Alejandro R wrote in [OPE-L:5204]:
> It seems to me that Claus's points of view are excessively focused in
> Marx's monetary theory at the level of analysis presented in Vol 1,
> Ch. 3 and some passages of Grundrisse.
> For example, in #5181, Claus wrote:
> "Theoretically, in Marxs system, the standard of prices must
> express a given amount of the money-commodity. However, in todays
> economy it apparently doesnt do it."
> This is true for the presentation Marx does in Vol 1, Ch. 3 but --
> as we see in the above passage of Vol. 3-- even in Marx's times there
> were tendencies and realities ("...the domestic market does not need
> any metal even now...") that in Claus's terms appear, perhaps, only
> as belonging to "todays economy". Marx seems to be describing in
> those passages a domestic monetary system purely based on credit
> money (the "national banks") which in Vol I, Ch. 3 is clearly
> abstracted. In other words, Im not sure that we can reduce "Marx's
> system" to the scenario described in Vol. I.
I think there are a few questions here. One is the role of
credit-money and the money-commodity in today's capitalist economies.
Anther is whether the money-commodity can be abstracted from in terms of
grasping the systematic operation of the capitalist mode of production.
Both of these questions have been discussed to varying degrees on this
list before.
*Another* question is the relationship of Marx's analysis of money in
Volume 1 and Volume III of _Capital_. This, of course, is an interpretive
[of Marx] question. Ale's question [excerpted above] falls into this last
question, whereas, Claus's comments above refer to all of these questions.
Regarding the last question, I think it would be a good idea to place the
above quote from V3, Ch. 31 in context before concluding that Marx had
given up the "ghost" of metal and the money-commodity in V3. For instance,
consider the *rest* of the paragraph:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
"It is a basic principle of capitalist production that money, as
an independent form of value, stands in opposition to commodities, or that
exchange-value must assume an independent form in money; and this is only
possible when a definite COMMODITY becomes the material whose value
becomes the measure of all other commodities, so that it thus becomes the
GENERAL COMMODITY, the COMMODITY *PAR EXCELLENCE* -- as distinguished from
all other commodities. This MUST manifest itself in two respects,
particularly among capitalistically developed nations, which to a large
extent replace money, on the one hand, by credit operations, and on the
other by credit-money. IN TIMES OF A SQUEEZE, WHEN CREDIT CONTRACTS OR
CEASES ENTIRELY, MONEY SUDDENLY STANDS AS THE ONLY MEANS OF PAYMENT AND
TRUE EXISTENCE OF VALUE IN ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION TO ALL OTHER COMMODITIES.
Hence the universal depreciation of commodities, the difficulty or even
impossibility of transforming them into money, i.e. into their own purely
fantastic form. Secondly, however, credit-money is only money to the
extent that that it absolutely takes the place of actual money to the
amount of its nominal value. With a drain on gold its convertibility, i.e.
its identity with actual gold becomes problematic. Hence coercive
measures, raising the rate of interest, etc., for the purpose of
safeguarding the conditions of this convertibility. This can be carried
out more or less to extremes by mistaken legislation, based on false
theories of money and enforced upon the nation by the interests of the
money-dealers, the Overstones and their ilk. The basis, however, is given
with the basis of the mode of production itself. A depreciation of
credit-money (not to mention, incidentally, a purely imaginary loss of its
character as money) would unsettle all existing relations. Therefore, the
value of commodities is sacrificed for the purpose of safeguarding the
fantastic and independent existence of this value of money. As
money-value, it is secure only as long as money is secure. For a few
millions in money, many millions in commodities must therefore be
sacrificed. This is inevitable [!, ?, JL] under capitalist production and
constitutes one of its beauties. In former modes of production, this does
not occur because, on the narrow basis upon which they stand, neither
credit nor credit-money can develop greatly. As long as the *social*
character of labour appears as the *money-existence* of commodities, and
thus a *thing* external to actual production, money crises -- independent
of or as an intensification of actual crises -- are inevitable. On the
other hand, it is clear that as long as the credit of a bank is not
shaken, it will alleviate the panic in such cases by increasing
credit-money and intensify it by contracting the latter...." (V3,
International ed., pp. 516-517, capitalization added for emphasis, JL).
>>>>>>>>>>>
Among the many interesting questions posed above are: 1) the role of the
money-commodity and "metal" during a "slump"; 2) the role of the state
in creating credit-money and establishing convertibility; 3) the relation
of "money crises" to "actual crises"; and 4) questions regarding
"inevitability."
In solidarity, Jerry