[OPE-L:4716] Re: use-value of money

Michael William (mwilliam@compuserve.com)
Thu, 10 Apr 1997 13:55:24 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

> > > I agree: Money doesn't 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.
> >
Paul C.:
> 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
> and
> unit of account.
Alejandro can, of course, speak for himself. However, that one universal
equivalent unit of account, the sheckle, was a measure Barley, a useful
object, in the second babylonian empire says absolutely nothing about
whether Capitalist Money must necessarily (for systemic reproduction) be
manifest in a Commodity.

Even if there were a systematic exchange ratio between barley and the
sheckle in the second babylonian empire, I guess it is no longer the same
as in modern Israel?

Dr Michael Williams
"Books are Weapons"

Department of Economics Home:
School of Social Sciences 26 Glenwood Avenue
De Montfort University Southampton
Hammerwood Gate SO16 3QA
Kents Hill
Milton Keynes
tel:+1908 834876 tel/fax: +1703 768641
fax:+1908 834979
email: mwilliam@torres.mk.dmu.ac.uk mwilliam@compuserve.com