Dear Professor Chomsky,
I have recently had the opportunity to read the correspondence between yourself and Dr. Fred Foldvary concerning the the political and economic theory of Henry George. Professor Folvary asked whether you were familiar with Mr. George's works to which you responded: "I did read Henry George years ago, when I was a college student. Whatever the merits of his proposal might have been at the time, they don't seem to me particularly meaningful now, given the sources of wealth and power."
I must confess that I did hold a very similar period to yourself the first time I encountered the works of Henry George some thirteen years ago as I was finishing my degree in Politics, Philosophy and Sociology. Over the past few years I have studied the matter with significantly more scrutiny. Aided in fact by your own analysis the source and application of power I am actually strongly convinced that the practical model of Mr. George holds a great deal of relevance.
The landlord class and a substantial section of the capitalist class are in alliance and, for all intents and purposes, have coalesced. Their objective is to control, through military, political and economic means, the natural resources of this planet. The primary source of wealth and power is land and natural resources and this is prior to any wealth and power derived from capital. The amount of wealth derived from land and natural resources is more than sufficient to abolish the onerous taxes levied by the State on working people.
If socialism is to have any relevance in the twenty first century it must be, as President Hugo Chavez has pointed out, decentalised and empower local communities. If it is to have any economic feasibility it must be, as Professor Alec Nove points out, make more use of market mechanisms to allocate relative scarce resources. It is with these orientations, supplemented with the conviction and mechanisms proposed by Mr. George, that an economic model can be developed that is both principled, popular and practical (unlike, for example, Mr. Albert's "Parecon" which would be a disaster to productivity).
My only request is that you take some time to reconsider your position and research contemporary studies regarding "Georgist" economics. I am convinced that aided by this knowledge you will be in a position to make a contribution to economics as serious as your existing contributions to linguistics, cognitive psychology and foreign affairs.
Yours most sincerely and in solidarity,
Lev Lafayette
cc Dr. Clinton Fernandes, Dr. Fred Folvary, Prof. Frank Stilwell