Marsh Feldman wrote: > ... Marx had some respect for Henry George, although he thought George's > analysis was "theoretically ... utterly backward." ... Despite this, I say > "some respect" because much of Marx's critique is of the "I said that first" > or "This is good idea, but only as a temporary solution" variety.<
My reading of George's work (or at least his main book) is that he was applying Ricardo's work in a very creative way, while Marx saw his own work as superseding Ricardo. To George, as I understand it, the big problem was scarcity rents received from landownership. To Marx, these rents were important, but represented only a redistribution. Marx's emphasis was on the actual creation of the surplus-value, which had to happen before any redistribution could happen. -- Jim Devine / "Living a life of quiet desperation -- but always with style!" _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
