Date: Sun, 16 Feb 1997 21:44:01 -0500 (EST)
Subject: M-G: Re: M-I: Value theory, prices and ground rent 1/2



Hugh discerns no principled objection in my view to the existence of a
lanaded gentry or the private ownership of land, apart from my own
psersonal distaste for such arrangements. Frankly, I'm puzzled. My
objection to private ownership of productive assets derives from the fact
that I'm a socialist, and for this reason think that the productive assets
should be publicaly owned. That's bottom line for me, along with worher
control of production and investment. 

I will remark that I haven't given a great deal of thought to the landed
gentry. In America we got rid of it in our Civil War, and haven't had to
worry about it since. I would of course as a socialist oppose any attempt
to reconstitute this antiquiated class,which you still have hanging in
England.

High also thinks that Marx solved the transformation problem. (To those of
you who complained about _my_ bringing this up: I didn't: Mark did; though
perhaps I am culpable for responding.) It's manifest that MArx did nop
such thing. The T-problem was solved, under very special conditions, by
Bortkewiesz and later by others, other special conditions also. The fact
is, Marx's silution is mathematically fallicious, as is well known. He
lacked the mathematical apparatus to do the job. 

--Justin




     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---