Krugman on Marx

[Chris Burford]

At 08:40 PM 8/13/98 -0400, Tom wrote:
>
>On Fri, 14 Aug 1998, Chris Burford wrote:
>
>> Labour is not the source of all value, according to Marx (Critique of the
>> Gotha Programme).
>
>I am reading Capital through for the first time right now, so I am raising
>this question in the hope of learning something -- not to start an
>argument that I won't be able to finish. It appears to me that the
>Critique of the Gotha Program says that labor is not the source of all
>use-values, thus not necessarily the source of everything a person might
>value. But it does not appear to say that labor is not the source of
>value, i.e. specifically capitalist value. And the early chapters of
>Capital do seem to say that labor is just that. In other words, labor is
>the only source of that by which we can pay a fair price for something in
>a market. (There are obviously many ways to get something at an unfair
>price.) If chapters 1 and 6 don't say this, I need help to understand what
>they do say.
>
>Tom
>
>Thomas Waters
>twaters at usit.net
>1021 East Oak Hill Avenue, Knoxville TN 37917
>Dig And Be Dug In Return

I agree with your clarification. I read the statement by Cassidy as a
sweeping dismissal of Marx in which I assumed he was muddling up
exchange-value and use-value, and other things to assert that Marx was
internally inconsistent. My main point was to argue that even now, to
assume that Marx said exchange value is labour, and to talk assume that the
"Labour Theory of Value" was Marx's theory may give hostages to the enemy. 

There is a Capital reading group starting on Chapter one at 

<li-crg-request at lists.econ.utah.edu>

It also has a web-site. 

Chris Burford