Did I misread James in his association of George with socialism. Here is  
what he said-   
  
"Rod (6/17/06) also says that he was "teasing James for suggesting that  
one should be careful not to associate with Marxists." I meant nothing  
of the sort. What I (6/15/06) wrote was "... I think people who refer to  
themselves as Georgists must also bear in mind that Henry George had the  
goal of establishing socialism with his single-tax proposal. I wish they  
would not get overly excited when that motivation is brought up." It is  
the equivalent of "if it walks like and duck and quacks like a duck,  
it's a duck." In other words, if one employs a mode of analysis as well  
as endorses policy prescriptions of a school of thought, one must accept  
being associated with the common label of that school. Fair enough? I  
don't mind associating with Marxists on a personal level. It's their  
method of analysis and policy agenda that I find objectionable."  
  
The last paragraph of my recent post was a direct quote from George's  
Science of Political Economy showing at least that he did not identify  
his views with either Marxism or socialism. Of course if you take the  
position that land is the same as capital there might be justification  
for the above view.  
  
 There have been many economists who have pointed out the fallacies in  
the "wages fund theory." Francis A Walker, a bitter critic of what is  
loosely called the "single tax" or collecting all or most of the ground  
rent in lieu of all taxes on labor, capital or the wealth produced by  
labor and capital said it was a proposal "steeped in infamy."  But  
Walker totally disagreed wth the wages fund doctrine. (Walker, Francis  
A. Political Economy. London, Macmillan and Co. 1892. Part VI, pp.  
364-370). I'm sure there are many contemporary economists who would also  
disagree.  
  
Again, a perusal of The Science of Political Economy, published 19 yrs  
after Progress and Poverty an Inquiry into the cause of industrial  
depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth, THE REMEDY  
would lead to more than a superficial understanding of where the author  
stood.  
  
Roy Davidson