The editor, Synthesis/Regeneration.

• Author: Rotering, Frank
• Position: Letters - Letter to the editor

I agree with many of David Orton's comments in his article "Economic Philosophy and Green Electoralism" (S/R37), although I differ with him regarding the strategy for moving forward. For my views on this and other economic issues, please see my website: needandlimits.org.

My main reason for writing is that I was surprised at Orton's comment regarding Marx and the source of human wealth. He states that, "Deeper Greens not only see Nature as having value in itself but also see Nature as the principal source of human wealth--not labor power as in Marxism." The latter part of this statement is clearly wrong.

First, Marx's labor theory of value is not intended to explain the source of wealth (use-value), but rather the basis for prices (exchange-value) under capitalism. Standard economists frequently confuse use-value and exchange-value, largely to mystify the workings of capitalism, but we should not permit this among ourselves.

Second, Marx fully recognized the contributions of nature to human wealth. This awareness is sprinkled throughout Capital, but its clearest expression is probably the following:

The use-values (coat, linen, etc.) ... are combinations of two elements--matter and labour...