From: Allin Cottrell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed Jun 02 2004 - 21:09:20 EDT
On Wed, 2 Jun 2004, Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > on the analysis of money, it seems that we have to reach clarity as > to what kind of account Marx is providing. He refers to it as an > ideal genesis of money--this seems to be the key phrase. How does > this compare to a history of money? What about money is it supposed > to explain? Is it an evolutionary account? The problem is that an "ideal genesis" can be totally arbitrary: the way one thinks (on some basis or other) that money "ought to have emerged". Marx has a certain amount in common with the standard neoclassical fairy tales of commodity money -- mostly deriving from Samuelson -- in this respect (historically vice versa, of course). Paul C is reminding us of an important obligation: a putative account of the emergence of money should be consistent with what we now know of the relevant history. This seems a minimal materialist requirement. Allin Cottrell.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT