be more people, and the price of land goes up.
Мало и того. Есть такие люди, что им земля не нужна, что живут по городам, кто мастеровой, кузнец, слесарь, портной, столяр, кто держит заведение, кто работает на фабрике, кто учитель, кто писец. Всем этим людям не нужна земля для обработки, но все они хотят пользоваться наравне с другими всем тем, что дает земля.
Nor is that all. There are people who have no need of land, who live in the towns: some are craftsmen, blacksmiths, metalworkers, tailors, joiners; some keep an establishment; some work in a factory; some are teachers; some are clerks. None of these people need land to cultivate, but all of them want to enjoy, equally with others, everything that the land gives.
Как же тут быть? Как сделать так, чтобы все люди равно пользовались тем, что дает земля?
What is to be done, then? How can it be arranged that all people enjoy equally what the land gives?
Для этого не нужно ни отнимать землю у тех, кто теперь владеет ею, ни делить ее на всех. Пусть кто теперь владеет какой землей, пусть так и владеет ею. Пусть, кто разводит огороды, кто сады, кто держит скот, кто сеет хлеб. Пусть, у кого рудная земля, добывает из нее руду, золото, нефть или каменный уголь. Пусть владеют ею все, как теперь, но только пусть платит тот, кто владеет землею, в общую пользу всё то, что стоит эта земля за год аренды. Стоит чья земля, скажем, пахотная, в год 3, 5, 10 рублей, или заливная — 50, 80, 100 рублей, или рудная и городская — тысячу рублей, пускай платит тот эти деньги ежегодно в общую пользу. Кто с земли своей, если бы сдавать ее на года без построек и улучшений, получил бы сотни и тысячи рублей, тот пусть и платит в общую пользу эти сотни и тысячи; а чья земля стоила бы какие-нибудь пять-шесть рублей, тот пусть и платит эти пять-шесть рублей. Всякий пусть платит с земли своей столько, сколько она может приносить аренды (ренты) в том году, в котором он владеет ею. Так что если, скажем, он в нынешнем году платит за нее 10—15 рублей, а на будущий год нашлись бы охотники платить за нее 15—30, вместо 10—15, то если он хочет владеть землей, пускай платит за нее то, что дают за нее.
For this there is no need either to take the land away from those who now hold it, or to divide it among everyone. Let whoever now holds whatever land go on holding it. Let some tend vegetable gardens, some orchards; let some keep livestock, some sow grain. Let whoever has ore-bearing land extract from it ore, gold, oil, or coal. Let them all hold it as now; only let whoever holds land pay, for the common benefit, the whole of what that land is worth for a year’s lease. If someone’s land, say plowland, is worth 3, 5, or 10 rubles a year, or water meadow 50, 80, or 100 rubles, or ore-bearing and city land a thousand rubles, let him pay that money every year for the common benefit. Whoever would get hundreds and thousands of rubles from his land if it were leased out for a term of years without buildings or improvements, let him pay those hundreds and thousands for the common benefit; and he whose land would be worth a mere five or six rubles, let him pay those five or six rubles. Let everyone pay on his land as much lease money (rent) as it can bring in during the year in which he holds it. So that if, say, this year he pays 10–15 rubles for it, and next year there were people willing to pay 15–30 for it instead of 10–15, then, if he wants to hold the land, let him pay for it what is offered for it.
Если так установить, то земли на всех хватило бы, — хватило бы потому, что те, кто теперь владеют землями и сами не работают, живо отказались бы от своих земель, потому что не в силах бы были, не работая на них; платить за них ренту. А взяли бы эти земли те, кто работает на земле.
If it were so established, there would be land enough for everyone — enough because those who now hold lands and do not work themselves would promptly give up their lands, since without working on them they would not be able to pay rent for them. And those lands would be taken by those who work on the land.
Деньги же эти, собираемые с земли, должны идти в общую пользу. Дохода этого получалось бы так много, что он заменил бы все прочие налоги и сборы. В России рента с земель раза в два или в три больше того, что собирается теперь в разных налогах. В одной Москве ее собиралось бы около двадцати миллионов рублей. Будь заведен такой порядок, то не только рабочим на земле было бы хорошо, потому что земли было бы достаточно и не надо было бы платить никаких пошлин и податей, но и городским людям, мастеровым, фабричным жизнь была бы хорошая: народ разошелся бы по деревням, и фабричного, заводского народа стало бы не так, как теперь, много лишнего, такого, что сбивает цены на работу; рабочие бы тогда ставили цены, а не хозяева, и продовольствие стало бы все много дешевле, потому что не было бы ни податей, ни пошлин на товары.
This money, collected from the land, must go for the common benefit. This income would come to so much that it would replace all other taxes and levies. In Russia the rent from the lands is some two or three times greater than what is now collected in the various taxes. In Moscow alone about twenty million rubles of it would be collected. Were such an order established, then not only would those who work on the land be well off, because there would be land enough and no duties or imposts of any kind would have to be paid, but townspeople too, craftsmen and factory workers, would have a good life: the people would disperse to the villages, and there would no longer be, as there is now, a great surplus of factory and mill workers, such as beats down the price of work; the workers would then set the prices, not the employers, and all provisions would become much cheaper, because there would be neither imposts nor duties on goods.
При таком устройстве люди получали бы от земли то, что им определено получать от нее самим богом, все ровно. Не было бы так, как при крепостном праве и рабстве, что одним всё, а другим ничего, и как это есть и теперь оттого, что одни люди могут захватывать землю себе и владеть ею, как собственностью, отнимая ее у тех, кто хочет работать на ней.
Under such an arrangement people would receive from the land what God himself has appointed them to receive from it, all equally. It would not be as it was under serfdom and slavery, when some had everything and others nothing, and as it is even now, because some people can seize land for themselves and hold it as property, taking it away from those who want to work on it.
По Генри Джорджу изложил С. Д. Николаев. (Под редакцией Л. Н. Толстого.)
Set out from Henry George by Sergei Nikolaev (edited by Leo Tolstoy)
S. D. Nikolaev’s account of Henry George’s teaching on the land, edited by Tolstoy; each paragraph follows George’s Progress and Poverty, The Land Question, or The Condition of Labor. In the second edition it took the place of Tolstoy’s legend “Work, Death, and Sickness.”
Translation notes
- Commune land is the land of the «мир», the village commune, which held its land in common and from time to time redivided it among households; each household’s share lay in narrow strips scattered among its neighbors’ («чересполосица», “intermixed strips”). A desyatina is an old Russian measure of land, about 2.7 acres; a sazhen of land, a square sazhen, is about 49 square feet. ↑
- The Russian prints a semicolon after «не работая на них», “without working on them,” a slip for a comma; it is read as a comma. ↑
Where each paragraph came from
Tolstoy’s own words .
That cause is the confident expectation of the future enhancement of land values, which arises in all progressive countries from the steady increase of rent, and which leads to speculation, or the holding of land for a higher price than it would then otherwise bring.Poverty deepens as wealth increases, and wages are forced down while productive power grows, because land, which is the source of all wealth and the field of all labor, is monopolized.Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's opening, in his words. «Земля божья» is the peasants' saying; George calls land "God's bounty to all" (The Condition of Labor, under W.2). The evil it names is George's, put briefly: land held unworked because its price rises year by year, which Progress and Poverty calls "speculation, or the holding of land for a higher price than it would then otherwise bring" (Book IV, ch. IV), and labor kept poor because land is monopolized (Book VI, ch. II). The people driven into the towns, factories, and offices, lowering the price of labor, are Nikolaev's Russian instance.
Tolstoy’s own words .
It is not possible to so divide up the land of Ireland so as to give each family, still less each individual, an equal share. And, even if that were possible, it would not be possible to maintain equality, for old people are constantly dying and new people constantly being born, while the relative value of land is constantly changing.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's own, with Russian examples: the commune's strips (чересполосица), twenty or thirty strips to a field; land at 15-20 rubles a desyatina, black earth at 300-400, water-meadows at a thousand, mineral, oil, and coal land at tens of thousands, town land at a thousand rubles a sazhen. The argument is George's in The Land Question, ch. VIII: "It is not possible to so divide up the land of Ireland so as to give each family, still less each individual, an equal share. And, even if that were possible, it would not be possible to maintain equality", since "the relative value of land is constantly changing" (compare «еще труднее сохранить этот равный раздел» and «Кроме того, цены земли меняются»). The Condition of Labor (1891) says the same: "We do not propose the task, impossible in the present state of society, of dividing land in equal shares; still less the yet more impossible task of keeping it so divided" (under W.4).
Tolstoy’s own words .
In our cities of millions and our states of scores of millions, in a civilization where the division of labor has gone so far that large numbers are hardly conscious that they are land users, it still remains true that we are all land animals and can live only on land, and that land is God's bounty to all, of which no one can be deprived without being murdered, and for which no one can be compelled to pay another without being robbed.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's list of townspeople (smith, locksmith, tailor, joiner, clerk) and his claim for them. The point is George's in The Condition of Labor: in cities where "large numbers are hardly conscious that they are land users", all men are still "land animals" who "can live only on land", and land is "God's bounty to all".
Tolstoy’s own words .
But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?Source text: gutenberg.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's question, put at the same turn of the argument as George's in Progress and Poverty, Book VIII, ch. II, after the injustice has been shown: "But a question of method remains. How shall we do it?"
Tolstoy’s own words .
For as soon as any piece of land will yield to the possessor a larger return than is had by similar labor on other land a value attaches to it which is shown when it is sold or rented.We do not propose the task, impossible in the present state of society, of dividing land in equal shares ; still less the yet more impossible task of keeping it so divided.We propose, leaving land in the private possession of individuals, with full liberty on their part to give, sell or bequeath it, simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's words, and the reading's closest approach to George. «Для этого не нужно ни отнимать землю у тех, кто теперь владеет ею, ни делить ее на всех. Пусть кто теперь владеет какой землей, пусть так и владеет ею» and «пусть платит тот, кто владеет землею, в общую пользу всё то, что стоит эта земля за год аренды» follow The Condition of Labor: "We do not propose the task ... of dividing land in equal shares" and "We propose, leaving land in the private possession of individuals ..., simply to levy on it for public uses a tax that shall equal the annual value of the land itself, irrespective of the use made of it or the improvements on it"; «если бы сдавать ее на года без построек и улучшений» is George's "irrespective of ... the improvements". Progress and Poverty, Book VIII, ch. II, has the first step as well: "I do not propose either to purchase or to confiscate private property in land. ... Let the individuals who now hold it still retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land." The rent as what others would pay, year by year, is George's measure, the value "shown when it is sold or rented". The crops, ores, and ruble sums are Nikolaev's.
Tolstoy’s own words .
Appropriate rent in the way I propose, and speculative rent would be at once destroyed. The dogs in the manger who are now holding so much land they have no use for, in order to extract a high price from those who do want to use it, would be at once choked off, and land from which labor and capital are now debarred under penalty of a heavy fine would be thrown open to improvement and use.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's words for George's claim that taking the whole rent would end the holding of land by those who do not use it: "The dogs in the manger who are now holding so much land they have no use for ... would be at once choked off, and land ... would be thrown open to improvement and use" (The Land Question, ch. XIV). The Condition of Labor says that to tax the full value "would not merely destroy the power but the desire" to withhold land from use. That the land would pass to those who work it is Nikolaev's.
Tolstoy’s own words .
Appropriate rent in this way, and not only would natural opportunities be thus opened to labor and capital, but all the taxes which now weigh upon production and rest upon the consumer could be abolished. The demand for labor would increase, wages would rise, every wheel of production would be set in motion.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's figures on George's claims. That the rent would be enough to replace every other tax is George's: "In every civilized country, even the newest, the value of the land taken as a whole is sufficient to bear the entire expenses of government. In the better developed countries it is much more than sufficient" (Progress and Poverty, Book VIII, ch. II); with all taxes on production abolished, "The demand for labor would increase, wages would rise" (The Land Question, ch. XIV). The rent of Russia at two or three times its taxes, twenty million rubles in Moscow, workers rather than masters setting the price of labor, and food made cheaper without duties are Nikolaev's; the George texts compared here give no figures for Russia.
Tolstoy’s own words .
Property in land, like property in slaves, is essentially different from property in things that are the result of labor.It is because we rob the child of his birthright ; because we make the bounty which the Creator intended for all the exclusive property of some, that these things come upon us, and, though advancing and advancing, we chase but the mirage.Source text: archive.orgDetails
The words shown were found, word for word, in the saved source text. «Об освобождении земли, по учению Генри Джорджа», set out after Henry George by S. D. Nikolaev and edited by Tolstoy; printed in the second edition of the Circle in place of Tolstoy's legend «Труд, смерть и болезнь».
Nikolaev's conclusion, in George's terms: the bounty "which the Creator intended for all" made "the exclusive property of some" (The Land Question, ch. XIV), and property in land set beside slavery, "Property in land, like property in slaves" (ch. VII; also Progress and Poverty, Book VII, ch. II).
Tolstoy TodayТолстой сегодня · tolstoytoday.org/august/25/weekly