From: cmgermer@UFPR.BR
Date: Mon Jul 12 2004 - 14:13:44 EDT
Hi Howard, You wrote: > Now that said, some qualifications are possible. First, "commodities" > might > serve better than 'commodity'. In talking about world money, Marx says > gold > and silver can serve as the money commodity simultaneously without either > chasing the other out. It may well be that a small oligarchy of > commodities > could together function as world money today. I don't know this, but it > seems theoretically possible. However, Marx’s statement about gold and silver simultaneously functionning as money is restricted to a very special case, which only holds temporarily: the ratio of the value of one of them [f.i. silver] to that of the other [f.i. gold] must remain unchanged. Marx adds: “Every change in their ratio disturbs the ratio which exists between the gold-prices and the silver-prices of commodities, and thus proves, by facts, that A DOUBLE STANDARD OF VALUE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE FUNCTIONS OF A STANDARD” (CI, ch. 3.1). There is in effect no reason at all for the expectation that the exchange ratio between two commodities can remain unchanged. For centuries it was thought, perhaps based on the concept of money as an ideal unit of value, that a law could set an arbitrary exchange ratio between gold and silver. The evolution of the monetary system proved it to be wrong; For the same reason, I guess, the function of measure could not be performed by a set of commodities either. About this, I think it was Marshall who once suggested the use of an amalgam of gold and silver as the money unit, but the idea did not move on. There are reports about the existence, in ancient times, of a natural amalgam of gold an silver called ellectrum, that is supposed to have served as one of the first coins. But after the improvement of metallurgical skills made it possible to separate gold from silver, allowing the issuance of separate gold and silver coins, the issue of an artificial amalgam was never tried again, as far as I know. Doesn’t Marx’s presentation of the development of money rule out the hypothesis you have raised as being compatible with Marx’s concept of money? The money form is the *general* equivalent of value, following the *total or expanded form*, where there are several particular equivalent forms. Thus, the existence of a world money would represent the develpment of a general equivalent in the international sphere of capitalism, which has been realized in the form of the so called international gold standard in the late 19th century. In this theoretical frameword, the hypothesis that the present different national currencies are particular equivalent of values, i.e., different ‘monies’, would mean that capitalism made a step back in its historical development. However, thinking of those currencies as forms of national credit money based on a common world money, takes us back to Marx’s framework. But then we need to find out what the common world money is today. Claus. > Hi Fred, > > Thanks for the question, and sorry for the delay in responding to it. > > You ask whether money as a measure of value must be a commodity today. > > Briefly, I'd want to start with the causal tendencies set in motion by > established structures of social relations. Where the social relation > that > generates the product as a commodity exists, then the product of labor is > constituted by value, and value, which is not presented empirically like > texture or other physical qualities, must find a vehicle for its > expression. > It finds its means of expression in the body of another commodity and this > process in turn generates the money commodity. I don't know any way to > supercede or transcend this process other than by transforming the > generative social structure responsible for the existence of products as > values in the first place (the transition to socialism). So my answer to > your question would be yes. > > Now that said, some qualifications are possible. First, "commodities" > might > serve better than 'commodity'. In talking about world money, Marx says > gold > and silver can serve as the money commodity simultaneously without either > chasing the other out. It may well be that a small oligarchy of > commodities > could together function as world money today. I don't know this, but it > seems theoretically possible. Second, the thing that makes commodities > commensurable is labor time measured by duration, so it is the reciprocal > net work of pro rata proportions of total social labor that must be > measured > and given expression. Sophisticated mathematics no doubt helps. Third, > symbols such as inconvertible paper can stand in for money if the coercive > tools of the state ensure their efficacy and a roughly stable relation to > the set of value relations requiring expression is maintained. Such > symbols > could also then tend to function as units of measurement. Finally, I > doubt > there is a barrier to the currency of a particular nation serving as > something pretty much approximating world money in a particular social > historical conjuncture so long as it is supported by an appropriate > relation > of force. In other words, just as with forced currency within a nation, > if > the paper money of a nation is to function in that way, there must be > guarantees, legal and otherwise, that if someone accepts paper they will > in > fact be able to turn it into real values. > > Anyway, underlying it all, Marx reminds, there lurks always potential for > recourse to nothing but hard cash. > > Howard > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Fred Moseley" <fmoseley@MTHOLYOKE.EDU> > To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> > Sent: Friday, July 02, 2004 9:45 AM > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] measurement of abstract labor > > >> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Howard Engelskirchen wrote: >> >> > Hi Paul, >> > >> > You wrote: >> > >> > Metrologists want a standard of weight that does not itself >> > 'contain' weight. >> > >> > My understanding is that the standard for measuring length is the wave >> > length emitted by an isotope of krypton. I haven't read the issue of >> > Science you refer to, but my guess would be that if meterologists are > able >> > to define weight in terms of something that is not weight it will be > because >> > they can reduce weight to that property. You might be able to avoid >> the >> > problem of a mass absorbing mass from the atmosphere, but you won't > avoid >> > the problem that in comparing two things they must be comparable under > some >> > common aspect which they share. Two things are distant from one >> another >> > because they both have existence in space (Marx's critique of Bailey). > Two >> > things are comparable in the property of what we now call weight >> because >> > e.g. they both resist acceleration or whatever other common aspect >> turns > out >> > to solve the kilogram problem. >> > >> > Howard >> >> >> Howard, are you suggesting that money as measure of value must be a >> commodity today? >> >> Comradely, Fred >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 15 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT