Henry George
The Science of Political Economy
By Dan Sullivan, online editor of the original version.
A very good abridged version of this work is available online. It was edited by Lindy Davies, director of the Henry George Institute, which teaches an online class using it in combination with supplemental materials.
Advantages of the Abridged Version
The Science of Political Economy was published posthumously
from Henry George's unfinished manuscript, with an absolute minimum of
editing. A lack of "finishing" is therefore apparent in redundant
explanations and occasionally awkward constructions. Some passages in
the original seem to have been written more for George's own guidance
in finishing his book than for the reader, and many surely would have
been reworded, rearranged or even deleted by George had he lived to
edit his own work. These "rough spots" have been greatly improved in
the abridged version, making it vastly more readable, while most
economic concepts have remained intact.
The original work also includes detailed critiques of economic
thought and detailed analysis of metaphysical questions George
considered to be important underpinnings of proper economic analysis.
Davies believed, with considerable justification, that much of this was
unnecessary and tangential to George's actual economic assertions, and
has eliminated much of this from the abridgement. Thus the reader of
the abridged version does not have to wade through involved arguments
about arcane and esoteric subjects. The abridged version is not only
much shorter but much better focused on the most salient aspects of
George's message.
Having read the original version several times, both for content and
for the purposes of putting it online, I cannot overstress how much
less exertion is spent to satisfy the reader's desire for a basic
understanding of George's message by reading the abridged version.
Advantages of the Original Version
Obviously, anyone who quotes George would want to cite his original
work, but there are other advantages to reading the original as opposed
to just referencing it. There are, I believe, gems in the original
that, while not necessary to the study of Georgist economics, are
nonetheless important to George's philosophy and to philosophy
generally.
George was rare among western philosophers in that he emphatically
believed in a spiritual order of things without imposing a particular
dogma about to the source of that spirituality. He treated moral laws
as being just as scientifically determinable as spiritual laws. To him,
moral laws are not authoritarian "commandments," but laws that link
cause to effect, just like physical laws. "By their fruits you shall
know them" expresses George's approach to moral law. Thus, those who
violate moral or spiritual laws destroy morale and create
dispiritedness, and such "bitter fruits" provide scientific evidence of
the moral laws that have been violated.
George viewed nature as having an "intelligence," not in the
anthropomorphic sense of Christian fundamentalism, but in a broader
sense that is as Taoist as it is Christian. George believed that God is
a metaphor for natural law, and that justice, prosperity and general
happiness come from harmonizing with this cosmic intelligence or
"natural order." This belief underscores his penchant for starting with
principles rather than desired outcomes and his rejection of approaches
that rely on grand designs by supposedly intelligent elites, be they
aristocratic or socialistic.
Davies's treatment of these questions is more than adequate for
George's own stated purposes of his work -- to clear up confusions in
mainstream political economy, recast the fundamentals and convey a
sound understanding of those fundamentals. Clearly, however, George's
agenda also included expressing a metaphysical foundation for anyone
considering political, economic or social questions of any sort. The
expression of that metaphysical foundation is far more complete in the
original work. The original also contains a number of epigraphs, like
those in the left-hand column, that express George's sensibilities.
Finally, there is the problem that any substantial re-editing of a
work recasts it through the lens of the editor. This is particularly
true of major abridgements, and one must have faith that bias is not
playing an undue role in determining what gets "short shrift." Although
my own perspectives on on some pertinent issues differ from those of
Mr. Davies, my sense is that his abridgement was as balanced and true
to the original as one could reasonably expect. Still, there could be
biases we both share, making it impossible for one of us to appreciate
the seriousness of that bias in the other.
Getting the Best of Both Versions
Because both versions are online, and because the full version is
heavily glossed with internal hyperlinks, one could most profitably
read the abridged version and refer to the unabridged version on
occasion, as interest dictates. The gloss along the left hand column of
the full version is my own gloss as online editor, and the gloss under
each chapter title in the center column is from Henry George's own
notations, or, where he left no notations, from those of his son. One
should use chapter headings rather than chapter numbers to navigate
between versions because some chapters were consolidated in the
abridgement.
| 