The difference between money, as universal labour-time, and this money commodity, as simply the physical manifestation of it, is described by Marx.
“All commodities are compared in the exchange process with the one excluded commodity which is regarded as commodity in general, the commodity, the embodiment of universal labour-time in a particular use-value. They are therefore as particular commodities opposed to one particular commodity considered as being the universal commodity...The particular commodity which thus represents the exchange-value of all commodities, that is to say, the exchange-value of commodities regarded as a particular, exclusive commodity, constitutes money.” (p 48)
This is not the result of some conscious desire to facilitate exchange, as the Idealist theories of Ricardo had imagined, but is itself an inevitable consequence of the exchange of commodities themselves.
“Thus, while in the exchange process commodities become use-values for one another by discarding all determinate forms and confronting one another in their immediate physical aspect, they must assume a new determinate form they must evolve money, so as to be able to confront one another as exchange-values.” (p 48-9)
And, the same factors that lead to commodity fetishism, apply to a greater degree when it comes to money and the money commodity. In commodity fetishism, the social relation that exists between commodity owners appears as rather a relation between things, i.e. the commodities they exchange.
“... it is this perverted appearance, this prosaically real, and by no means imaginary, mystification that is characteristic of all social forms of labour positing exchange-value. This perverted appearance manifests itself merely in a more striking manner in money than it does in commodities.” (p 49)
So, it is nothing specific about the given commodity, singled out as the money commodity that makes it money, which is why numerous commodities, from cattle to salt, to copper, silver and gold have occupied that position. Each one is merely a materialised form of money, i.e. of universal social labour-time. Marx, then sets out the characteristics required of such a commodity, and why, under differing material conditions, different commodities fulfil this role, but why the precious metals become the best representative of it.
“The necessary physical properties of the particular commodity, in which the money form of all other commodities is to be crystallised – in so far as they direct]y follow from the nature of exchange-value – are: unlimited divisibility, homogeneity of its parts and uniform quality of all units of the commodity. As the materialisation of universal labour- time it must be homogeneous and capable of expressing only quantitative differences. Another necessary property is durability of its use-value since it must endure through the exchange process. Precious metals possess these qualities in an exceptionally high degree. Since money is not the result of deliberation or of agreement, but has come into being spontaneously in the course of exchange, many different, more or less unsuitable, commodities were at various times used as money. When exchange reaches a certain stage of development, the need arises to polarise the functions of exchange-value and use-value among various commodities – so that one commodity, for example, shall act as means of exchange while another is disposed of as a use-value. The outcome is that one commodity or sometimes several commodities representing the most common use-value come occasionally to serve as money. Even when no immediate need for these use-values exists, the demand for them is bound to be more general than that for other use-values, since they constitute the most substantial physical element in wealth.” (p 49)
No comments:
Post a Comment