Were the Nazis radical environmentalists?

[Rakesh Bhandari]

> 
> Doesn't the "Critique of the Gotha Programme" contain a passage in which
> Marx rants at the Gotha Programme writers for saying that labor is the
> source of all value? Doesn't Marx by contrast contend that nature is the
> source of much use-value, and that labor is the source only of
> exchange-value? (Put to one side for the moment the fact that Marx was
> mistaken about the second, and that nature and capital scarcity are the
> sources of exchange value as well.)

Brad, Marx does not say that labor is the source only of exchange value.
Marx "corrects" the classical labor theory of value and specifies that
only *abstract* labor creates value. What hinges on this distinction is
discussed brilliantly in my fave exegetical work: Moishe Postone's Time,
Labor and Social Domination. Someone else, other than Henryk Grossmann, 
who has recognized the importance of said correction is  William J Blake,
Marxian Economic Theory and Its Criticism (1939). And if I remember
correctly in Marx's Crises Theories, Michael Perelman quotes  crucial
passages from Marx's Theory of Surplus Value where Marx develops his
critiqe of the Ricardian Socialists (Hodgskin or Thompson) in terms of
their failure to specify the kind of labor which creates exchange value
and its mysteries. Michael's book led me to the relevant passages in
Theories of Surplus Value. If you are suggesting that phenomena of rent
and interest cannot be explained in terms of Marx's theory of value, I
accept that this is no small challenge. 

Best,
Rakesh