RE: [OPE] Dialectics for the New Century

wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk

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/

-----Original Message-----
From: 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>
To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list" <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
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
> 

_______________________________________________
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