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

From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 21:16:48 EDT

Hi Riccardo.

> I agree: but I think that capitalism must be first analyzed looking
> at a system made only by workers and capitalist firms.

You are referring, though, to the order of the *presentation*.
Let us be clear, though, that an analysis of the emergence of
money *in capitalism*  requires a comprehension of the role of
the state in the monetary system .  I, of course, agree that the
subject of Capital (in Marx's 6-book-plan, Book I) should be
presented before the subject of The State (Book IV) because
of the character of the subject (capitalism) that is being explained.
To say that one should first present an explanation independently
of the state *in no way* means that the emergence of money and
the state are not intrinsically linked. Rather, it is simply a
consequence of a layered presentation which is an expression of
the method of abstraction.  Indeed, within that layered presentation
there is an analytical *requirement* to explain how the state
impacts this topic.

In solidarity, Jerry

PS to Costas:  no need for apologies about 'Gerry'.  I don't get
offended that easily.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jun 02 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT