Re: (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' of money commodity?

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Oct 30 2004 - 01:13:08 EDT

I agree with you when you write: "the necessity of money is derived
from the necessity to objectively represent the abstract labour
contained in commodities;"

  A lot doubtless hinges on exactly how the concept of representation
is being used in this context. And we probably don't need Derrida to
understand what a difficult concept representation is.

Would you agreee that Marx was primarily interested in virtue of the
exclusive re-presentation of what does money create the possibility
in a money mediated economy of a general crisis. Isn't this what Marx
means by the failure of all hitherto thought to get behind the
dazzling money form, i.e. to disclose that which money exclusively
re-presents which allows it to go from a force of to a fetter on

You write:

"(3) the quantity of money in circulation is derived from the sum of
prices." The best reconstruction of Marx's argument that I know of is
in the first volume of Ranganayakamma's book on Capital.

You also asked:  Is there any sense in which money is a commodity
today? I tried an affirmative answer with my hypothesis of a
composite commodity theory of money. But you were dismissive of it,
unfairly I of course think!

Yours, Rakesh

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 31 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT