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

From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 04:20:20 EDT

 > 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 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT