In reply to Mattick [OPE-L:662] and Riccardo [OPE-L: 660]
Thank you for your kind reply.
First, to Riccardo [OPE-L:660]; of course, it is of no small difference.
Money is produced by a directly social labor. Other ordinary
commodities, by contrast, are produced by private labors, by indirectly
social labors. But Mattick argued both money and any other ordinary
commodity were produced by private labors. Only by a commodity
exchange, he contends, the private labor can be recognized as a social
labor. He maintains that this is also Marx's point. You, too would not
agree with him.
To Mattick [OPE-L:662]; Road construction is on a social order. The
labor is already realized as a social labor in the contract of the road
construction. The production of money was also on a social order. It is
welcomed at any time (as far as it is not a mere symbol). So, I argued
the money-producing labor was a directly social labor. It has not a
potential but a real value the moment it is produced. Its producer needs
not exchange it with other commodity to prove it has a real value. If
the money fell into the sea, its possessor must have lost a value.
For Mattick, however, the production of money was not on a social
order. It might not be welcomed on the market and so its value might
not be realized. So, he argues the money-producing labor is not a
directly social labor but a private labor. Its potential value needs to be
realized in its exchange with other commodities. If the money fell into
the sea, its potential value fails to be realized.
What is at issue between me and Mattick is if the production of
money was or was not on a social order, if it can or might not be
welcomed on the market. If the production of money was not on a
social order and might not be welcomed on the market, as Mattick
maintains, I would argue then the money was not a genuine money but
a forged or a mere ordinary commodity. It is by definition that money
is supposed to be welcomed at any time on the market.
What do you think of this definition? I simply feel quite strange to
be told that the money-producing labor is not a directly social labor.
Yours
Thanks again
Chai-on Lee