Duhring says,
“The role of money has at all times provided the first and main stimulus to economic” (!) “ideas. But what did an Aristotle know of this role? No more, clearly than was contained in the idea that exchange through the medium of money had followed primitive exchange by barter.” (p 293)
Yet, Aristotle had a greater understanding of money than did Duhring. Engels notes,
“But when “an” Aristotle presumes to discover the two different forms of the circulation of money, the one in which it operates as a mere medium of circulation, and the other in which it operates as money-capital, according to Herr Dühring he is “only expressing a moral antipathy.” (p 293)
Money arises, naturally, out of commodity production and exchange, not as currency, as Ricardo, falsely, believed, but as a means of indirectly measuring the value of the commodities being exchanged. In other words, to indirectly measure the value of A and B, and so the rate at which they should exchange, both are compared to a third commodity, whose value is well known and observed. The labour-time required to produce C is well known and it, then, becomes the standard for measuring the value of all other commodities. It becomes the money commodity, or general commodity.
Only subsequent to this is the role of money as currency established, and this role is usually performed not by the money commodity itself, but by a representation of it, a money token, or credit money. For example, when cattle performed the role of money commodity, exchanges were not mediated by physical cattle, but by leather strips representing cattle. But, as Marx describes, as soon s money enters the realm of circulation, in this form, it becomes possible for these leather strips, as representatives of money, money tokens, to be hoarded. Now, having hoarded the money, it can be used as capital. A merchant can start with money and buy commodities, not for the purpose of their consumption, but to sell them at a higher price, either taking advantage of buying in bulk, or selling in more distant markets where prices may be higher, or to which small producers cannot travel. Instead of C – M – C, there is M – C – M`. Or, the money may be lent to someone in dire need of it, on condition that, when its repaid, an additional sum – interest – is added to it , M – M`.
These are two distinct social phenomena – money as means of circulation/currency, and money as money-capital.
“When “an” Aristotle carries his audacity so far as to attempt an analysis of money in its “role” as a measure of value, and indeed correctly poses this problem, which is so decisive for the theory of money, “a” Dühring prefers to say nothing (and for very good private reasons) about such impermissible temerity.” (p 293)
Engels turns to Duhring's treatment of mercantilism, and says that it would be better to simply read List's account, which Duhring has essentially plagiarised. List, in Chapter 8 of his “National System”, wrote,
“Italy has been the forerunner of all modern nations, in the theory as well as in the practice and of Political Economy”, (p 294)
citing as,
“the earliest work written specially on Political Economy in Italy, that of Antonio Serra of Naples (in 1613), on the means of providing 'the kingdoms' with an abundance of gold and silver.” (p 294)
Duhring accepted this account, and so regards Serra's “Breve trattato
“as a kind of inscription at the entrance to the more recent prehistory of economics”.” (p 294)
No comments:
Post a Comment