Tolstoy Remains Snubbed in Russia - NYTimes.com.
The article begins,
MOSCOW — A couple of months ago one of Russia’s elder statesmen set out on a paradoxical mission: to rehabilitate one of the most beloved figures in Russian history, Tolstoy.
This would have seemed unnecessary in 2010, a century after the author’s death. But last year Russians wrestled over Tolstoy much as they did when he was alive. Intellectuals accused the Russian Orthodox Church of blacklisting a national hero. The church accused Tolstoy of helping speed the rise of the Bolsheviks. The melodrama of his last days, when he fled his family estate to take up the life of an ascetic, was revived in all its pulpy detail, like some kind of early-stage reality television.
And in a country that rarely passes up a public celebration, the anniversary of his death, on Nov. 20, 1910, was not commemorated by noisy galas or government-financed cinematic blockbusters. Officially speaking, it was barely noted at all.
By coincidence, I am reading an account of the Single Tax Conference which was taking place in New York City at the time of his death:
Resolutions on the Death of Leo Tolstoi
"Whereas, This foremost man of the world, whose teachings have made him famous in all lands, has repeatedly announced his belief in the doctrines of Henry George, for which we stand, and which we are engaged in popularizing in the United States; therefore, be it
"Resolved, That we deeply deplore the death of the Russian prophet and express our hope that the endorsement by this man, on whose soul rested so much of
" 'The burden and the mystery
Of all this unintelligible world,'
of those doctrines to which we are pledged, and his statement that he regarded Henry George as the greatest of Americans, may be the means of drawing attention to the plan of industrial emancipation to which he lent the weight of his splendid name."
Mr. Henry George, Jr., seconding the resolutions, said: "I take a solemn joy in seconding these resolutions. The last words of this great man addressed to me in parting at the time of my visit to him at Yasnaya Polyana were in relation to my father. He said that we should never meet again in this life, and that he would soon meet my father. He asked me what message he should bear to him. I gave him the message. I believe he is now with my father and giving him that message and the glad tidings of the movement that both of them worked for in this world.
"To me there is something peculiarly fitting in the place and manner of Tolstoi's death. It reminds me of that part of the Scripture that tells of Moses leaving his brethren and going to parts unknown to die alone. Proscribed by the church, proscribed by the government—an outcast, so to speak, in his own country—this man of eighty-two, old in years but young in spirit, sought to die apart from his family.
"To me there is something wonderfully illuminating in the attitude of Privilege as we see it reflected in the attempts of the hierarchy to bring him back into the fold of the church; that hierarchy that meant so much pain to the toilers of Russia; that sought to make the hewers of wood and the drawers of water contented with their lot, and offered them a reward in after life for what they are robbed of in this life. There was no more chance of Tolstoi's going back to that church in this life than there was of his seeking to go to perdition hereafter. That church meant an armed despotism to him for the souls and bodies of the men and women, not only of Russia, but of all Europe.
"To me Tolstoi was a prophet. I confess that in going to Russia I had a feeling that he was an eccentric man, and I had a fear that I should find him wrapped up with his genius—perhaps much of what is commonly called a 'crank.' But face to face I found a frail old man, yet an understandable man, a man of sweet and indomitable spirit, trying to live not as a beggar, but as one of the people whom Lincoln delighted to call the 'plain people.' For the people of Russia are, in the main, farmers who give most of their substance to support a great imperial government.
"I give the lie to all this talk of domestic infelicity, and I say that the domestic life, as I saw it at Yasnaya Polyana, was a great love. Tolstoi, at thirty-four, married a girl of seventeen, who bore him thirteen children. She stuck to him through thick and thin, through all his spiritual changes. She took care of the material side of life, and as I saw here, a little more than a year ago, a splendid woman of sixty-five, Tolstoi rested upon her. She was a sturdy supporter and a sweet comforter. I came away with the feeling that there was a real marriage.
"Of course, she had to look after the welfare of the family. That was why she expostulated with him about giving all to the poor. She said that he must not forget the children he had brought into the world. Therefore it was that he gave to her for herself and their children the copyrights of his earlier works and novels. But to the public he gave everything else that he wrote. On his later works you will find the words, "No Rights Reserved." This is why we have seen so much of Tolstoi's recent writings in the newspapers; why his latest writings have been translated into every language and circulated so largely throughout the world.
"Within the last few hours the greatest spirit in the world has passed—the spirit of a man who looked into the eyes of death calmly, fearlessly, with the confidence of a child. Old in the experiences of the world, born into great riches and station, and given to all the luxuries and dissipations of his class, of which he reserved nothing in his confessions, he was born again into the simpler physical and a new spiritual life. A great man; great in every sense of greatness; a man who left the court of princes to follow the man born in the manger.
"To me it was one of the great events of my life to have spent a few hours under his roof, and now his death is a new inspiration. For now all the contradictory things, the things not understandable, will fall away and the majesty of this prophet of brotherhood and justice will shine out. Great is Tolstoi, greater the truth he taught, and greater still will both become as the centuries roll on."
I am reminded that Bolton Hall wrote a book entitled "What Tolstoy Taught." The final chapter is quoted here:
(Tolstoy proclaimed the law of love as enunciated by Christ; the political rights as enunciated by Thomas Jefferson; the economic rights as announced by Henry George: the two latter as amplifications of the first; all being essential to man's earthly welfare. Tolstoy's philosophy was progressive. At first he saw that the law of love was necessary; then he recognized the necessity of equal political rights; next he recognized that without economic justice these remedies were futile, and he accordingly embraced the philosophy of Henry George, as evidenced by the following article addressed to the Russian people.— Ed.)
A Number of suggestions have been made as to how to divide, in the most just manner, all land among the workers, but of all these only the one made by the late Henry George appears to me to be practicable.The property right, Henry George wrote in his book about the single tax, is founded not on human laws, but on the laws of God. It is undeniable and absolute, and everyone who violates It, be it an individual or a nation, commits a theft.
The right to own land is limited by the equal rights of all others, and this imposes upon the temporary possessor of land the duty to remunerate society for the valuable privilege given him to use the land in his possession.
When we impose a tax upon houses, crops, or money in any form, we take from members of society something which by right belongs to them, we violate the property right and commit a theft in the name of the law; while when we impose a tax upon land we take from members of society something which does not belong to them, but to society, and which cannot be given to them except at a detriment to others. We thus violate the laws of justice when we place a tax on labor or the results of labor, and we also violate them if we do not levy a tax on land.
Let us, therefore, decide to stop levying all taxes except the tax on the value of land, regardless of the buildings erected or the improvements made on it, but only on the value which natural or social conditions give to it.
If we place this single tax on land the results will be these:1. The tax will relieve us of the whole army of officials necessary to collect the present taxes, which will diminish the cost of government, at the same time making it more honest. It will rid us of all the taxes which lead to lying, to perjury, to frauds of all kinds. All land is visible, and cannot be hidden, and its value is fixed easier than that of any other property, and the single tax can be determined at less expense and less danger to public morals.
2. It will to a great extent increase the production of wealth, doing away with the discouraging tax upon labor and thrift, and it will make the land more accessible to those who want to work or improve, as the proprietors, who do not work themselves, but speculate in its increasing value, will find it difficult to keep up such expensive property. The tax on labor, on the other hand, leads to the accumulation of immense fortunes in a few hands, and the increasing poverty of the masses. This unjust division of wealth on one side leads to the creation of one class of people who are idle and corrupt, because they are too rich, and the creation of another class of people who are too poor, and thus doubly delays the production of wealth. This unjust division of wealth creates on one side terrible millionaires, and on the other side vagrants, beggars, thieves, gamblers and social parasites of various kinds, and necessitates an enormous expense for officials to watch these — policemen, judges, prisons and other means which society uses in self-defense.
The single tax is a remedy for all these evils.
I do not mean to say that this tax will transform human nature, for that is not within the power of man, but it will create conditions under which human nature will grow better instead of worse, as under the present conditions. It will make possible an increase of wealth, of which it is hardly possible to form an idea. It will make undeserved poverty impossible. It will do away with the demoralizing struggle for a living. It will make it possible for men to be honest, just, reasonable and noble, if they desire to be so. It will prepare the soil for the coming of the epoch of justice, abundance, peace and happiness, which Christ told His disciples of.Now let us suppose that the people of that community, having arrived at the conclusion that the land is common property, decide to dispose of the land according to their new conviction.
What would they do? Take all the land away from those who own it, and give everybody the right to take the land he desires? That could not be done, because there would be several people who would want the same ground, and this would lead to endless quarrels. To form one society and work all things in common would be difficult, because some have carts, wagons, horses and cattle, while others have none, and, besides, some people do not know how to till the soil, or are not strong enough.
To divide all the land in equal parts, according to its value, and allow one part to each is very difficult, and this would, besides, be impracticable, because the lazy and poor would lease their property to the rich for money, and these would soon again be in possession of it all.The inhabitants of the community, therefore, decide to leave the land in the possession of those who own it, and to order each owner to pay into the common treasury money representing the revenue which had been decided on after appraising the value of the land, not according to the work or the improvements made on it, but to its quality and situation, and this money was to be divided equally among all.
But as it was difficult first to take this money from all those who held the land, and then divide it equally among all the members of the community, and as these members, besides, paid money toward the public needs — schools, fire departments, roads, etc.— and as this money was always needed, they decided to use all the money derived from those who had the use of the land, for public needs.
Having made this arrangement, the members of the community levied the tax for the use of land on the two large owners, and also on the small peasants, but no tax at all was imposed on those who held no land.
This caused the one landowner who lived far away, and who derived little income from his property, to realize that it did not pay to hold on to land thus taxed, and he gave it up. The other large owner gave up part of his land, and kept only that part which produced more than the amount of his tax. Those of the peasants who held small properties, and who had plenty of men, and not enough land, as well as some of those who held no land at all, but who desired to make a living by working the land, took up the land surrendered by its former owners.
After that all the members of the community could live on the land and make a living from it, and all land passed into the hands of or remained with those who loved to work it, and who made it produce the most. The public institutions flourished and the wealth of the community increased, for there was more money than before for public needs; and the most important fact was that this change in the ownership of land took place without any discussions, quarrels, or discord, by the voluntary surrender of the land by those who did not derive any profit from it.
This is the project of Henry George, which, if tried here, would make Russia wealthy and happy, and which is practicable all over the world.
Comments