[OPE-L:4629] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Part of My Confusion ontheTransformation

From: Allin Cottrell (cottrell@wfu.edu)
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000 - 22:14:27 EST

On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Rakesh Narpat Bhandari wrote:

> >You're right, in that fiat money is not a produced commodity and
> >doesn't participate in any equalization of the rate of profit,
> >unlike Marx's commodity money.
> Allin, Marx's commodity money is no more allowed to participate in
> the equalisation of profit rates in vol 3 than it is allowed to
> change its own value in vol I. The assumption that the value of money
> is constant is an assumption which underlies all three volumes of
> Capital.

I think you're trading on a confusion here.  In one sense the
value of (commodity) money doesn't change in the transformation,
i.e. in the same sense that _no_ commodity values change in the
transformation (the labour time required to produce them is not
altered).  But that doesn't mean that the "monetary expression
of value" remains constant, i.e. that the monetary unit
continues to command in exchange the same amount of labour
embodied (in other goods) as "before" the transformation.  That
just can't be "assumed", if money itself is a commodity.

Allin Cottrell.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Dec 31 2000 - 00:00:03 EST