| This question <65|127-3> overall <66|68> Hans: <64|70>. |
| Question 147: What is the progress of the Money form as compared to the General Equivalent form? |
| [67] Hans: Money made out of Linen Gemni [65] got it almost right but not quite. He says the difference between the General form of value (form C) and the money form (form D) is that it is no longer linen but gold. Indeed, this is exactly what Marx seems to say in G162:4 V162:4: |
| There is no difference between forms C and D, except that gold instead of linen has now assumed the Universal equivalent form. |
| “Gold” and “linen” in this passage must be understood metaphorically. Gold stands for a specific commodity which is by social custom always in the Universal equivalent form, while “linen” stands for a Universal equivalent which is decided case by case, perhaps because it is most convenient for the situation at hand. If there would be a social agreement to always use linen and never anything else as general equivalent, then linen would be in the money form and not gold. |
| This social agreement always to have the same use value as general equivalent has important implications. The welding together of a particular use value with a particular form of value generates a true novelty, and the functions of money in Chapter Three show how fertile this combination is. For instance, as long as the general equivalent is only created temporarily, and there is no guarantee that the same commodity would be general equivalent next year or in the neighboring village, then gold hoarding would not be possible, or gold rushes would not be possible, or capitalism would not be possible. The Universal equivalent is a technical means for the exchange, while money is the independent incarnation of wealth, is value which is no longer encumbered by the particularity of any use value. |
|
|
|||||