From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Sun Nov 30 2003 - 11:58:08 EST
Phil wrote: > To give up the idea that money is a universal equivalent merely > because prices can fluctuate while production conditions remain > unchanged seems to me to be folly. Marx does it, of course. I'm not sure I follow. What is "it" that Marx does? Is it "folly"? > If > money is not a universal equivalent then what is it? A medium of exchange along with many other social functions. One doesn't have to give up on the idea that money is a universal equivalent to recognize that prices of individual commodities are not necessarily equal to their value. > Consider the circuit of money capital. The capitalist starts off > with some money but the value of the constant capital acquired with it > is not equal to the value of the money. The capitalist ends up with > more money but the value of this money is not equal to the > value of the commodity capital sold. Can't the MELT change? > The question is not whether I should read Volume 3 but rather why, if > the universal equivalent is rejected, anyone should bother to read > Volume I? Because the concept that money functions as a universal equivalent is only one (relatively small) part of Marx's analysis in Volume 1. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Dec 02 2003 - 00:00:01 EST