|
From the archives - the magazine's name |
|
|
|
From the archives - the magazine's name
In 1919 the Henry George Foundation realised it needed to change its thinking and approach to getting its message across. Responding to a changed political situation following the Great War, the Foundation changed the magazine's title from Land Values to Land&Liberty. In recognition of the limited exposure and understanding of Henry George's ideas to the population of the UK and beyond, should the magazine change its name to attract in new supporters? What follows is the editorial from the first issue of Land&Liberty.
With this issue we begin the twenty-sixth year of publication, and the event provides occasion for a change in the name of the Journal, which we believe will bring it more into line with the new forces and aspirations making for social justice and freedom. The name changes, but the principle and policy advocated for a quarter of a century remain. The name LAND VALUES was adopted seventeen years ago to suit the requirements of that day, when the question of taxing land values passed hurriedly from its more academic haunts to a foremost place in the more imposing field of practical politics. We had to get alongside the municipal movement in its well-sustained campaign to obtain from Parliament powers to levy a rate on land values. We had to develop opinion on the question and to familiarise the public, including the politicians for and against, with the meaning of the term, what it meant, and what it did not mean. It was in these circumstances that the name LAND VALUES was evolved, just as the new name LAND & LIBERTY is held to be more in keeping with the trend of events to-day.
The step has not been taken in haste. It has been urged for long enough mainly because of a conviction held by readers, constant and casual, that the former title conveyed to the uninitiated, to the man on the boundary line, that the Journal was more the mouthpiece of a real-estate agency than one standing for the appropriation of the communal value of land.
As in the past, we shall faithfully uphold this standard and continue to collect and provide the data so necessary for our writers, speakers and parliamentarians. Four years ago, on the occasion of the twenty-first anniversary of LAND VALUES, we received a generous measure of commendation from representative Single Taxers. They gladly acknowledged their indebtedness to the Journal, and in words overflowing with enthusiasm for the work, called for a continuation of the service rendered, as long as the need for it prevailed. Who is there in all our widespread movement that holds the contrary opinion? During these four years of anxieties and shattering illusions the need for our propaganda has become even more imperative. This is in the nature of the case. In normal times, and not so long ago, land monopoly was unearthed as the bottom cause of hard times and the chief obstacle in the path of those who came with gifts and plans for the betterment of the downtrodden part of the community. In some circles where pedantry held commerce with vested prejudices, and where the practical policy of first steps first was at a discount, the power of the land monopoliser was in dispute, or seemed to be; but the plain citizen out for fair play and no favour caught the music of the Land Song, and on two separate occasions voted the Liberal party into place and power, fully pledged to go to the root of the matter. How the pledges were treated as mere scraps of paper is on record as the most shameless betrayal in the political history of our time.
|
