This reply highlights the difference between those who think Marx's agricultural rent categories constitute an indissoluble element of all potential Marxist discussions of rent, and those who would argue that Marx's placing of rent relations in their social and historical context is the foundation of the Marxist approach to rent. Clark's comments, apart from some misinterpretations of the original article, clearly come from the ‘category fundamentalist’ camp. Reasons for objecting to such overemphasis on the categories are outlined, although it is pointed out that terminological differences alone might be one of the reasons for disagreement.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ClarkE, 1987, “A critical note on Ball's reformulation of the role of urban land rent”Environment and Planning A19263–267
2.
FineB, 1984, “Land, capital, and the British coal industry prior to World War II”, in Land Rent, Housing and Urban Planning: A European Perspective Eds BallMBentivegnaVFolinMEdwardsM (Croom Helm, Beckenham, Kent) pp 107–126
3.
MarxK, 1968Theories of Surplus Value, volume II (Lawrence and Wishart, London)
4.
MarxK, 1974Capital, volume III (Lawrence and Wishart, London)
5.
MuthR, 1969Cities and Housing (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
