----------
> From: aramos@aramos.bo
> To: Multiple recipients of list <ope-l@anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu>
> Subject: [OPE-L:4687] Re: use-value of money
> Date: 09 April 1997 15:35
> > I agree: Money doesnt have a use-value and then cannot be a
> commodity. This means that all interpretations in which Marx's
> money is presented as a "commodity" are misleading. For example,
> these system of equations in which one can use "cotton", "grain" or
> "gold" as "money" are neglecting important aspects of Marx's monetary
> theory.
>
> Money is a "general object" which main function is to represent and
> to conserve, in a autonomous form, abstract social labor-time.
>
what then was the sheckle? it was a measure of barley, but also, during
at least the second babylonian empire it served as the universal equivalent
and
unit of account.