[OPE-L:4704] Re: use-value of money

Paul Cockshot (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Thu, 10 Apr 1997 02:09:24 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

> From: aramos@aramos.bo
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:4687] Re: use-value of money
> Date: 09 April 1997 15:35
> > I agree: Money doesnt have a use-value and then cannot be a
> commodity. This means that all interpretations in which Marx's
> money is presented as a "commodity" are misleading. For example,
> these system of equations in which one can use "cotton", "grain" or
> "gold" as "money" are neglecting important aspects of Marx's monetary
> theory.
> Money is a "general object" which main function is to represent and
> to conserve, in a autonomous form, abstract social labor-time.

what then was the sheckle? it was a measure of barley, but also, during
at least the second babylonian empire it served as the universal equivalent
unit of account.