Tom Warren wrote:
>
> 1. I hope that we can all agree that /some/ wealth comes from nature.
One sure route to utter confusion and political futility is creating false
debates.
*All* wealth comes from nature. There is no other conceivable source of
wealth. BUT *all* of that wealth, to become *human* wealth must be
transformed by human labor. Any argument over whether wealth comes
from nature or labor is as stupid as to argue whether the numerator or
the denominator of a fraction is more important. It is such an ignorant
argument that it is hard to believe that those who propose it are acting
in good faith. If you are ignorant enough to think Marx argued that all
wealth comes form labor, I suggest you read the *Critique of the Gotha
Programme*>
> If so,
> shouldn't an economic theory recognize natural wealth or ... value ?
Value is a social relation, not a thing. You can analyze an object from
here to eternity in all the chemistry and physics laboratories on earth
and you will never find a speck of value. There is absolute nothing
about the physical features of, say, an automobile and a toothpick
to indicate the value of either. Value is a social relationship. It is
NOT a feature of things. Another way of putting it, perhaps, for those
who want to get their Marx from the air they breathe or from licking
lollipops is that in the sense of "economic theory" implied here Marx
was not an economist.
> If so,
> is that unacceptable to the "labor theory of value"?
It is has nothing whatever to do, one way or the other, with the labor
theory of value. Value is a social relation. The marxist-anarchist Fredy
[one 'D] Perlman offers a partial insight with his statement that Political
Economy is essentially a study of culture. The question it asks and
answer has nothing to do, for example, with the question economists
pose of "How are prices set?" Rather, it asks how, under given historical
conditions, living human activity is allocated.
I won't go further, because it is impossible to discuss anything when the
discussion begins with such meaningless questions as these. Marx did
not produce an economic theory. He produced a critique of Political
Economy. So under the Subject line of this post there is nothing for a
marxist to discuss.
Carrol Cox
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
