Roy Davidson wrote: "James seems to believe that Henry George was an   
advocate of socialism. I don't know if he is familiar with The Science   
of Political Econom published posthumously in 1898."  
  
I'm inclined to ask how Roy reads the posts, carefully or superficially?  
  
My first direct reference to Henry George's pursuit of socialism was   
after I'd found from George's own Preface to the 4th edition (1880) of   
Progress and Poverty (p. xxi) that he intended by the single-tax   
proposal to realize "the noble dreams of socialism" by combining the   
truth from the school of "Smith and Ricardo" with that from "Proudhon   
and Lassalle."  
  
I'm certainly not aware of George's posthumously published "Science of   
Political Economy," in which, according to Roy, he is "critical of   
virtually all the schools of economic thought he was aware of at the   
time including the Austrian which he called a 'pseudo-science' and 'if   
it has any principles, I have been utterly unable to find them.'"  
  
In my post of June 13, I expressed surprise at George's erroneous   
criticism of the classical wages-fund doctrine, adding: "I can't  
now believe that the fundamental sources of George's errors have not yet  
been published."  I even asked help from Roger Sandilands and Warren   
Samuels on the literature, saying "I would need to know that there is   
much demand for such an effort to take up documenting the sources of   
George's errors."  
  
I would think that a careful reader of my posts would know better than   
to think that I was interested in wasting my time on some superficial   
criticism of George's work.  Roy's suggestion that "the whole text of   
some 528 pp should be studied by anyone who is interested in more than a   
superficial critique of his views" makes me wonder how much care he took   
in reading my posts.  
  
I appreciate Roy's bringing to our (my) attention George's view that   
"virtually all schools of economic thought he was aware of" had little   
or no merit.  To me, that only adds to the list of criticisms of   
George's views.  I'd like to know from Roy if he knows of anyone who has   
already criticized George for his views on extant political economy,   
particularly, the wages-fund doctrine, the financial concept of capital,   
and the place of money and bonds in the definition of capital or wealth.   
  Until Pat Gunning initiated these recent posts with his comments on   
the review of John Laurent's edited volume, Henry George was just this   
quaint guy who recommended the single-tax proposal that my college   
professor talked about in my undergraduate economic theory class perhaps   
in 1970 or 1971.  
  
James Ahiakpor