| This question <95|91> overall <98|100> Hans: <98|112>. |
| Question 125: Why doesn't Marx say that the simplest value relation is that between commodity and money? |
| [99] Hans: Historical versus “logical” analysis. Morgan's answer in [91] is: Marx is trying to describe the historical origin of money, and originally there was no money but barter without money, therefore he starts with the barter relationship. |
| This is a sensible answer. The only thing wrong with it is Morgan's assumption that Marx is trying to explain the functioning of money from the history of money. Marxists have distinguished between Marx's historical analysis and what they call his logical analysis (although I think the word “logical” is a misnomer here). If you want to understand the functioning of money today you have to understand the connections between the different things as they exist today. These connections are what makes money work today, not what happened 10,000 years ago. Looking at the history of money may give you insights about these connections, because the same connections that are effective today may have been effective earlier in history too, and may have presented themselves in different ways in the course of history. A look at history may therefore make it easier to see what these connections are today. And often, but not always, it happens that those connections and relations which are more basic today are also the ones which manifested themselves at earlier times in history. Therefore Marx may throw in occasional comments how certain connections he is after manifested themselves in history: this still does not mean that he is making a historical analysis. It just means that connections which are active today were also active at other times. |
| The reason why Marx starts with the commodity is therefore not that simple commodity production historically preceded capitalism, but that today, under capitalism, almost all of the immense wealth of our society is produced as commodities. And the reason why he starts his derivation of the money form with the simple exchange relation between two commodities is that even today, the equation “20 yards of linen is worth one coat” is simpler than the equation “20 yards of linen are worth 40 dollars.” This latter equation only seems simpler: in reality it can serve as expression of the value of the linen only if seen in conjunction with all the other prices of all the other commodities. By contrast, the former equation is an expression of the value of the linen taken by itself. It has many drawbacks, it expresses the value of one particular commodity in the use-value of one other particular commodity, but it is an expression nonetheless, and it is indeed very simple. |
| KStone [95] gave an answer too, but I could not quite follow it. KStone seems to argue that Marx did or should have started with the relation between money and a commodity, and I don't see a trace of an explanation why Marx did not. I also don't see any reference to or building on Morgan's earlier answer. |
|
|
|||||