>And waht was the argument that Marx was making? That there could be
>a general glut in his C(1)-M-C(2) circuit?
OPE participant Claus Germer is very illuminating here:
"in direct exchange value coexists with or is attached to a particular use
value in each commodity, thereby constituting an obstacel to exchange,
since an exchange, (ie., the recirocal realization of the private labors
contained in true commodities) can only occur when it happens at the same
time that the specific use value of ech of the commoditeis simltaneously
meets a consumer need of the producers of the other commodity. This
contradiction is resolved with the birth of money, which is projected
outside the commoidty, situating itself in the sphere of circulation, which
thereby comes into existence. At this point the world of commodities
divides into two: On the one hand, money concentrates the quality of value
that all commodities have but appears to lose the quality of use value that
it possesses like every other commodity. On the other hand, commodities
appear as pure value values, as if stripped of values. Thhus is created
'the real appearance' that commodities are mere use values and money is
soley a convention. Under these circumstances THE CONTRADICTION EXPRESSES
THE FACT THAT THE PRIVATE LABOR CONTAINED IN A COMMODITY RECEIVES SOCIAL
SANCTION ONLY IF THE LATTER CAN BE CONVERTED INTO MONEY." my emphasis.
Here is the possibility of general crisis that Marx's theory of money
developed through the critique of Proudhon and Ricardo opens up. It seems
to me idiosyncratic, Ajit, to call this a Walrasian problematic.
Yours, Rakesh
Claus Germer in "Monetary Economy or Capitalist Economy" in *Marx, Keynes,
and Money*, ed. Paul Mattick Jr, __International Journal of Political
Economy__ Fall 1997, vol 27, no. 3