From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2008 - 05:54:51 EDT
Yes but here we have Smith's bourgeois world view projected back in time. Why assume that exchange is prior? We now know, from archaelogical data unavailable to Smith, that exchange was the not the primary mode of product allocation in early civilisations. If one were looking only at the phoenicians trading with barbarian nations, then weighed gold that passed by weight not by tale could plausibly be seen to evolve. But that is a special case, with states we see either in the Mesopotamian case, a unit of account and records of tax debt comming first, or in the Greek states, the issuance of coins which passed by tale. The necessity for a universal equivalent arises independently of commodity exchange as soon as there exist obligations that have to be settled. If one wants to assess obligations arising from marriage, murder or injury, these are already of different sorts, but they can be cast into a single scale if you express them all in cattle. This makes cattle a universal unit of account for obligations, but it does not imply commodity trade, nor does it make cattle money. This is evident from modern anthropological studies of subsistence herders. In this case we have diverse obligations settled with a single unit. The other form occurs where we have a single obligation settled in diverse units. Suppose we have a tax obligation of 60 shekels of barley, this can then be settled in multiple use values according to the scales set out from time to time by royal edict. dogangoecmen@aol.com wrote: > Lets accept for a moment Paul C's state theory of money (which is > wrong, he should know that from Smith's exploration of the history of > money. People used to use many things as money before there was > anything like that can be called state.) But we have to ask why the > state issues money? There must be a reason for that. Traditional > explanation says to easy barter (Locke, Smith). It means for the sake > of exchange. But why do people use money to exchange. What do they > exchange when they use money a mediation between two things? Why do > they use a third thing exchange? These questions cannot be answered > without referring to commodity and exchange of commodities. The state > issues money but it arises from the contradictory nature of commodities. > > Dogan > > -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- > Von: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu > An: Outline on Political Economy mailing list <ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > Verschickt: Mi., 9. Apr. 2008, 11:20 > Thema: Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century > > By posing the question this way you are asking if the regular use of a > money commodity could exist WITHOUT some social and political > structure. Thus you imply not only that societies had to be political > before the evolution of money, but that - wrongly - politics per se > provides an explanation for the nature of the money commodity. > > Whilst it is possible to imagine a certain level of 'accidental' , > spontaneous and coincidental use of the most convenient commodities as > money commodities (plural) in very poorly developed societies, the > reality is that the two processes go together, and money first evolves > at the margin of early society. So your question disguises the real > need to find a money commodity to overcome the contradictory nature of > the traded good ( that it is, without the money commodity any > commodity is both a use value and a money commodity). The early role > of the state was simply to prevent abuse and cheating with the > commonly used money because the money commodity had ALREADY achieved > social validity. > > Later on the forced circulation of paper money, the use of the 'state' > stamp, arose because of the desire to promote commodity exchange and > so that the state could more easily gather in surpluses. BUT this > doesn't explain why the money commodity exists. > > paul b. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Cockshott" <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk > <mailto:wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>> > To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" > <ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>> > Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 11:51 PM > Subject: RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century > > > That is not quite the question. > > The question is whether commodity exchange alone without the state > ever gave rise to money. > > > Paul Cockshott > Dept of Computing Science > University of Glasgow > +44 141 330 1629 > www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/ > <http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu > <mailto:ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu> on behalf of paul bullock > Sent: Tue 4/8/2008 1:04 PM > To: Outline on Political Economy mailing list > Subject: Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century > > Dave, > > I know of no evidence that money was issued by any state in the > absence of > some form of commodity exchange. > > Paul > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Zachariah" <davez@kth.se > <mailto:davez@kth.se>> > To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" > <ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu>> > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 9:26 AM > Subject: Re: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century > > > on 2008-04-05 00:16 paul bullock wrote: > >> Marx demonstrated through a dialectical method, why money came into > >> existence and what it represented. Then he demonstrated why a > concept of > >> price at one stage in the development of commodity production had > to give > >> weay to another concept ie 'simple price' to 'price of production'. > Here > >> I use the term concept as an idea that actually properly grasps a real > >> process. > > > > Paul, I think you need to be careful with the word 'demonstrated' here. > > You can demonstrate logically, i.e. deduce certain consequences, and > you > > can demonstrate things empirically. They are not the same thing. It > does > > not matter if the logical demonstration was consistent and elegant, > if it > > is contradicted by empirical evidence one discards the theory in the > > search for a better one. > > > > Marx deduced the origin of money, but it is a prediction that lacks > > empirical support. Money did not emerge from commodity production > but from > > pre-capitalist states. > > > >> > >> (Incidentally since Marx died when my own grandfather was already > 16, I > >> feel you should play down the 'too many years ago' bit as if it > were an > >> argument ;-) > > > > It was just a reminder that Karl Marx was a human being in a long > line of > > great thinkers but with knowledge and concepts conditioned by the > > historical circumstances of his day. If you put Marx at par with other > > great thinkers of that century, such as Darwin and Maxwell and > compare how > > their scientific theories were refined with time as empirical evidence > > accumulated and new theoretical concepts were introduced, then you will > > have a sober reading of Marx, the social scientist. > > > > //Dave Z > > _______________________________________________ > > ope mailing list > > ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > > > > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > _______________________________________________ > > ope mailing list > > ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > > > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu <mailto:ope@lists.csuchico.edu> > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Bei AOL gibt's jetzt kostenlos eMail für alle! Was es sonst noch > umsonst bei AOL gibt, finden Sie hier heraus *AOL.de* <http://www.aol.de>. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > ope mailing list > ope@lists.csuchico.edu > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope > _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 30 2008 - 00:00:18 EDT