Henry George’s ideas, particularly his advocacy for a single tax on land values, posed a significant threat to the established economic and political order of his time. Neoclassical economists, who emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, had several reasons for attempting to marginalize George’s theories:

1. Protection of Landowners: George’s proposal to tax land values directly challenged the interests of landowners, who were often powerful and influential. By advocating for a system where the economic value of land would be shared among all members of society, George threatened the wealth and power concentrated in the hands of landowners¹.
2. Intellectual and Academic Influence: Neoclassical economists sought to establish their own framework and theories, which often conflicted with George’s ideas. By sidelining George, they could promote their own models and gain dominance in academic and policy-making circles².
3. Economic Stability and Control: George’s ideas were seen as radical and potentially destabilizing. By focusing on land value taxation, he highlighted issues of inequality and unearned wealth, which could lead to significant social and economic reforms. Neoclassical economists, in contrast, preferred to maintain the status quo and avoid such disruptions³.

Interestingly, while Karl Marx’s ideas were also revolutionary, they were often discussed more openly because they were seen as a different kind of threat—one that could be contained within the broader ideological battle between capitalism and socialism. George’s ideas, however, struck at the heart of property rights and economic distribution within the capitalist framework itself, making them particularly unsettling for the established order⁴.