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