From: Costas Lapavitsas (cl5@SOAS.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 05:36:11 EDT
Can I ask on what historical sources you rely for this strong and confident statement? Costas At 09:20 01/06/2004 +0100, you wrote: > > 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 : Thu Jun 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT