Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Marx, Engel and Morris on George

Expand Messages
  • Scott on the Spot
    Someone posted this Marxist critique of George on Facebook a while back, so I ll respond more-or-less the same way I did then, expanding it slightly to include
    Message 1 of 87 , Dec 11, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      Someone posted this Marxist critique of George on Facebook a while back,
      so I'll respond more-or-less the same way I did then, expanding it
      slightly to include Engel's, as they are both muddle-headed in about the
      same way.
      Both fail to see the essential difference in the factor of production in
      Land vs. the factor of production in labor or even (true) capital. They
      advocate taking over the Land (I'm using Land with a capital 'L' to
      recognize the classical view of land that all classical economists,
      including Marx, Engels and George had, meaning ALL of nature's
      resources) the same way as taking over labor and capital for the good of
      the state. Well, with the advantage of history, I think we can safely
      say that doesn't work - people get discouraged and neither work nor
      invest in the capital of business (factories, new trucks, pickaxes,
      etc.). Of course, Marx didn't properly recognize this, but most
      importantly for our purposes with George, he didn't recognize that Land
      and Capital are different, as evidenced by Engels' statement: "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."
      Well, if Man can produce Land the same way as mines, railways,
      factories, etc, than it would at least be consistent to encourage
      socialization of the Land, or, by extension, the rent upon it. (My
      attempts to conjure up new land to close the 1-mile gap in the esplanade
      by the U.N. have thus far failed, but I will let you all know if that
      changes!). The Rent, of course, is not distributed equally, a fact Marx
      seems to miss entirely when he says:
      ''How did it happen that in the United States, when the land was and is,
      relatively speaking, accessible to the masses, the capitalist system and
      its correlative enslavement of the working class have rapidly and more
      shamelessly developed than in any other country?" Well, of course, as
      George was early to observe, where Land is truly free and available to
      all, the working class really DOES escape enslavement and do (earn) much
      better. It's where Land is owned without proper return to the community
      that workers have no choice but to work at "correlative enslavement."
      By the way, the same result applies whether the Land is owned by
      individual Landlords, or the Lord of the State, so long as the Rent is
      not returned to those whose efforts created the value in the first
      place. In this respect, the communists would turn out to be no better
      than the Landlords, and actually worse due to their absolute control
      over the court and legal systems too, in addition to presumptive "first
      rights" to Land. With individual Landlords, at least, there is some
      chance in George's time, that land in the West was still available, and
      that value rose with population density (something Marx seems to be
      completely oblivious to).
      George was right when he described Marx as "a most superficial thinker,
      entangled in an inexact and vicious terminology, " and as "the prince of
      muddleheads. "

      --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, "David Spain" <dspain@...> wrote:
      > Excellent research, thanks Wyn.
      > n DWS
      > From: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:LandCafe@yahoogroups.com] On
      > Of Wyn Achenbaum
      > Sent: Tuesday, 11 December 2012 12:32 PM
      > To: LandCafe@yahoogroups.com; TaxShift@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [LandCafe] Marx, Engel and Morris on George
      > A google search today yielded a couple of interesting things which I
      > some might want for their files.
      > 1. Karl Marx on Henry George -- from The Advertiser, Adelaide,
      > 1914-06-16, quoting an 1881-06-20 letter from Marx
      > 2. A recent post on a blog called socialist-courier, which quotes
      > another Marx letter, dated 1881-06-30, Engels in 1887, and William
      > 1884-04-05.
      > http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/6420876#pstart967018
      > The Advertiser (Adelaide, SA : 1889 - 1931) Tuesday 16 June 1914
      > To the Editor.
      > Sir -- It is some considerable time now since Mr. W. Clark Russell
      > and issued a most fascinating work entitled "The Book of Authors," in
      > was gathered together specimens of some of the smart and piquant
      things that
      > have been said by distinguished literary men and women of one another.
      > should dearly love to see this book, or one upon similar lines brought
      up to
      > our own time. In view of some person of good taste and judgment taking
      > himself this literary task, or pleasure, I herewith enclose a copy of
      > letter by Karl Marx. It appeared in the German paper "Neue Zeit," in
      > article on "The Labor Movement in the United States," in June, 1892,
      > Marx wrote a notable book on "Capital," which earned for its author a
      > world-wide reputation. In Germany especially the book has been called
      > Bible of the Working Classes," while at the same time it has been the
      > of conferring upon Marx the title of the "Father of Scientific
      > Henry George, on the other hand, was an American economical writer,
      > reputation chiefly rests upon his work, "Progress and Poverty," first
      > published in 1879, two years before Marx wrote the enclosed letter. I
      > only add that in social philosophy Marx was an uncompromising
      > George was an out-and-out individualist.-I am, &c.,
      > W.G.
      > (Copy.)
      > London, June 20, 1881.
      > Dear Sir - Before your copy of Henry George's book reached me I had
      > two others. I shall here limit myself to a very short expression of
      > In point of theory George is a back number. He has no inkling of
      > value. Following the example of English writers he takes up his time
      > speculations upon the component parts of surplus value - profit, rent
      > interest, &c. His fundamental dogma is that order would prevail were
      > rent paid to the State. You will find allusions to that scheme in the
      > communistic manifesto among the transitional steps therein mentioned.
      > from similar propositions advanced towards the end of the 18th century
      > was first brought forth by the radical followers of Ricardo
      > after his death. In 1847, in my book against the anarchist principles
      > Proudhon, I said upon that subject - "We can conceive how economists,
      > as Mill and many others, have demanded that rent be turned over to the
      > to the end of removing taxation. This is the frank expression of
      > which the industrial capita list entertains for the land owner, who
      seems to
      > him a useless and superfluous entity in the scheme of capitalist
      > production." We incorporated this appropriation of ground rents by the
      > among numerous other transitional measures all of which, as stated in
      > "Manifesto," are and must be full of contradictions. To turn this
      > desideratum of English bourgeois economists in a socialist panacea, to
      > explain the procedure whereby the contradictions were to be solved
      that work
      > was first undertaken by Collins, a Belgian by birth. He issued from
      > several thick volumes upon his "discovery." His anti private property
      > land theory has been preached for years and his followers style
      > "rational collectivists." These so-called socialists have this point
      > common - they allow wage labor and the capitalist system of production
      > continue, and by juggling with words fool themselves into the notion
      that by
      > conversion of ground rent into a State tax all the ills of the
      > system would vanish. In other words, the whole thing is simply an
      attempt to
      > rescue the rule of capitalism and to rear it anew upon a firmer basis.
      > proof, together with the donkey's ears peeps out of the declamations
      > Henry George, only that with him it is all the less pardonable, seeing
      > he should have turned the question round, and asked himself - ''How
      did it
      > happen that in the United States, when the land was and is, relatively
      > speaking, accessible to the masses, the capitalist system and its
      > correlative enslavement of the working class have rapidly and more
      > shamelessly developed than in any other country?" On the other hand,
      > George's book, together with the sensation it seems to be creating
      > you, has this significance, that it is the first, though abortive,
      > at emancipation from orthodox political economy. For the rest, Henry
      > seems to be wholly ignorant of the early American anti-renters, who
      > rather practical than theoretical. Otherwise he is a talented writer;
      > there is about him that presumptuousness and boastfulness which are
      > unmistakable characteristics of the hucksters of panaceas. -
      > Karl Marx.
      > _____
      > http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/12/henry-george.html
      > FRIDAY, DECEMBER 07, 2012
      > Henry George
      > Green MP Caroline Lucas is supporting an annual land value tax, based
      on its
      > market price, but, of course, with many "new" ideas this one has been
      > proposed before. Henry George, a nineteenth-century writer who had
      > popularized the notion that no single person could claim to "own"
      land. In
      > his book Progress and Poverty (1879), George called private land
      > an "erroneous and destructive principle" and argued that land should
      be held
      > in common, with members of society acting collectively as "the general
      > landlord."
      > Henry George's book "Progress and Poverty" was very popular. The
      > starting point was man's God-given right to the land. Private property
      > land was unjust as it restricted access to the land. As technological
      > progress increased industrial production, the benefits, George argued,
      > not to the labourers or even to the capitalists but to the landlords
      in the
      > form of increased rent. The remedy proposed in Progress and Poverty
      was the
      > raising by the state of a tax equivalent to the rental value of the
      > Not only would this "single" tax compensate the poor labourer for his
      > birth right to the land, but it would obviate the need for other forms
      > taxation and be politically more acceptable than full land
      > Scotland proved the most receptive to his message. It was here after
      > with the Crofters' Revolt raging and the cities crowded with Highland
      > Irish exiles that the unacceptable face of landlordism was most
      apparent and
      > keenly resented. The Presbyterian Scots also responded to the
      > strain in Georgism. The Scottish Land Restoration League, a purely
      > body was established in Glasgow with branches in Edinburgh and
      > "The land question" Henry George wrote to an English friend, "will
      never go
      > to sleep in Auchtermuchty."
      > Marx describes
      > <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/letters/81_06_20.htm>
      > Henry George in a letter to Friedrich Sorge, 30 June 1881:
      > "Theoretically the man is utterly backward! He understands nothing
      about the
      > nature of surplus value and so wanders about in speculations which
      > the English model but have now been superseded even among the English,
      > the different portions of surplus value to which independent existence
      > attributed--about the relations of profit, rent, interest, etc. His
      > fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent
      > paid to the state. (You will find payment of this kind among the
      > transitional measures included in The Communist Manifesto too.) This
      > originally belonged to the bourgeois economists; it was first put
      > (apart from a similar demand at the end of the eighteenth century) by
      > earliest radical followers of Ricardo, soon after his death. I said of
      it in
      > 1847, in my work against Proudhon: "We can understand that economists
      > Mill" (the elder, not his son John Stuart, who also repeats this in a
      > somewhat modified form) "Cherbuliez, Hilditch and others have demanded
      > rent should be paid to the state in order that it may serve as a
      > for taxes. This is a frank expression of the hatred which the
      > capitalist dedicates to the landed proprietor, who seems to him a
      > and superfluous element in the general total of bourgeois production."
      > We ourselves, as I have already mentioned, adopted this appropriation
      > ground rent by the state among numerous other transitional measures,
      > as we also remarked in the Manifesto, are and must be contradictory in
      > themselves.
      > But the first person to turn this desideratum [requirement] of the
      > English bourgeois economists into a socialist panacea, to declare this
      > procedure to be the solution of the antagonisms involved in the
      > method of production, was Colins, a former old Hussar officer of
      > born in Belgium, who in the latter days of Guizot and the first of
      > the Less, favoured the world from Paris with some fat volumes about
      > "discovery" of his. Like another discovery he made, namely, that while
      > is no God there is an "immortal" human soul and that animals have "no
      > feelings." For if they had feelings, that is souls, we should be
      > and a realm of righteousness could never be founded upon earth. His
      > "anti-landownership" theory together with his theory of the soul,
      etc., have
      > been preached every month for years in the Parisian Philosophie de
      > [Philosophy of the Future] by his few remaining followers, mostly
      > They call themselves "rational collectivists" and have praised Henry
      > After them and besides them, among other people, the Prussian banker
      > former lottery owner Samten from East Prussia, a shallow-brained
      fellow, has
      > eked out this "socialism" into a thick volume.
      > All these "socialists" since Colins have this much in common that they
      > wage labour and therefore capitalist production in existence and try
      > bamboozle themselves or the world into believing that if ground rent
      > transformed into a state tax all the evils of capitalist production
      > disappear of themselves. The whole thing is therefore simply an
      > decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to
      > establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one.
      > This cloven hoof (at the same time ass's hoof) is also unmistakably
      > in the declamations of Henry George. And it is the more unpardonable
      in him
      > because he ought to have put the question to himself in just the
      > way: How did it happen that in the United States, where, relatively,
      that is
      > in comparison with civilised Europe, the land was accessible to the
      > mass of the people and to a certain degree (again relatively) still
      > capitalist economy and the corresponding enslavement of the working
      > have developed more rapidly and shamelessly than in any other country!
      > On the other hand George's book, like the sensation it has made with
      you, is
      > significant because it is a first, if unsuccessful, attempt at
      > from the orthodox political economy.
      > H. George does not seem, for the rest, to know anything about the
      history of
      > the early American anti-renters,** who were rather practical men than
      > theoretical. Otherwise he is a talented writer (with a talent for
      > advertisement too) as his article on California in the Atlantic
      proves, for
      > instance. He also has the repulsive presumption and arrogance which is
      > displayed by all panacea-mongers without exception."
      > Of course George never held much store by Marx describing him as "a
      > superficial thinker, entangled in an inexact and vicious terminology,"
      > as "the prince of muddleheads."
      > Engels explains
      > the differences between their theories and Henry George in the preface
      > the American edition of The Condition of the Working-Class in England,
      > 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
      > land by society at large. Now, the Socialists of the school of Marx,
      > 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
      > 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
      > of social production, mines, railways, factories, etc.; Henry George
      > confine himself to letting it out to individuals as at present, merely
      > regulating its distribution and applying the rents for public, instead
      > as at present, for private purposes. What the Socialists demand,
      implies a
      > total revolution of the whole system of social production; what Henry
      > 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
      > State. It would of course be unfair to suppose that Henry George has
      > his last word once for all. But I am bound to take his theory as I
      find it."
      > But Engels also argued
      > <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_12_28.htm>
      > for the sake of the unity of the budding American labor movement, it
      > 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
      > confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry
      > George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The
      > 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
      > own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves...My preface will
      > course turn entirely on the immense stride made by the American
      working man
      > in the last ten months, and naturally also touch H.G. [Henry George]
      and his
      > land scheme. But it cannot pretend to deal exhaustively with it. Nor
      do I
      > think the time has come for that. It is far more important that the
      > should spread, proceed harmoniously, take root and embrace as much as
      > possible the whole American proletariat, than that it should start and
      > proceed from the beginning on theoretically perfectly correct lines.
      > is no better road to theoretical clearness of comprehension than
      > Schaden klug werden" [to learn by one's own mistakes]. And for a whole
      > class, there is no other road, especially for a nation so eminently
      > practical as the Americans. The great thing is to get the working
      class to
      > move as a class; that once obtained, they will soon find the right
      > direction, and all who resist, H.G. or Powderly, will be left out in
      > cold with small sects of their own. Therefore I think also the
      K[nights] of
      > L[abour] a most important factor in the movement which ought not to be
      > pooh-poohed from without but to be revolutionised from within, and I
      > consider that many of the Germans there have made a grievous mistake
      > they tried, in face of a mighty and glorious movement not of their
      > to make of their imported and not always understood theory a kind of
      > alleinseligmachendes dogma and to keep aloof from any movement which
      did not
      > accept that dogma. Our theory is not a dogma but the exposition of a
      > of evolution, and that process involves successive phases. To expect
      > the Americans will start with the full consciousness of the theory
      > out in older industrial countries is to expect the impossible. What
      > Germans ought to do is to act up to their own theory --if they
      > it, as we did in 1845 and 1848--to go in for any real general
      > movement, accept its faktische starting points as such and work it
      > up to the theoretical level by pointing out how every mistake made,
      > reverse suffered, was a necessary consequence of mistaken theoretical
      > in the original programme; they ought, in the words of The Communist
      > Manifesto, to represent the movement of the future in the movement of
      > present. But above all give the movement time to consolidate, do not
      > the inevitable confusion of the first start worse confounded by
      forcing down
      > people's throats things which at present they cannot properly
      > but which they soon will learn. A million or two of workingmen's votes
      > November for a bona fide workingmen's party is worth infinitely more
      > present than a hundred thousand votes for a doctrinally perfect
      > The very first attempt--soon to be made if the movement progresses--to
      > consolidate the moving masses on a national basis will bring them all
      > to face, Georgites, K. of L., Trade Unionists, and all; and if our
      > friends by that time have learnt enough of the language of the country
      to go
      > in for a discussion, then will be the time for them to criticise the
      > of the others and thus, by showing up the inconsistencies of the
      > standpoints, to bring them gradually to understand their own actual
      > position, the position made for them by the correlation of capital and
      > labour. But anything that might delay or prevent that national
      > of the workingmen's party--no matter what platform--I should consider
      > great mistake, and therefore I do not think the time has arrived to
      > out fully and exhaustively either with regard to H.G. or the K. of L."
      > William Morris was more sanguine about Henry George.
      > "This eloquent and enthusiastic American writer and agitator has been
      > us for three months working hard to push what he believes to be the
      > remedy for our terrible social ills, some acknowledgment of which at
      > he has forced from the better part of the middle-classes. It is
      > not to feel sympathy and regard for a man of this kind, in whose most
      > attacks there is still an attractive kindliness, and whose earnest
      faith and
      > simplicity cover over with a rude eloquence the grave mistakes which
      > others seem to lie at the foundation of all his teaching. It is indeed
      > refreshing in days like these, when cynicism and contempt for all
      > self-sacrifice are so often taken as the test marks of the higher
      > to find a man who, rising from among the workers, throws the glamour
      of his
      > own sincerity over the most callous and forces them to look into the
      > around them, of which misery indeed many of the highly critical and
      > are the direct cause, For what he has done here in England we owe
      > George our sincerest thanks: he himself has earned our deep esteem.
      His book
      > has stirred men and women of the middle-class to think of what must be
      > called revolution as something possible and beneficent, and has even
      > some of them to act in a sort of way; ineffectual as their palliatives
      > be for the remedy of the wrongs which their class has created. It is
      > unlikely that a more logical and correct thinker, a more rigid
      > would have failed where he has so far succeeded. People read between
      > lines of his book, not his economical errors, but his deep love of
      truth and
      > his never-ceasing desire to benefit his fellow-men. The feelings were
      > away by "Progress and Poverty," the reason came limping lamely after
      > offer hopeless expostulation. And as with his writing so with his
      > That winning frankness and genuine sincerity which ring through his
      > utterance have gone straight to the hearts of his English audiences on
      > occasions save when he was speaking at the would-be home of culture
      > refinement If the land question at this hour is more clearly before
      > people than any other this is in great part due to Mr. Henry George.
      > doubt he came at a favourable time as his book was published at a
      > when it Was likely to attract attention. Unless circumstances favour
      > writer or the orator his labour as all history shows is vain for his
      > epoch. But this in no wise takes away from the merit of his work or
      > from the honour due to labours in the cause of the people. Granted
      that the
      > depression throughout the country and the serious state of our
      > industry helped Mr. George to an attentive hearing, he never spared
      > but strove as we are striving to stir an apathy which has lasted
      > unbroken for over thirty years.
      > For ourselves we will confess that we looked with some misgiving to
      > visit now drawing to a close. Mr. George's high qualities are
      themselves a
      > drawback from our point of view. We feared - and the fear may still
      > far from groundless - that the capitalists of this country wealthy,
      > powerful, organised as they are, would make common cause with Mr.
      > and, anxious to save the proceeds of their own still worse methods of
      > plunder, would on the one hand show a tendency to throw the landlords
      > overboard as Jonahs frpm the craft now owned and chiefly manned by
      > themselves, and on the other would pit Mr. George as the reasonable
      > moral reformer against the unreasonable and immoral revolutionists, of
      > we form a part. They have not done so. It is therefore unnecessary
      that we
      > should here enlarge upon the grave differences which exist between Mr.
      > George and ourselves. We too desire to overthrow the landlord
      domination; we
      > too have worked for years to get back the land for the people; we too
      > altogether at one with Mr. George to his eloquent denunciations of the
      > robbers echo have rendered Scotland a wilderness, and the English
      > who have reduced the Irish to serfdom. In our own country also the
      grip of
      > the land grabber is over us all; and commons and heaths of unmatched
      > and wildness have been enclosed for farmers or jerry-built upon by
      > speculators in order to swell the ill gotten revenues of some covetous
      > aristocrat or greedy money-bags; while any real improvement in our
      > towns, where the lodging of the working class is an acknowledged
      disgrace to
      > civilisation, is rendered impossible by the fancy prices of land
      caused by
      > competition ground rents. To every anathema which Mr. George has
      > against these cormorants of our health, happiness and comfort we
      > chant Amen. But we cannot finish, nay we cannot even begin, here. The
      > enemies of the people to-day are those whom our " Prophet of
      > leaves untouched by his denunciations and unscathed by his sarcasm. To
      > George the robber of a hundred is a villain indeed: the dexterous
      annexer of
      > many thousands may pass full pocketed on his way as a benefactor of
      > race. We cannot help thinking that their, to us, unexpected and surely
      > impolitic treatment of Mr. George should teach him a lesson; they have
      > universally repudiated him; with the cynical impudence of attacked
      > "interests" they have called the ten commandments to their aid and
      > freely used the words theft and spoliation against one of the
      honestest men
      > alive.
      > But our guest returns to his own people and our heartiest good wishes
      > the health and welfare of him and his go with him. However much and
      > seriously we may differ from him, we feel that his enemies are ours
      > and that his end like ours is the winning of a due share of happiness
      > refinement for the workers of the world we English Socialists
      therefore give
      > a hearty, farewell to our friend and noble fellow-worker the American
      > George."
      > Justice, 5th April 1884
      > Some Related Trivia
      > Board Games
      > The official history of Monopoly, as told by Hasbro, which owns the
      > states that the board game was invented in 1933 by an unemployed
      > steam-radiator repairman and part-time dog walker from Philadelphia
      > Charles Darrow. Darrow had dreamed up what he described as a real
      > trading game whose property names were taken from Atlantic City, the
      > town where he'd summered as a child. Patented in 1935 by Darrow and
      > corporate game maker Parker Brothers, Monopoly sold just over 2
      > copies in its first two years of production, making Darrow a rich man
      > likely saving Parker Brothers from bankruptcy. Monopoly's forerunner
      > "The Landlord's Game," created by Lizzie Magie, inspired by Henry
      > who believed in the abolition of land-ownership and created a powerful
      > movement to make this a reality. Many of George's devotees played The
      > Landlord's Game, learning about the evils of real-estate and rentiers,
      > they modified the rules together, creating the game as we know it,
      > its name to "monopoly" (all lower-case). Then "an unemployed
      > repairman and part-time dog walker from Philadelphia named Charles
      > copied it, patented it, and sold it to Parker Brothers. The game's
      > origins, however, go unmentioned in the official literature. Three
      > before Darrow's patent, in 1903, a Maryland actress named Lizzie Magie
      > created a proto-Monopoly as a tool for teaching the philosophy of
      > George.
      > Posted by ajohnstone
      > at 11:54 PM
      > <http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/2012/12/henry-george.html>
      > 170>
      > Labels:
      > henry george,
      > <http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/search/label/land%20ownership>
      > ownership, <http://socialist-courier.blogspot.com/search/label/tax>
      > --
      > blog: lvtfan.typepad.com ...
      > LVT -- Land Value Taxation -- the only tax system worthy of a fan
    • Harry Pollard
      It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader. Unfortunately, modern schooling isn t great at producing readers so material must be made
      Message 87 of 87 , Dec 30, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        It all depends on what you are writing and who will be the reader.

        Unfortunately, modern schooling isn't great at producing readers so material must be made simple for them. Which point doesn't throw out other writing which may be more complicated as it conveys more subtle directions..


        The Alumni Group 
        The Henry George School
        of Los Angeles
        Tujunga   CA   90243
        (818) 352-4141

        On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 6:55 AM, John <burns-john@...> wrote:

        --- In LandCafe@yahoogroups.com, Harry Pollard <harrypollard0@...> wrote:
        > However, I suppose the short sentence is now
        > the thing, which may or may not be an improvement.

        Harry, tabloid newspapers use short sentences. People are familiar with that. So, you have to write to what they can easily understand. If they have to do double-takes they lose interest. It is that simple. Churchill realised that a long time ago. His books on WW2 and super easy to understand. The proof readers would highlight parts of the book(s) and he would override them. In the end they thanked him for teaching them how to write simple English.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.