Mike W wrote in [OPE-L:4664]:
> > > Alejandro Ramos:
> > > What is the use-value of money?
> > It does not have one - see my EEA'97 working paper.
>If money doesn't have a use-value, why is it used?
As I argue in my paper, to be socially or privately 'useful' (as Money is)
does not exhaust the import of the category 'use-value'. Use-value is one
moment of Commodity, in contradictory unity with Value. Money has no Value
and no use-value, rather it is the sole autonomous existence of Value as
form.
Is this just some kind of philosophical obscurantism (of the kind of which
Marx stands accused in 'making a fuss' about abstract labour, and not
seeing that we don't need a complex social system, proximately market
mechanisms, in order to commensurate concrete labours as Abstract Labour,
because a stop-watch will perform the abstraction for us ... Allin? Andrew
K? )? I don't think so.