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