Massimo wrote on Tue, 9 Dec:
> [...] It seems to me that if some theoretical category is political
> then this is indeed money. [...]
> Second, it seems to me that the question of how commodity-money turns
> into unconvertible paper is **both** a historical and theoretical
> question. The open question for us would be
> to identify within the form of (commodity-money) general equivalent
> the seed for its transformation into paper-money general equivalent,
> and at the same time to be able to see how this was
> transformation was historically possible. [...]
Regarding the first two sentences that I excerpted above: I doubt if any
of us would disagree. (of course I could be wrong. do others
disagree?). Regarding your "open question": it seems to me that the
further development of the money-form presupposes and requires the further
theoretical development of the *state-form*. For instance, the development
of paper-money is both historically and logically linked to the role of
the capitalist state. Thus, perhaps the reason why your open question
is an open question is that the state-form was abstracted from in
_Capital_ (even though there are parenthetical/historical comments
related to the role of the state: examples perhaps of what Tony called
"Vorstellung") to be taken-up and systematically developed in Book IV (in
the 6-book-plan).
In solidarity, Jerry