Dateline: 10 April 2017
Ralph Borsodi (1955)
Photo Link
This essay is one in a series about Ralph Borsodi and his book, “Inflation is Coming And What to Do About It.” Click Here to read from the beginning.
Who Was Ralph Bordsodi?
(excerpts from the book)
Beyond being a brilliant, self-taught economist who predicted the Great Depression, Ralph Borsodi was a visionary who implemented his economic and social theories practically.
Borsodi was passionate about establishing intentional communities rooted in self-reliance. He envisioned these communities on land held by non-profit corporations where like-minded individuals could thrive. Residents could lease their portion of land while owning their homes and businesses, which they could also sell.
His experimental communities significantly influenced the development of modern community land trusts. However, contemporary interpretations of community land trusts may not perfectly align with Borsodi’s original vision. His focus was not solely on land preservation from development but on cultivating genuine communities with a shared, land-based lifestyle and ethos. These were distinct communities, not communes, a significant distinction.
Understanding Borsodi’s perspective on these communities is valuable. His 1974 interview with Mother Earth News provides fundamental insights into his thinking. Below are key questions and answers from that interview.
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
Question: For our readers, I should clarify that when you mention “homesteading,” you are referring to establishing self-sufficient communities rather than isolated, independent farms.
Borsodi: Precisely. I am not advocating for what transpired primarily in the United States, particularly in the Mid and Far West. The settlement of those regions under the original Homestead Act, which granted ownership of 160 acres after residing there for four years, resulted in millions living on isolated homesteads. In those days, limited to horse-drawn travel, neighbors might not see each other for days. Trips to town were infrequent, perhaps once a week. This lifestyle is as unnatural as the crowded conditions of New York City. Humans are social creatures, not meant for isolation. We should live in communities, but these need not be cities. Ample evidence suggests that building cities is among humanity’s gravest errors. Physical and mental well-being require a close connection to nature.
Question: What does that mean for us?
Borsodi: As I’ve extensively discussed in my writing, the natural way of life is within “optimum-sized” communities - neither too big nor too small. These communities foster familiarity, where everyone greets you by name.
Question: Is that the type of community you aimed to build after leaving Dayton?
Borsodi: Yes, I envisioned a community centered around a school where everyone, not just children, could study the most crucial subject: the philosophy of living. Academic philosophy often feels meaningless, but the philosophy of living is paramount. Abraham Lincoln aptly said that America’s future hinges on teaching people how to thrive on a small piece of land. This is the technology we must master - not just survival, but a good living on a small parcel of land.
Question: So, you started your new community with one of these schools?
Borsodi: I established a School of Living in Rockland County, New York, during the winter of 1934-35. Soon, around 20 families from New York City began spending weekends at the school, even though it was the middle of the depression, and some were struggling financially. When we prepared to build our first community, I asked for contributions to start. Those 20 families could only gather $200, for which I provided receipts. It was up to me to acquire the necessary land.
Question: Do you apply a similar distinction regarding property ownership?
Answer: I categorize possessions as either “property” or “trusterty.” Property refers to legally ownable items. However, legal ownership does not guarantee moral ownership. Slaves were once legally recognized, but no law can make that morally justifiable. I hold the same view about Earth’s natural resources. Labor creates a moral claim to something you produce. You can sell it, transferring your moral title, but no one created Earth and its resources. No individual or government has a moral claim to its ownership. Using the land for sustenance requires treating it as a trust. We are entrusted to care for it, ensuring future generations inherit a healthy planet. While trustees deserve compensation for their stewardship, they must never destroy the trust itself. Embracing this simple moral principle exposes the flaws in our current approach to natural resources. American history reveals a pattern of land exploitation. Few realize this drives individuals to socialism and communism out of desperation. Land availability as a resource prevents exploitation. When speculators or occupants control all the land, turning to the earth for sustenance becomes impossible. While not everyone needs to farm, access to land for those who choose to ensures we avoid the desperate unemployment that led Marx to propose communism as a solution to capitalism’s shortcomings.
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
Question: But that’s not historically how things have been done, in our country or others.
Borsodi: The only worthwhile histories are those of civilizations, not single nations. National histories often glorify a country’s narrative, whereas accounts of civilizations provide a different perspective. Toynbee’s study of 21 civilizations reveals a recurring theme - they all perished. These civilizations faced challenges, “times of troubles” in Toynbee’s words, and collapsed when they couldn’t overcome them. This is our current predicament. Spengler, in his influential book “The Decline of the West,” predicted our present situation. His central argument posits that civilizations centralize wealth and health in large cities, leading to decay, collapse, population decline, and ultimately, a return to the land. It’s tragic that we ignore thinkers like Toynbee and Spengler. They’ve illustrated potential outcomes, and instead of awaiting a catastrophic collapse, we should utilize our knowledge and technology to develop a better way of life before it’s too late.
p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 11.0px Helvetica; -webkit-text-stroke: #000000; min-height: 13.0px} span.s1 {font-kerning: none}
Borsodi’s statement that “So long as land is available as the ultimate resource to which you can turn to support yourself, nobody can exploit you” is particularly resonant.
This concept partly explains why, following America’s independence from Great Britain, Thomas Jefferson advocated for rejecting the European industrial model in favor of an agrarian republic. I delve into this in my essay, The Jeffersonian Solution.
That’s enough of Ralph Borsodi’s decentralist and agrarian philosophy for now. In the next installment, I’ll elaborate on the School of Living community and introduce one of Borsodi’s most dedicated students: Mildred Loomis, a decentralist anarchist.
To continue to Part 4.