[OPE-L:2854] Re: Partial Reply toFreds on Althusser

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@Princeton.EDU)
Date: Fri Apr 14 2000 - 20:37:01 EDT

[ show plain text ]

As for money as commodity/non commodity, it has been pointed out
before that the money fetish is as if the concept of Fruit is not
derived from the existence of apples, oranges but that oranges, apples,
etc. are mere mundane manifestations, predicates of Fruit. How can
one particular fruit, say oranges, become Fruit itself of which all
other fruits but instantiations.

Money however is a real hypostatization. As absurd is that is.

Money is simply a category mistake. Not Hegel but Ryle, correct?

The more we probe money the less we can discover the secret of its
fetishistic power. There is surely nothing in Keynes like this.
I'd say it's not so much that there is no theory of the necessity of'
money in Keynes (at least from the textbooks I have); there is simply
no convincing theory of its fetishistic power, though of course this is
what puzzled Keynes the most--how one this one thing can become the object
of desire which cannot be readily produced even as the demand for it cannot
be choked off.

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT