Spencer Heath Archive

Item 1429

Carbon of a letter from Heath to Raymond V. McNally, 200 East 16th Street, New York City 3

March 16, 1945

Dear Mr. McNally:

     I enclose herewith for your inspection and possible comment the last five pages of my analytical review of Progress and Poverty as amended after criticism by and discussion with you.

    Referring to George’s acceptance of the Malthusian theory or, rather, the principle of it, as contained in the Ricardian formulation, I feel convinced that it is not unfair to impute this acceptance to him.

     If what he says on this subject on page 231 were all, then it might possibly be unfair. He is, indeed, on this page only reflecting the views of “Ricardo and the economists who have followed him.” He even refers to their view of the matter as “the misapprehension which has enlisted the doctrine of rent in the support of a theory (the Malthusian) to which it in reality gives no countenance.” But in his earlier reference to the matter on page 97 he is not using any indirect discourse. Here he states on his own authority, and not by imputation to others, that Ricardo “furnished the Malthusian theory additional support by calling attention to the fact that rent would increase as the necessities of increasing population forced cultivation to less and less productive lands.” Here he admits as a fact the whole Malthusian principle of “the necessities of increasing population forcing subsistence down to lower and lower levels. He must have believed this at the time he wrote it for he does not qualify or cast any doubt on it until 134 pages further on where he restates the same thing as being the view of Ricardo and his followers, and not until page 234 does he make any attempt to explain it away. Here he reaffirms that “the increase of population thus increases rent by lowering the margin of cultivation.” But he also says, immediately following, that “Increas­ing population increases rent without reducing the margin of cultivation.” He will not abandon Ricardo because he needs his theory to give a black eye to land ownership; neither will he live by him for that involves him in an acceptance of the Malthusian principle. He thimble-rigs the whole matter. “Now you see it and now you don’t.”

     I will be glad to have return of these revised pages at some convenient time with or without comment.

Cordially,