In order to cast doubt on Ale's suggestion that commodity-money was already
'on the way out' in Marx's own account of 19th century capitalism, Jerry
quotes from (V3, International ed., pp. 516-517):
> "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;
Michael W:
I interpret this as one of the strongest textual supports for the
*opposition* between Money and Commodity
Marx continues:
> 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.
Michael W:
What is lost by placing the emphasis on 'DEFINITE' instead of 'commodity',
dropping 'other' (twice), and noting that 'the GENERAL COMMODITY, the
COMMODITY *PAR EXCELLENCE*' is indeed distinguished as a unique commodity -
a *very peculiar* Commodity - so peculiar that it does not fall under the
category Commodity ? Because, IMO, a lot is to be gained in terms of
conceptual clarity,
Marx continues
> ... . 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.
Michael W:
Quite - give or take another 'other'.
Comrade Charles again:
> ... . 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.ed.
> 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.
Michael W:
This tells us two things: that trying to maintain gold-convertibility can
be a mistake for capitalism (the material basis for which might be the
undue political influence of money-capital); and that the State is
necessarily implicated in the reproduction of Money - even when it is
(supposed to be) Commodity Money.
Karl:
> 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...."
Michael W:
Here, it is clear that Marx is arguing about the greater usefulness of
credit as Money for Capital, despite the fact that it facilitates and
exacerbates crises of accumulation.
I realise that my 'rectifications' will be unwelcome to those who don't
believe that any adjustment needs to be made to accommodate the development
of the real categories of capitalism since Marx's day. Of course, I
recognise that there is still a legitimate and unresolved dispute about
wether, and to what extent, commodity money (in the form of bullion
reserves) has lost its significance in the regulation of capitalism. IMO,
the right way to examine this issue is to investigate how these reserves
might 'bite back' if capital and/or the State tried to ignore their
effects. (The analogy might be the way in which the law of gravity would
bite-back if I tried to ignore its effects by leaping out of my 16th floor
window, flapping my arms vigorously.)
Incidently, I would be interested in anyone's interpretation, in the light
of their Marxist theory of money, of the current spat in Germany over
Kohl's attempt to re-value that country's gold reserves (in order to
improve the fiscal balance for the purposes of meeting the criteria for
joining the Euro), which was resisted by the Bundesbank. (The outcome was a
compromise in which Kohl gets his revaluation, but it is apparently not
allowed to affect Germany's books until after the qualifying period for the
Euro). Of course at one level it is just another example of a very cautious
Central Bank fearful of inflationary pressures (now, and by precedent, for
the Euro in the future) vs a politician with a broader set of macroeconomic
indicators in mind. But what will the revaluation mean in Marxist value
terms: an adjustment to the 'true' labour value, from the existing
undervaluation of Germany's gold? Or a move to 'over-value' gold? or what.
One could ask the same series of questions about some kind of shadow
equilibrium price of gold-reserves.
Any comments?
Michael
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------
Dr Michael Williams
"Books are Weapons"
Department of Economics Home:
School of Social Sciences 26 Glenwood Avenue
De Montfort University Southampton
Hammerwood Gate SO16 3QA
Kents Hill
Milton Keynes
MK7 6HP
tel:+1908 834876 tel/fax: +1703 768641
fax:+1908 834979
email: mwilliam@torres.mk.dmu.ac.uk mwilliam@compuserve.com
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam