>
> 4- Conclusion: under capitalism, gold is *never* the measure of value, and it
> need *not* be money. The measure of value under capitalism is not any
> commodity; it is *the rate of valorization of capital*. It's on the basis of
> this rate that the transformation gives us (however we may imagine that it
> actually happens) a vector of prices of production.
>
This does not seem a very satisfactory account. The development of the
monetary system from gold to paper money seems not to depend upon the
transformation of values into prices of production. The changes in
social relations necessary to effect it have been to do with the
banking system and the state. As such they are orthogonal to changes
that might be involved in the ratios between values and prices of
production.
As a causal model it is unable to account for the change from gold
money to state money, since, (leaving aside any qualification about the
realism of prices of production), there is no reason to suppose that
production prices only started to operate once the gold standard was
abandoned.
It is also very confusing to say that
"The measure of value under capitalism is not any
commodity; it is *the rate of valorization of capital*."
This is unsatisfactory on two accounts
1. It is a recursive definition without a fixed point, it defines value
in terms of value.
2. It is dimensionally incorrect: value can not be expressed in terms
a rate of valorisation which is value per unit time.