\nFirst, concerning the definition of “socialism,” Gray is all \nover the place talking about individualism, communism, \njustice, efficiency, equality — finally settling for an \nunsystematic classification of socialisms rather than for a \ndefinition. And even the classification is done on the basis of \nsecondary matters.\n
\nAnton Menger, by contrast, at the very beginning of his \nbook, sets up as his desiderata (criteria) for socialism three \ndisjunctive conditions. By “disjunctive” I mean that any one \nof them singly is sufficient for socialism. And it is left as an \nopen question whether the three are jointly compatible. The \nthree are:\n
\nHe quickly notes that the third is a species of the second. In \nother words, that labor is a way of getting subsistence.\n
\nIn chapters 2-12 he goes over the literature on how these \ndesiderata were treated, mostly the first. He spends much \ntime considering how communities or associations were to be \norganized. This applies to colonies, as well as to domestic \norganizations. And in the last chapter 13, he offers possible \nsolutions through a consideration of land ownership, which \nhe lists as three possibilities: \n
\n
\nLet me point out that this classification assumes that land is a \nsellable commodity, and that it can be owned either by \nindividuals or groups. It does not include the possibility that \nland is not owned.\n
\nAll three alternatives can exist in present States. It is simply \nwhich is preferable. The first alternative is what prevails in \nthe world, dominated by private corporations. The existing \nlaws allow private ownership, and the hiring of people for \nprivate production and private profit (or for whatever the \nowners wish). \n
\nHe cites the Russian village (Mir) as an example of common \nownership, and private use (the second alternative). Actually \nthe Russian village did not “own” the land; it collectively \nmanaged the land, and through periodic democratic \nassemblies divided the arable land in some agreed to plots.\n
\nProposals to nationalize the land are variations on this second \nalternative.\n
\nThe third alternative was realized by the various communal \ncolonies — either religious or non-sectarian — which, for \nexample, were set up in the United States. He cites the \nreporting of William Hinds [American Communities<\/a>] for these \ncommunitarian experiments.\n \nHis conclusion is that the socialist ideal is satisfied by these \nlast two alternatives, but not having a clear proposal for \nhow subsistence relates to labor, he simply notes that the \nright to subsistence prevails in these communitarian societies; \nthus, satisfying one socialist desideratum.\n \nCritical commentary:\n \nAlthough I disapprove of ad hominem arguments, here I \noffer an ad hominem circumstancial which should guide our \ncritical consideration of Menger’s proposals. He, as a salaried \nprofessor of jurisprudence at the University of Vienna (and \nwanting to keep his job), should have kept away from a \ncriticism of the State, and he did; simply mentioning that \nanarchists wish to eliminate the State. He himself was \ninterested in how to lawfully realize socialism, i.e., in and by \na State. And he did have Bismark’s social legislation as a \nmodel.\n \nMy first observation is this. All primitive tribes and stateless \ncommunities satisfy all three desiderata. But this is \nanarchism, which is not under Menger’s purview. \n \nMy second observation is this. The Russian Mir was owned \nby a landlord, and all of Russia was owned by a Czar, and \nboth required taxes from the village. The village only \ndetermined land usage and how the taxes were to be distributed among the villagers.\n \nMy third observation is that all the communitarian colonies in \nthe United States had to purchase the land either from the \nState or from individuals. In some cases, these colonies did so by \nborrowing money, which they had to pay back with interest.\nAnd let us not forget property taxes exacted by the individual \nstates. Thus, although all colonies became self-sufficient \nconcerning subsistence, they were forced to enter an outside \nmarket economy to repay their debts.\n \nStrictly speaking, the first — and main — ideal of socialism \ncannot be fully realized by any of these alternative property \nholdings, as long as there is a State which takes taxes.\n \nThe other consideration, pointed out by Menger, is that the \ncommunitarian colonies — taken as individuals — were in \ncompetition with other corporations and individuals for a \nmarket. And success was not guaranteed. [This criticism \napplies to Richard Wolff’s proposal for worker-owned \nenterprises. And it does not solve the problem of \nunemployment and homelessness.]\n \nAlthough I am interested in what these communitarians \nbelieved and how they managed their affairs, I am more \nfocused on the fact that they had to purchase their land \nholdings, and that they had to pay property taxes. \n \nI think there is a preconception in people’s mind about the \nvast amount of land which was open to settlement in “the \nfrontier.” Well, let’s be clear, in areas where either a British \ncolony, or eventually a State made a survey and gained \ncontrol, i.e., jurisdiction, no land was available for free. Yes, \nthose who ventured into the frontier beyond government \ncontrol could eke out a living by hunting and gathering, and \neven by building a homestead, i.e., by squatting. But beside \nthe danger of encroaching on Indian territory, as soon as the \ngovernment reached their territory, these squatters had to pay \nfor the land through what were called “preemption laws.” \nThis means that they had the first right to buy the land. If \nthey could not, they were evicted.\n \nI found the book by Roy M. Robbins, Our Landed Heritage: \nThe Public Domain 1776-1936<\/a>, an eye opener. This book \nshould be read in conjunction with Richard Morris, Government and Labor in Early America<\/a>.\n \nAll land was the property of the State, and in May 20, 1785 \n(modified in 1787) a law was established that land was to be \nsurveyed into Townships, an area of 6 x 6 miles, divided into \n36 “sections” of 1 x 1 mile (640 acres). [As an aside. Under \nthe Homestead Act of 1862, pioneers were granted 1\/4 \nsection (160 acres) (for a small processing fee and a \ncondition that the land be “improved” within 5 years), and in \n1865 General Sherman proposed to give 40 acres to former \nslaves — a proposal which was rescinded by President \nJohnson]\n \nLand was to be sold at auction with a minimum of $1 per \nacre, and a $36 fee for the surveyed Township. (I have not \ndetermined what was the minimal acres which were sold, but \napparently speculators gobbled up the land in huge chunks, \nwhich they then sold at retail inflated prices. And there were \nshady acquisitions galore. \n \nMy point is that prior to 1862 there never was land to be \ntaken legally for free.\n \nNext, let me make some other observations. Menger says \nthat the first desideratum has implications of a negative sort. \nHe claims that it implies that no one is allowed to rent out \nland, and that there is to be no interest taken on loans. I am \nnot sure how universal he means to make these prescriptions. \n Given that farmers and manufacturers had to purchase land \nand machinery, there were various proposed schemes to set \nup Banks and Credit Unions which would take only a \nminimal interest to offset the cost of processing a loan.\n \nI want to end with the following observation as found in \nFranz Oppenheimer’s book, The State<\/a>: \n In a former blog, I claimed that Alexander Gray [The Socialist Tradition], though citing Anton Menger’s book, The Right to the Whole Produce of Labour, as the source of his knowledge about the English Socialists — he called them “pre-Marxians — learned nothing from him, i.e., from the thoughts of Menger himself. First, concerning the … Continue reading “Critical remarks on Anton Menger’s approach to Socialism”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[52],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2736","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-socialism"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2736","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2736"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2736\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2748,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2736\/revisions\/2748"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2736"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2736"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditext.com\/wordpress\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2736"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}“For as long as man \nhas ample opportunity to take up unoccupied land, “no one,” \nsays Turgot, “would think of entering the service of another;” \nwe may add, “at least for wages, which are not apt to be \nhigher than the earnings of an independent peasant working \nan unmortgaged and sufficiently large property;” while \nmortgaging is not possible as long as land is yet free for the \nworking or taking, as free as air and water.” p. 9-10<\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"