From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Sat Oct 30 2004 - 03:09:06 EDT
Re: [OPE-L] (OPE-L) recent references on 'problem' ofRakesh, Whose and what post is this a reply to? In solidarity, Jerry I agree with you when you write: "the necessity of money is derived from the necessity to objectively represent the abstract labour contained in commodities;" A lot doubtless hinges on exactly how the concept of representation is being used in this context. And we probably don't need Derrida to understand what a difficult concept representation is. Would you agreee that Marx was primarily interested in virtue of the exclusive re-presentation of what does money create the possibility in a money mediated economy of a general crisis. Isn't this what Marx means by the failure of all hitherto thought to get behind the dazzling money form, i.e. to disclose that which money exclusively re-presents which allows it to go from a force of to a fetter on production? You write: "(3) the quantity of money in circulation is derived from the sum of prices." The best reconstruction of Marx's argument that I know of is in the first volume of Ranganayakamma's book on Capital. You also asked: Is there any sense in which money is a commodity today? I tried an affirmative answer with my hypothesis of a composite commodity theory of money. But you were dismissive of it, unfairly I of course think!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Oct 31 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT