I agree that money is important in Marx. The problem is to know if the
recent revival in Marxian value theory has *underestimated* money's role
(here mùy criticism is the opposite than Ajit's). Maybe that if one
stresses the role of money as finance, s/he will be able both to rescue the
priority of (potential) values over price determination and to analyse the
(actualization) of value on the market. In my view, most of Ajit's points
are quite sound, because they refer to the extortion of living labour in
the valorization process from wage labour as commanded by money capital.
That is: it is simply not true that if we study the valorization process
before final exchange on the commodity market we forget the link between
money and value. While if we collapses (the creation of value in)
production and (the actualization of value) in circulation we get in
trouble.
riccardo
At 7:23 23-04-1997, aramos@aramos.bo wrote:
>> Duncan:
>>
>> >I dont think money is "everything" in Marx, but certainly one of his major
>> >achievements is the integration of the theory of money with the theory of
>> >the commodity and value in the first three chapters of Volume I of Capital.
>
>Ajit:
>
>> I have not explored the question of the theory of money in Marx, so cant
>> agree or disagree at this time.
>
>Alejandro R. asks:
>
>Could you please expand on this? How can one study Marx's theory of
>value without "exploring the question of the theory of money"?
>
>(Almost 1/2 of Vol I, Ch. 1 is devoted to study the "value-form", 2/3
>of Vol. I Part 1, "explores" the "theory of money"; 3/4 if one
>includes Ch. 2, which essentially explains why the "process of
>exchange" necessarily generates "money".)
>
>I think there is no a "theory of money in Marx" as something
>separated of his theory of value. As Duncan says above: "one of his
>major achievements is the integration of the theory of money with the
>theory of the commodity and value in the first three chapters of
>Volume I of Capital."
>
>Alejandro R.