RE: the labor theory of value

[Lisa & Ian Murray]

 By Chapter One of _Capital_, both Nature and human labor are
 sources of use-values. Only human labor is a source of exchange-values.
=====
I know that. My question was trying to get at whether Marx was saying that
even though nature is the source of use-values, it "in-itself" does or does
not have value? In other words was he still operating within Lockean
premises that nature has no value until somebody mixes her/his labor with
it? Is the source of use-value [then on to exchange value] itself valuable
and what kind of value, if so, is it? Do we have to expand the taxonomy of
values given to us by M.? I ask because it is the source of a big rift in
the green "movement" which needs to be ameliorated in some form different
from the ick given by deep ecology.

Ian