25: Alcazar's "most voluminous of all assaults"

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The,  April, 2004  by James L. Busey

• E-mail
• Print
• Link

In 1917 there appeared in Spain the most voluminous of all assaults upon the teaching of Henry George--a 383-page tome by Father Juan Alcazar Alvarez, bearing the appropriately ponderous title, Estudio filosofico critico del libro "Progreso y miseria, " de Henry George, en sus cuestiones fundamentales y el alivio social. It was published by Perlado, Paez y Compania of Madrid, with the imprimatur of the bishop and ecclesiastic governor of Madrid-Alcala.

By now it is doubtful that many people are much influenced by or would take the trouble to wade through this tedious and rambling work, but the Estudio filosofico is of some significance because (1) it indicates that during a period of several decades in which sustained literary discussion of George was extremely rare, there were individuals in far away Iberia who deemed him to be so potent a thinker that he deserved 383 published pages of response; (2) it draws together most of the more notable misconceptions about Georgist theory into one albeit too-lengthy book, and thus becomes a useful if dreary compendium of anti-Georgist absurdities; (3) it does point up important areas where George left himself open to unnecessary attack; and (4) it offers some insight into the curious contest that went on during the 1880s between Henry George and prelates of the Catholic Church. This chapter will be organized around these four major points.

Perceived Significance of Henry George

Father Alcazar left no doubt that he considered Henry George's philosophy to be worthy of the most serious consideration. The Estudio filosofico fairly bristles with expressions indicating the importance that Alcazar attached to Georgism. The first, introductory chapter asks (p. 2): (1) "What do I believe regarding the single-tax theory, today so much in vogue? What does the inexorable tribunal of pure reason tell us about the significance of this theory propounded by the eminent George?" (2)

There are several verbose and irrelevant excursions into intricate questions of philosophy and metaphysics (e.g., pp. 128-35, about the difference between the possible and what ought to be); but in general, Alcazar devotes the first of two parts (eleven chapters and 178 pages) to a drumbeat attack on what he alleges to be the proposals of Henry George. On page 66 he announces that "now we have pulverized the arguments of Henry George ...," and after 117 more pages of "pulverization" promises on page 183, at the beginning of the second part (eleven more chapters, 200 pages) that he will no longer attack Henry George's theories directly, but will present positive proposals for alleviation of social distress. This he succeeds in doing only in part. In chapter 3 of part 2 (pp. 198-206), the author urges that world peace be assured by creation of Supreme International Tribunal, designed to arbitrate and settle disputes among nations. Unlike the Permanent Court of International Justice, created three years after publication of the Estudio filosofico and now known as the International Court of Justice, Alcazar's Supreme International Tribunal would be directed by the Pope.

Chapter 4 (pp. 207-16) expresses sincere concern over the huge military expenditures incurred by governments, and stresses that if these could be reduced, thus lightening the burdens of taxation, the ravages of pauperism would be lessened. With settlement of disputes and conflicts under guidance of a papally directed international tribunal, and achievement of divinely inspired mutual human love among peoples, wars and dangers of wars would diminish and so would the terrible burdens of huge armaments, armies, and navies, and the dangers of aerial bombardment.

An improbable chapter 5 (pp. 217-36) within part 2 follows the theme that "the civil State ought to subordinate itself to the Catholic Church," a concept that antedates the Doctrine of the Two Swords, propounded by Pope Gelasius I at the end of the fifth century. (3) Pope Gelasius, in contrast to Father Alcazar, contended that the political state should be left to handle matters of a temporal nature, with the Church held responsible for spiritual affairs. It is doubtful that many Catholics today, or even in 1917, would adhere to such a premedieval point of view as that of Father Alcazar; but this does not prevent him from contending that all the problems of the world result, not from the maldistribution of property, but from the failure of mankind to put itself under the headship of the Roman Catholic Church.

Chapter 6 (pp. 237-53), on "Liberty and Libertinism" (libertinaje), is in much the same vein, and points out that moral, religious guidance must be the controlling force in society; that the world will be saved from calamity only when subjected to direction by God, Jesus Christ, and the Pope.

Chapter 9 (pp. 314-31) includes a section on agricultural collective syndicates that were appearing in Spain at the time, and Father Alcazar indicates his support for these and his hope that the state will stand out of their way; and chapter 10 (pp. 332-44) expresses considerable agreement with George on the subject of free trade, though with an admixture of mutual aid, cooperation, and conceptions of universality.