Subject: [OPE-L:1862] the money supply
Date: Wed Dec 08 1999 - 08:16:50 EST
If one is going to also claim that commodity money is an essential
characteristic of both Marx's theory and capitalism, ***then what happens
if and when gold no longer is the money commodity??? It seems to me
that one would then be backed-into the position of claiming that
a) Marx's [entire!] theory is out-dated and irrelevant!; and b) capitalism
has been transcended!!!
Why either? Instead (c): "another commodity has become the money commodity".
Alternatively (c'): "several commodities are candidates to be the
replacement money commodity".
As far as my knowledge goes, both of these would be entirely within Marx's
Until recently, I might have ventured to suggest that the following response
to claims that money is being de-commodified would also be in line with
Marx's views -- namely,
(c'') gold's (apparent) demonetisation is the counterpart of the advent of
highly sophisticated commodity markets (including futures markets), which
provide a kind of virtual general equivalent.
But a recent post (since deleted, so I can't refer) reminded us that Marx
derided the view that two (material) general equivalents -- i.e. gold and
silver -- could co-exist for long.
So, if one accepts that Marx's view of capitalism requires that there be a
(single) general equivalent commodity, is there anything in Marx that
requires this to be a physical substance (bearing in mind that Marx clearly
accepted that commodities did not *have* to be physical substances -- think
of labour-power, if no other...)?
In the Grundrisse there is a section of many pages where Marx notes the many
technical circumstances that make gold most suitable to be the money
commodity -- but this discussion evidently implies that another commodity
might supplant gold, if its technical characteristics allowed it to fulfil
the role of general equivalent more conveniently.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Sun Dec 12 1999 - 15:45:03 EST