Riccardo wrote (in part) in (2369):
>At 22:54 26-05-1996 -0700, Fred Moseley wrote:
>
>>I would appreciate any thoughts Chai-on or others might have about this
>>question (including especially Riccardo, who I think has stated in several
>>posts that he thinks that money must be a commodity in Marx's theory, but
>>has not yet explained why, so far as I can tell).
>
>What I tried to state is a complex set of propositions, the following:
>
>(i) in Marx's original labour theory of value, money was deduced as a
>commodity at the beginning of capital, when Marx analyses (general)
>exchange as such. Eventually, value is labour because it is the amount of
>labour producing the money who 'buys' the commodity.
>
But this still does not seem to explain HOW money was deduced as a
commodity, or WHY money must be a commodity. What is the reasoning that led
to this conclusion?
Thanks,
Fred