It’s not a disdain for Marx’s quotes. It’s the important point that I made earlier that you ignore which is: Henry George had NOT read Marx. Marx’s works had yet to be translated. So, when Marx rants about George he is not doing so because George tried to make a case against him.

To understand Henry George you need to know how he went about solving a deep social injustice that had its roots in what he saw as progress and the ownership of land (today land means much more than just terra firma, the universe minus what humans make). He was NOT trying to SAVE capitalism nor was he trying to argue against Marx.

Once you get that than you’ll see that it was Marx that was reacting to an analysis and masterful synthesis by a singular thinker who had no clue about Marx’s isms. George was not an ideologue. He was a self-taught political economist who turned out to be a genius! He’s recognized as such by some of the greatest minds of his time. He was also an incredible writer who put together 4 amazing volumes on this thinking. Leo Tolstoy’s last work was dedicated to George.

Again, Marx’s complaint is asymmetrical.

And that my friend, is the difference - and in the case of George VS Marx is a big one. Please read George and keep an open kind.

(BTW, I realize that Marx’s ultimate aim was a statelessness, but it was not his immediate one).

Yes, they do, but in practice that means that NOONE bothers to take care of these means or maintain them. Then they rot and shortages ensue (and for other related reasons, also).

When everyone owns it, then it means that noone in particular owns it. (The people on top are corrupt and only interested in their own self-interest). That has been the practical effect, the way I’ve seen and experienced it. I am not saying there’s not a better way than incredibly wealthy individuals ownership of the means, I’m just saying this is what happened in practice.

That’s right, we cannot have differences of opinion in the Reichstag. That’s what the left is all about (and the right, too BTW), thrusting your all-knowingness down our throats. We cannot criticise the fuehrer. Heil Fuehrer!

And that pretty much explains why socialism is not that benign, either. (I lived in it). Elitism gets in the way. There is only one way gets in the way. All knowingness and hubris gets in the way. Good life for the leaders, shortages for the masses, gets in the way. It starts out OK, when everyone is idealistic, then human nature, selfishness, corruption, the physical (mathematical) laws of entropy set in and the system disintegrates.

Cuba sending those doctors to foreign countries from the goodness of their hearts — you are really naive. They have their interests, just like everyone else. Of course, it’s far better to do that than send bombs, etc.

And the AMA monopoly, competition killing and price setting powers, the greed in the med system, the obscene prices are not considered in the Cuban model being applied here. That’s where 90% of the problem is. This whole one-payer thing is simplistic American BS, (and left BS), so typical of considering the facts only on the surface.

As for the local action, in theory yes, but am not sure how you take the AMA locally. They have the power to deny you health care, the power of life and death. They’ll whack the doctors who step out of line (livelihoodwise, not literally). That’s a pretty significant power to go up against.

He stood for the the ABOLITION OF THE STATE and he stood for the ABOLITION OF CAPITALISM [not its replacement by capitalism in another form ] .
What is capitalism can be read here
http://www.worldsocialism.org/articles/what_is_capitalism.php

Throughout his political life Marx and Engels had to confront all manner of thinkers who presented their solutions to capitalism’s problems and each they had to dissect . Henry George was simply another on that list and to lay the differences between them upon Marx’s psychology and personality , is rather weak , to say the least .

Nevertheless , i deduce from the fact that you failed to answer my request that you were unable to find any proof where Marx ” gave George his due and realized he had provided a critical piece to economic and social justice.” , as you have asserted he did .

I know you distain my use of Marx quotes but his position is made quite clear when he says “The existence of the state is inseparable from the existence of slavery…”

The quote from Marx shows a man who is upset with an alternative solution to the problem of ownership. Quoting Marx because he was disgruntled does not undermine the brilliance of George’s analysis.

But if you think a strong soviet style government is the way to go (which is how Marx resolved the issue of ownership), then so be it. But using the words of an angry theortician because he was confronted with a powerful alternative argument does not make the case for your Mr. Marx.

Here is the issue:
“Henry George was a journalist, economist, and social reformer who lived 1839 to 1897. He is best known for his 1879 book Progress and Poverty in which he raised the question: Why is there so much poverty in the midst of so much economic progress? George’s over-whelming concern was the vast and growing disparity in wealth between rich and poor. His goal in writing Progress and Poverty was to seek an explanation for this enigma, and to propose a remedy that he felt would bring greater equality and fairness.

Writing just a few years ahead of Henry George was Karl Marx. George and Marx both looked at the three same factors of production: land, labor, and capital. And they both looked at the same problem of poverty and the vast disparity in wealth between rich and poor. But they came to a different conclusion as to the cause of the problem of poverty, and to a different solution on how to remedy the problem.

Marx determined that the problem was that the capitalist was taking too large a share, leaving too little for the worker. His solution was to have government own the means of production, reducing the power of the capitalist.

Henry George, on the other hand, felt that the problem was the private ownership of land. The landowner did not create the land, and he contributed nothing to production, but yet he could force others to pay him for the privilege of working on or living on the land, causing an increase in the disparity in wealth between those with land and those without.

Most of the increases in productivity will go not to the laborer or even to the capitalist, but to the landlords.”

As for “universal health care” - you’re gonna get that free healthcare, good and hard. Mandatory payments, through payroll or tax refund, or any means the government can find to extract payment.

Also, not only are some folk “not academically inclined” and cannot compete - many simply do not want to, prefering instead to loll leisurely in front of a tube or “have fun” 24/7. What does socialism do about the willful slackards?

The more dependent one becomes on the ruling “ism” the less motivated folks are to change that system. “Social welfare” has done much to create a dumbed down populace without dignity, who over the last 40 or so years seem more content than ever to want “free” stuff but with little, if any, effort on their part.

I’d rather have heavy-handed regulation of the corporatocracy to benefit the masses than all the warm fuzzy social programs the “left” portrays as our “right.” I’ve seen the destruction from those warm entitlement programs here in the ‘hood. Pretty slick of capitalism to use socialism so destructively.

I guess it is this article where Marx describes Henry George “Theoretically the man is utterly backward!…He also has the repulsive presumption and arrogance which is displayed by all panacea-mongers without exception.”- letter written to Friedrich Sorge, 30 June 1881
http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx_henrygeorge.html

Of course George never held much store by Marx describing him as “a most superficial thinker, entangled in an inexact and vicious terminology,” and as “the prince of muddleheads.”

Daniel De Leon of the Socialist Labor Party certainly at an early stage of his political development supported Henry George , or rather , the United Labor Party , for New York mayor.

Engels , however , describes the differences between their theories and Henry George in the preface of the American edition of The Condition of the Working-Class in England, New York, 1887.

“If Henry George declares land-monopolization to be the sole cause of poverty and misery, he naturally finds the remedy in the resumption of the land by society at large. Now, the Socialists of the school of Marx, too, demand the resumption, by society, of the land, and not only of the land but of all other means of production likewise. But even if we leave these out of the question, there is another difference. What is to be done with the land? Modern Socialists, as represented by Marx, demand that it should be held and worked in common and for common account, and the same with all other means of social production, mines, railways, factories, etc.; Henry George would confine himself to letting it out to individuals as at present, merely regulating its distribution and applying the rents for public, instead of, as at present, for private purposes. What the Socialists demand, implies a total revolution of the whole system of social production; what Henry George demands, leaves the present mode of social production untouched, and has, in fact, been anticipated by the extreme section of Ricardian bourgeois economists who, too, demanded the confiscation of the rent of land by the State. It would of course be unfair to suppose that Henry George has said his last word once for all. But I am bound to take his theory as I find it.”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1887/01/26.htm

But for all my searches of internet sources i cannot find anywhere Marx gives George his due exept ,perhaps , where Engels argues that for the sake of the unity of the budding American labor movement , i was best not to dwell on the weaknesses of Henry George since organisations such as the Knights of Labor “…That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves. ”
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htm

You have to enlighten me to the actual works where Marx and Engels extol Henry George .

Henry George “Progress and Poverty”. George observed the dilemma of ownership and through an incredible ability to synthesize his observations and reading gave us a deep understanding of our common wealth.

George was neither a socialist nor a capitalist. In the late 19th Century he was considered one of the greatest writers, thinkers, and speakers by such thinkers as Leo Tolstoy, Albert Einstein, John Dewey, Winston Churchill, leading early 20th Century progressives. Second best selling author after the Bible, 2nd to Mark Twaine in fame and popularity, world-traveler, beat T. Roosevelt in run for Mayor of NYC, lost to City boss candidate.

George is clearly one this country’s greatest economic minds. A classical economist, provided one of the most far reaching answers to poverty and wealth distribution. His voice was silenced by the likes of the neo-classical economists (think Milton Friedman, and Keynes) who took over the academic thinking, turned it into disconnected mathematical models, and almost erased George for any mention.

Yet, he persists throughout the world where his land value tax has taken hold as well as towns and cities in the US who have flourished, stablized their local economies and where commonwealth is returned back to the People.

You don’t need to call this stuff socialism. Marx, at first, claimed George was trying to save capitalism (George had not even read Marx which had yet to be translated). Later Marx gave George his due and realized he had provided a critical piece to economic and social justice.

Learn about Henry George.

As Martin Luther King Jr. once said ” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.”

Socialism is the establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the whole community.

What is meant by “a system of society”?

The world is a “global village”. Each region may have its own particular and distinct customs, but they are part of a greater system of society that is world-wide. This system of society is capitalism and every region and nation operates within this system of society in one way or another. Socialism is not a cooperative island in the middle of capitalism, but a global system of society that will replace capitalism.

“The means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth”?

This includes the forests, mines, and oceans from which natural wealth is extracted, the factories in which this natural wealth is processed, and the distribution of that wealth via transportation networks (such as roads and truck lines) and distribution centres (such as grocery and department stores). It does not include your personal belongings such as your toothbrush or clothing, or the family heirloom.

“Common Ownership”?

Common ownership means that society as a whole owns the means and instruments for distributing wealth. It also implies the democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth, for if everyone owns, then everyone must have equal right to control the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth.

Common ownership is not state ownership. State ownership is merely the ownership by the capitalist class as a whole, instead of by individual capitalists, and the government then runs the state enterprises to serve the capitalist class. In the self-proclaimed “communist” states the state enterprises serve those who control the party/state apparatus. The working class does not own or control. It produces for a privileged minority.
see here for another description
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/whatissoc.html

Ms Malerich has contributed an article worth some discussion, but after encountering the garbage appended to it, I’m just going to close the page and never visit the article again.

Whether Chavez, for instance, wants to refer to workers’ cooperatives as socialism is neither here nor there, EXCEPT that it creates a schism which is separate from the inherent value of such hierarchically-free work environments. Workers’ cooperatives transform the relationship between employer/employee or management/employee in ways that have significant social as well as economic implications.

I think crediting Marx (or Adam Smith) with all things economic is a red herring. If Chavez had called his form of economics green-capitalism (as opposed to gray capitalism which is destrpoying the planet), would it really matter to anyone other than ardent ideologues?

The failure of fascism, including communism, is that it tried to efface the gains of liberalism and go back to 18th century ologarchy, just as the neo-liberals of today want to efface the gains of socialism and go back to the 19th century. The neo-liberals are failing for exactly the same reason that the fascists failed: the world doesn’t go backwards! You can build upon the past but you can’t make it go away. When, like William F. Buckley or, indeed, the communists, you stand athwart history and shout stop, the same thing always happens: history rolls over you!

Cuba was a Soviet propaganda stunt, paid for by taking the bread from working people’s mouths in the Soviet Union. (One of the most surprising things that has emerged since the overthrow of the communist dictatorships is how utterly corrupt they were!) If any large Latin American country had followed its example, the whole house of cards would have collapsed. Cuba has survived the fall of the Soviet Union only because it is a convenient bogey man for US interests and, as an island, very difficult to invade.

As for Canadians going to Cuba, common sense would suggest that since Cuba desperately needs hard currency, foreigners are being given the privileged treatment normally reserved for the middle class party fat cats, while ordinary Cubans have to do without.

The dictatorship will not survive Castro and maybe then, the ordinary people will have a democratically-elected leader like Chavez or Morales or Lula or some of the others. Maybe then they will get a taste of the socialism that has been so successful in Europe.

Look, the US has been defeated in two wars of horrific attrition - Southeast Asia and Iraq. These are/were wars and occupations which were not fought by the “enemy” using sophisticated weapons. Those indigenous people won not because of some ideology, but because they were INDIGENOUS. Such is the value of local approaches.

Fight your battles - however unglamourous - under the radar whenever you can. Why get your head shot off and die a martyr AND still not have achieved what people need - universally available, single-payer health care?

You are right. Solutions are a plenty but activists prefer to piss and moan and let the corporatists and warmongers rule.

This is why I think it is a thorough waste of time to try to deal head on with these issues - health care, environment, etc etc at a national level. Instead keep it local and human scale. Even than it’s tough going, but it does go and you can see where/who the obstacle is and strategize from there. If you simply take where you’re at and say, we should have universal single payer healthcare RIGHT HERE in my community, city, town, village. Make it happen!!

Trying to change the US Titantic is like shifting the tides of the Red Sea. That’s futile and a complete waste.