| This question <1650|1667> overall <1654|1656> MarxSchmarx: <1653|1777>. graded A |
| Question 321: Explain in your own words the meaning of Marx's statement: “Although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.” |
| [1655] MarxSchmarx: Gold and silver are not money by nature because their first function is that of a commodity. They are natural occurring substances that become commodities after being extracted from the earth. They have many use-values besides having the capacity to become money. |
| However, money is by nature gold and silver because there are natural characteristics of gold and silver that logically apply themselves to such. “Only a material whose every sample possesses the same uniform quality can be an adequate form of appearance of value…” [Marx: 184:1] The commodity that represents money also needs a quality of being homogenous with all other samples of itself. Marx also states that the money material needs to be quantitatively manageable. Gold and silver are both divisible, but at the same time can be assembled back to larger forms. Money also needs to be transportable and recognizable between different communities. |
| Hans: Gold and silver are no more by nature commodities than they are by nature money. By nature they only have certain use-values. |
|
|
|||||