Ale writes
> But Marx defines money as a "*general* commodity", and I wish to
> stress here the word *general*. General is the *negation* of any
> *particular* thing, in this case, any particular commodity. Its like
> we have the "general cat" although in this case we have actually the
> "general commodity" as a real thing, while the "general cat" is only a
> Platonic abstraction.
>
> Marx says that money has only a *formal* use value, derived from its
> social functions, with is enough to understand that it is not a
> commodity like "corn", "rice", etc.
>
> So, trying to respond Jerrys interesting question: There is no such
> "transformation from the money commodity to money in non-commodity
> form" neither historically nor theoretically. From the beginning
> money is the negation of commodity and thus a "non-commodity".
>
Just so - you don't need to read my paper, Ale!
*===================================*
Michael@mwilliam.u-net.com
"Books are Weapons"
Dr Michael Williams
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
additional email address:
mwilliam@torres.mk.dmu.ac.uk
http://www.mk.dmu.ac.uk/~mwilliam