Re: (OPE-L) on money, capital, and the state

From: Costas Lapavitsas (cl5@SOAS.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 05:36:11 EDT

Can I ask on what historical sources you rely for this strong and confident


At 09:20 01/06/2004 +0100, you wrote:
>  > Money, it seems to me, arises spontaneously out of private and social
> > relations among commodity owners. It is a social nexus that necessarily
> takes
> > the form of absolute ability to buy. In a capitalist economy it also
> acts as
> > claim on wealth, since the division of labour is very detailed and
> producers
> > are independent and in competition. It also becomes capital and
> > interest-bearing capital. It further has a variety of non-economic
> roles. But
> > these roles depend on the essential character of money as monopolist of
> > buying ability and do not determine it.
> >
> > As for the state, which Jerry and others have brought up, I think that we
> > should differentiate between the state inducing the emergence of money and
> > the state becoming necessarily associated with money and buttressing it
> with
> > its own power.  The former, I suggest, is analytically misleading (as
> well as
> > historically dubious) and not in line with Marx's letter and spirit. The
> > latter I would have no quarrel with.
> >
> > Costas
> >
>The problem with this account is that there is very little
>historical evidence to support it. It is a theoretical back
>projection of onto early society of Isaac Newtons monetary
>policy as master of the Mint.
>This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT