>>2247456>Treating land as a separate thing is more of a Proudhon and Georgist idea.But Smith did this too? What do you mean "more of a [blank] idea" exactly? There are common ideas between theorists who disagree. The relationship between ideas in economic theory isn't like ingredients in a stew soaking together, but pieces in a machine where the function of an idea works on another idea so that they all fit together into a functional structure.
>Both are much more aligned with the neoclassical idea of scarcity = value.Scarcity is related to price, which is why real estate is such a huge speculative market now. From the kind of perspective you seem to be implying, land would have no value. Proudhon and George would oppose ownership of land a priori, and in Marx's terms there's no labor content that went into the land itself, though there may be features
on the land (buildings, farms, etc) that contain dead labor and therefore value. But generally speaking the value of the features added to a piece of real estate are very small compared to the price of the land itself on current markets.
>Which is of course a tautology as Marx points out."Scarcity = value" is not true, let alone a tautology. Did you mean fallacy or something else?
>You should re-read Capital if this is your understanding.But as this anon points out
>>2245065<marx in capital vol. 3 isolates land from capital, and so like smith, sees its revenues come out of a separate economic category. capital produces profit, while land produces rents. this indeed is a prior form of accumulation, which we can see throughout history. rents are also tied to interest/usury, as an unproductive form of extraction.