From: clyder@GN.APC.ORG
Date: Tue Jun 01 2004 - 04:20:20 EDT
> 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 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT