Phil,
It's very clear to me that you are not serious about this.
I haven't seen such a flaming **** on a listserv in many, many years.
Not to mention that yoou clearly don't understand marxist economic theory
but use him the way a drunk uses a lamp_pole, not for illumination, but for
support..
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Phil Graham <phil.graham@mailbox.uq.edu.au>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2001 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: dominance "over" nature
> At 04:22 PM 4/25/01 -0700, PD wrote:
> >All of these quotes are clearly tangential to my point: Marx did not
> >consider nature to have value in his economics, out of that all of the
rest
> >of my argument follows if you accept the premise of the determinance of
> >production in social formations.
>
> Wrong.
>
> Marx is often attributed as the author of the labour theory of value, but
> that is not true. That was in fact Adam Smith's thesis.
>
> Marx's position is this
>
> 'Labour is *not* the source of all wealth. Nature is just as much the
> source of use values (and it is surely of such that material wealth
> consists!) as labour, which itself is only the manifestation of a force of
> nature, human labour power' (Marx, 1875/1972, p. 382)
>
> Marx, K. (1875/1972). Critique of the Gotha program. In R.C. Tucker (Ed.),
> The Marx-Engels Reader (382-405). New York: W.W. Norton.
>
> Regards,
> Phil
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:03 PDT