Pat Gunning writes, inter alia:

 

"It would be amazing, however, to read in Clark that he disregarded the
initial distribution of wealth, which as we know is partly, and perhaps
largely, based on violent appropriation, theft, and deceit." 

 

I am delighted that Pat Gunning believes the second part of that sentence;I
do also. I am a marginalist, so that is not an issue with me, although the
heterogeneity of lands and stickiness of their markets makes it hard to
apply in practise. 

 

Do not be amazed, however, to learn that Clark disregarded the initial
distribution of land. It begins with his 1886 book The Philosophy of Wealth,
where wealth is created "from the mere appropriation of limited natural
gifts". "repelling intruders "is almost the only form of labor which exists
in the most primitive social state". (p.10).  The essential attribute of
wealth is "appropriability", to create which "the rights of property must be
recognized and enforced," ... "whoever makes, interprets, or enforces law
produces wealth".  He continues in that vein. Those who seize land and
exclude others produce thereby its value. For a long exploration of Clark
see the writer's "Neo-classical Economics as a Stratagem against Henry
George", in Gaffney and Harrison (eds.), The Corruption of Economics, 1994,
pp. 47-59. I'd reproduce it all here if I thought our ed. would allow it.

 

As to Clark's anti-Georgist motivation, the above work also documents that,
at length. Clark never mentions Marx once, but concentrates his fire on
George and on the anti-Marxist Austrians.

 

As to Clark's insincerity, John Henry's book on Clark does a good job, from
a Marxist viewpoint. See also his cute article on "God and the marginal
product". I agree with his points about Clark, although my own theology is
more conventional than Henry's. (That is, I take Isaiah and Amos to heart -
but not Romans or Revelations!)

 

Mason Gaffney