Stützle, Inga 2006, 'Die Frage nach der konstitutiven Relevanz der Geld­ware in Marx' Kritik der politischen Ökonomie', in Hoff, Petrioli, Stützle and Wolf (eds.) 2006a.

Vollgraf, Carl-Erich andJürgenJungnickel 2002 [1995], "'Marx in Marx's Words"? On Engels' Edition of the Main Manuscript of Book 3 of Capita!', lnternational]ournal ef Politica! Economy, 32, l: 35- 78.

Vranicki, Predrag 1972, Geschichte des Marxismus, Frankfurt: Suhrkamp. Walther, Rudolf 1982, 'Marxismus' in Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Historisches Lexikon ;;:,ur politisch-so;;:,ialen Sprache in Deutschland, Vol. 3, Stuttgart: Cotta.

HOW MONEY CONSTITUTES VALUE: FROM 'ABSTRACT LABOUR' TO MONEY

Geert Reuten

lntroduction In Capita! Marx establishes a complex break [césure] with the then

dominant Ricardian theory of value. The complexity has to do with articu­lation of his method of immanent critique with an intrinsic epistemological break from the politica! economy of his day. Centra! to this break is a rejec­tion of naturalistic 'labour-embodied' notions of value. Nevertheless, thr main 20th century reading of Marx's theory of value in Capita! has been a naturalistic one, although coupled with a non-naturalistic focus on the capitalist mode of exploitation of labour. 78

In this paper 1 provide a navel interpretation of Part One of the

first volume of Capita!, that is, its first three chapters. As Marx adopts a sys­tematic-dialectical methodology in this work - into which the above mrn tioned methodological aspects are integrated - the crucial break from thl' naturalism is to be traced to the entry point of the work. In this paper, 1 will argue that Chapter 1 is merely one moment of the entry point. The second n10 ment of the entry point is Chapter 3 on money. These two moments sul> sist at the same level of abstraction and thus inseparably belang togctl11 1

My paper is restricted to these chapters, however my reading h.1 consequences for the interpretation of all of Capita!. This paper is historn 1

graphic and hence 1 abstain from presenting my own (value-form thcon·11 cal) views. There is thus no question of agreement or disagreement wilh Marx involved, other than those aspects that emerge from a proccss t 11

internal critique. Section 1 setsoutthegeneralproblematic.Sections2and3providefurthcrcl<'1<11l s.

78. The terrain from which Marx sr ts out is of course the Ricarclian th rory. 111 p1 1·v11111 t<•x ts (rsp. ReutC'n 191lD, 1 <l'l 'I ,1 11tl ?000), 1 s11ggrs trcl that whrrt'a~ M;Hx 111adt• .1 l1111d ,1 111«11tal 'brl'ak' fro111 ( : 1.1 ~~ 11 . d 111111111 ,il 1':1111111111>' tlu·n· are: (i11rvitahly) C:lassi1al/R11.11tl1.i11 n·11111,111t s in hi s wrnk . H11 ,1 il1" Il ''' '"" 111 1111 , 1 •~ 111 'WI' M11rr:1y's ('..!000.1) 11i1iq1w 111 l{"111 111 11HI, 111y 11•pl y (l{r11lrn '11ltHll .111d .1\ 11111 11 11111111111 •1 ('100\1). 1\ 1t•11 •,1tlit1K 111 ,111111111111 111 ( :1 ·1111,11111·,11 111 ( .11/11111' .1111l 11111r1 l1 •111 11i il1 111,1f l11 1"1111ll1w 1 ·~ w11d . .) 111.il.1 '1 1111 111111 l11d1 111.it tlw11 .111 l,11 11 ·1" 1 •1 11 Il 1r li111i11111 !111111 1 j•t•'\! 1•·111 •1\ 1l11111Klli \1 11 11p, w11l1 1111 · 1111111 1 H1111111 '.1 11111 111 11• ·1d1 , f1dln ili11tiitl!ïl1 I il1 fr.f' 11111111

,il

1. THE MONETARY DIMENSION

1.1. From form and prevalence to s ystemic existence The standpoint of Chapter 1 of Capital is 'the commodity'. The

relatively brief Chapter 2, on the process of exchange, posits the prevalence [Dasein] of money in practice. Although Chapter 1 already posits the farm of money, nevertheless money itself - that is, its systemic existence - is derivecl

only in Chapter 3. Throughout Chapter 3 Marx frequently uses the term veräiljlerlichen

in order to inclicate 'to sell'. Veräu}Jerlichen literally means 'to outer' or 'outer­ing'. The normal German term for selling, however, would be verkaefen (a term that he also uses - the difîerence is lost in the translation, or at least

in the English translation). He also uses entäiljleren, as well as other terms

with the same root, especially Au}Jdruck (expression; compare the roots au}Jer, outer, utter). This homology is lost in the translation, again at least in the

English translation.

The term 'outer' makes one of course alert for an 'inner' or for

something that is 'immanent'. Moreover, against the background of Marx's familiarity with Hegel's Logic the terms are rather severe; they point at 'mo­ments' that can be distinguished but that inseparably belong together. At the end of the first section of Chapter 3 Marx writes:

Die Preisform schlieBt die Veräiljlerlichkeit der Waren gegen Geld

uncl die Notwendigkeit dieser Veräu}Jerung ein. 7!1

The standard English translation is:

The pricc-form therefore implies bath the exchangeability of com­

modities for money and the necessity of exchanges.

This translation loses the sense of 'outering' contained in Veräu}Jer­

Lichkeit and Veräu}Jerung. My preferred translation would be:

The price-form includes the 'extroversibility' /exchangeability of com­modities for money and the necessity of this 'extrovcrsion' / exchang('.

7'l. l\l,11, 1111!71\ I/ IH'lO, p. 1111 i1: oli n :tclcl1·cl

1111

1.2. The introversive and the extroversive constituent moments of value

In Marx's view, money is one constituent moment of value (lw dm not use exactly this formu lation).ru:i The immanent or introversive co11sl 1111 ent moment of value is the undifîerentiated 'abstract labour' presr111c ·1 I 111

Chapter !. lts extroversive constituent moment is money, as prescntc ·d i11

Chapter 3. However, these two moments inseparab!y belong togethc1: M1111 ey is the necessary form of expression (Ailjldruck) of value. That is, valt11• 1111 1 1111

existence without money. This is the end-result of Part One.

Because of the inseparability of the introversive and the ext1mn sive constituent moments of value, monistic phrases like 'labour-vallw~',

or conversely, 'value-prices', do not fit Marx's theory and hence an· 111 ' ' 1 used in Capital I or IP1

Another way of saying that value has no existence without 11111111 \ is that value is without exception of monetary dimension. In fact, this i ~ ,d

ready the outcome of Chapter !. Section 3 of Chapter 1 presents tlll'/rî1 mation of the form of money - or rather, it posits thefarm of extrovc·1~11111

(Veräu}Jerlichung) which is the starting point for Chapter 3.81

80. 'Moment' is a systematic-dialectical term stemming from Hegel 's Logic. h rc • fè-r~ 111 1 sential interconnectedness and mutuality (to such a way that could not be comprcllC'11clr111" a term such as 'aspect'). Marx uses the term sometimes but not frequently. In til<' li1ll11\\ll1 passage he provides an illuminating explanation of the term: 'The relative for111 ui ,, ol111 and the equivalent form are two inseparable moments, which belong to and 111ut11.dl y 11111111 tion each other; but at the same time, they are mutually exclusive or opposed ('Xt11·1111 l 1', 1

poles of the expression of value ' (Marx 1867F/1890, pp. 139-40; cf. Marx 1867 M/ 11111(1, 11 63). Much more frequently, as indicated, he uses the terms 'inner' and 'outer' (or tl1<·i1 1'lplÎ\'i1 lents), which have the same connotation of inseparable connection. 81 . The term 'value prices', however, is used one time in Das Kapital 111, Chaptc·1 1 () (il ll i 11 p, 184; English Fernbach translation p, 275; cf. MEGA 11/4.2 p, 250), 82. Sce also Arthur's excellent cliscussion (2004, pp. 36-8). He writcs: 'to IJ<• a 11111111111.1111 involves all the determinations of Chapter 1, including those of Scr tio11 :{ 011 11 ~ /11111(, 111 which it is shown that an adequate expression of the value of co111moditi1 ·~ 11 ·q1 1111 • !111 1

cxistrnce of money.' See also his cliscussion in (2005). The notion that valt11· li.1 ~ 11111 " 1 ~ 11 · 1111 1

without money is also key to Murray's analysis (2005), although hl' arriV<"s .tl 1111 ~ li11111 111 .\llgle difTcrrnt from the one proposcd in the currcnt paper. Elso11 ( ID7'l) i' .111 111 ~ p11 1111111 lor tlH' rl'sl'a rr h prescntcd in this pnp<·1: ' Marx's cxa111plrs', sh<' wrott•, ' ;111· .tlw.ty• 111111 111 d io1 111011c·y 1cn11~ . 111'1'1'1 in tcnrn 111' lio111s' (1:11l). The sa11w appli1•s lor 1111' 1.1s1• 111 1\1111 1-cp1:i1i1111s( Rl't1lc 't12001 ). El s11111111tc· ~ 1li,1t 'v. il1w~ 1.i1111ot 1>"r:tlC'ld.111·cl11111l1s1,1vnl 1111lt I" 11 cl1 ·11t ly 111 pri11 's • h111 sli1 · ,11 , 11 Il 1111111 111 1 li111 111 <.-.1/•1/ir/ 1\ l.11 x d1ws 1111t l 111-1ltl11-1lt1 !111 1 11111 1 11111,ol cl1st1111 ti1111 whi1 li 111 jl\l.11·1 111,ol.1 lwt1~ 1111 1111 " 1111111.1111·111 "1 11 "' i1111111 ~ i1 " 111i.1 '<1ll1 ,111[1 ,111 "1·\11•111,d" 1111 •;o s1111 , wl111 li 1 1111 1 111111J,1111 11'1" 111111111 111 1111 ' 1111111>1111111 1111 ,"111> 'l p 1 111 ), 1 "" 111111 111.11 •111 11111 I 11111 i 1' 11 11!11 Î i1 1111 ,111 11 11, l 11 1 1111'1 111 1111 t 1111 ( ;, 1111 .111 !• ~'li l Î

1,111111 1 11111 Il .... " , 111 111111111 11 i)' "lt 111 , 11~l t il il 1 11111 1 1 1 l111 lil1µ l1t 1111 t11 , t11111ii111 ,

fllf

Marx introcluces the concept of 'value-form' in Chapter 1. After that, the

term is only sporadically used. T he reason is that in C h apter 3 the concept

is concretised into its monetary expression.

1.3. From a simple to an enriched notion of value Section 1 of Chapter 3 sets ou t the 'function' of money as 'meas­

ure ef values'. This may make the false impression of there 'being' value

entities existing inclependently of the 'measure' - that is, independently of

money. If Marx had started again here from scratch and consiclerecl the

measurement of a use-value in terms of money, the problem would not

h ave arisen. In fact, he considers commodities as in troclucecl in C hapter 1.

Near to the opening of Chapter 3 Marx writes:

Money as a measure of value is the necessary form of appear­

ance of the measure of value which is immanent in commodities,

namely labour-time.83

Note that the meaning of 'measure' here is not obvious - 1 return

to this later (§3.2).

If my interpretation is accepted we move from a simplified no­

tion of value - that of Chapter 1 - to an enriched one - that of the fu ll

Part One - each inclicated with one term: 'value'. Evidently we cannot but

start Chapter 3 with the simple notion of value inherited from the previous

chapters.

Value's monetary dimension does not imply that it only exists in monetary shape. Enti­ties in capitalism - e.g., machines - may have value of monetary dimension without be­ing money. Equally, things may be of monetary dimension - e.g., machines as functioning means of production - without having a price: things have a price only when they are offered for sale. Within the circuit of capita! M -+ C" .. P."C/-+M', the C""P."C

1' is iclcally

accounted in monetary dimension. This ideality may be exciting (as it shoulcl) but i1 is not surprising. Every businessman, accountant or auditor knows 1ha1 most of the balancc ~ h!'c t

of an enterprise is made up in 1erms of an iclcal 11icmc·1:11y di1111 · 11 ~i11 11 (1hc l>ala11cc• shcTI i ~

a sta1ic vcrsion of 1hc cirnii1 of rnpital). in. M.ux lllf i7 F/ 1111l0, p. 11111; c 1 l\l.1n. lllfi71\1 / lll'Hl, I' 111'. I

Uil_

2. 'VERY ABSTRACT LABOUR' AND ITS DISAPPEARANCE

AFTER CHAPTER 1

In Section 1 of Chapter 1 we find Marx 's famous prescntalu111 1il

the concept of 'abstract labour':

If then we disregard the use-value of commodities, only orw 111 '1 •j •

erty remains, that of being products of labour. But even ti1t 111111i

uct of labour has already been transformed in our hands l/111;·;/1 in der Hand ve1Wandelt] . ... the different concrete farms of' l.d u 1111

are all together reduced to the same kind of labour, huma11 i.il111111

in the abstract.Let us now look at the residue of the prod1u t 111

labour. There is nothing left of them but the same specl1.d 11i 1p tivity [gespenstige Gegenständlichkeit]; they are merely congcaic« i q11 111

tities of homogeneous human labour ... As crystals of tlt" •,111 1 il substance ... they are values - commodity values [ll41r1'111t1r1/1 'l•l•11 I The common factor in the exchange relation, or in thl' c·x< in11p•

value of the commodity, is therefore its value. T111 : t'R<><.1<1 S'I ( 11

THE IN\ 'ESTIGAl'ION \\'11.1. l.EAD US BACK TO E:--;CHANCl :-\ '1\1 .lll '"' 1111

NECESSARY l\IODE OF E:--;l'RESSION [A u mRUC/(.\WF!.W], OR FC )i(l\I ( 11 ' /\ 1

PEARANCE, OF \ 'Af.UE. For the present, however, we mu~l c c.111 ~ 1ï11 1

the nature of value independently of this form. A usc · \,d111 \ i

usefu l article, therefore, has value only because absll'il< t i11111!.!1i

labour is objectified [veigegenständlicht] or materialized i11 11 l iu\\

then, is the magnitude of this value to be measurcc1'!1 B~ 1111 1111i

of the quantity of the 'value-constituting substancc ' lw1•1/l11ltll'11ï/1'/I

Substanz], the labour, contained in the article. The q11a1111t) ,,f i11

bour itself is measured by its cluration; in turn the l;d>o111 1i1111• i measured on the particular scale of hours, days <'lc .11 1

Three aspects need to be stressed. first , Marx rd(Ts to .i 11 , 11t ~ l i 11

mation [U11Wandlungl as resulting in a spectra! 'objcctivity ' 1 1e ·t11111 111 1id ij

in §3. Second, he indirntcs that he abstracts frorn the 111'1/'.1.1111 J' 11111111 , d1

1

pr<'ssion of vtliuc. Thw;, iw p1c·sc·11ls a si111plificatio11. Tliinl , 111" 'i11111ld11 il <"lltity (th:1l is, vnl1w i11.11>~ 11.11111111 1111111 it s 1w<'<·ssi11y 1(11111) i~ 1111 .1 ~ 11111 l !1• Ld>otlt '• tinw s11pp1 "1 ili y, 1111 . 1.1 ', tl1 ·, 11 ,11 1 LtlH1111 111111' '

111 l\l,11x llll17F/ lll'lll 1 'ILP, lltli l~ l / 1!1 1 111 · ~~!>.~ l1 111ml.1111111111111li111 ·d 1111l'l1 .1ti1 i11 w 1.dl 1 •Il " 111 ld1 ·il

Let us consider an analogy. When we measure the length of a table with

a m etre stick, the table's length exists independently of the stick. 85 Note

that the table is fully constituted as introversive material or substance and extroversive form. However, there is no obvious unique way to measure

the length of the material of the table. That is, the length of timber and

nails. Surely, we can in principle measure the length of two odd pieces

of freshly cut timber - in this sense we have things that can be measured

- but we cannot add those up in a unique sensible way because of their

unequal shapes.

Similarly there is no obvious unique way to measure 'concrete la­

bour', the 'introversive substance' of value. In Section 1 of Chapter 1, therefore, Marx takes recourse to the notion of 'abstract labour' as a simpli­fied constituent moment of value.

It is most telling that after the presentation of the simple form of

value (the first form presented in Section 3) the term 'abstract labour' dis­

appears! (In fact there are a couple of references back to the simplified

notion: two in Section 4, one in Chapter 2, two in Chapter 3 and one in

Chapter 6, which is Chapter 8 of the English edition.) There are no oc­

currences in Volumes II or III. The term 'homogeneous labour' similarly

disappears after Chapter 3. Relatedly the term labour as 'substance' disap­

pears after Chapter 3 (to this there are three exceptions in each one of the

three volumes; these are references back to the notion presented in Volume

I , Chapter 1 ). The reason for this disappearance is obviously the conceptual pro­

gression of Marx's presentation, that is, his movement beyond - or the

supersession of - the Chapter 1 simplification.

In light of the Marxian discourse of the last twenty years this disappear­

ance of the term 'abstract labour' cannot be stressed enough.

When in Chapter 1 Marx presents the commodity, he posits their being and

prevalence [Dasein]. At that point he presupposes the money measure that

is only grounded in Chapter 3. Abstract Labour foreshadows the money measure. Marx's immanent measure of value in Chapter 1 - time of 'abstract labour'

- is ve1y abstract. It does not provide a measure of value in the sense that we

usually adopt the term 'measure' . 'Abstract labour' cannot be mcasurcd (in

terms of time) with more sense than timber as abslrac tcd fro m, for cxam­

ple, anything bul its lcngth. Howcvcr~ for the timl wl', llii s d<ws 1101 providc

ll.'">. li s lt'11µ.1il i11111/'/11'.1don110/ t•xi ~ I i11d1·1u· 11dc•111ly 111 1111 ~ 111 l 1111 1 111111 1111 11111111 ~>·~11· 111 ),

11111lli.11h11111111) p;11111 l11 ·11

,,.

the full constitution of a table (merely substance); similarly, for the al>st 1.11 l

labour, this does not constitute value (merely substance).

I use the term 'very abstract labour' because in the litera t111 <' 1111

Marx the term 'abstract labour' has become somewhat worn out: il sc·c 111

often identified with a quantitative part ef concrete (!) Labour: 1) produci11g ,11

average conditions of production (hence, it is said, 'necessary'); 2) fi11 1111

product of which there is demand (hence, it is said, 'necessary '); :~) tl 1 tl

contributes to production in a particular sense - 'productive ' labour (lu 1111 ,

it is said, 'necessary'). These issues can be announced; however, thcn· 1 ~ 11.-1

way of knowing them or measuring them prior to the market. Thus, al 1st 1.11 1

labour has no determinate existence. Abstract labour has a dimcnsio11 111

time but, paradoxically, it cannot be measured unless we assume tli;1t .d 1

stract labour equals concrete labour (thus abstract from abstract lal>o111')

Rather, value is fully constituted only when we have money; money i11 1111

market measures 'abstract labour' and so determines 'abstract labm11 ' f.11

to speak. However, in reality, at this point of the presentation the lcrn1 ',d1 stract labour' is superfluous: we have 'value'.

Marx never uses the phrase 'labour theory of value'. H<· p1m·11 l1

an immanent critique of, as well as a break from, Ricardian notio11 ~ 111

value. The notion of 'very abstract labour' indeed implies that Ch.ipl• 1 1

does not present a 'labour theory of value' in any quantifiable sens<·. F1e 1111

this again derives the conclusion that abstract labour, afortiori, rn111111l I! quantitatively implanted into lower levels of abstraction (and to 1q11 .11

Marx does not do this).

3. MONEY'S MEASURING: !DEAL TRANSUBSTANTIATION

3.1. ldealities. In this section I expand on the care of Chapter 3: 'mo n<'y\ 1111 ;1

uring'. I begin with a long quotation from early on in lhc clwp1c·1, wl111 11

I take to be programmatic. It shows, first, that the value or <1 11 ('ll(ll) I ~ 11

purcly idcal for m (this ckn ics on tologically real 'cmboclinwnt '); S<'< 111u 1, !111 nwasurcmcnt in terms or 11101H 'Y is a n idt1al ac t it is pcrfè1 rnwd tl111111 gli .111

i111ogi11t11y cqu a li sa tio 11 wi 1l1 111111 1<')'; tl1inl , :1s ;i rcsult, tlH· s<·c·o11<l p1 ·1 l111111

;11wt· rn 11 IH· <' st:d1l is lwcl 11\ 1111 . 1 ~ 111.11 \ 1111111c ·y.

'1'111 • p111 1111 ' WJNl , \'c l•il l~ l1d. 11111 111u 11 I Î I Î1• 14 Î R ., 111~ 1 · 1111114l•ll(~ l111

\ \11 11. i.l ,NL lli\1 .1.\' 1 ljllÎlr di ~ lii .11 l li '11111 ll11 ' ÎI ' p:ill'.dil1 .1111l 11 •i d l111dil 1

l't

form; it is the refore a purely IDEAI. or imagined [voigestellt] form.

Although invisible, the value of iron, linen and corn exists in these

very things: it is imagined [voigestellt] through their equality with

gold, a relation to gold, even though this only haunts thei r heads,

so to speak. The guardian of the commodities must therefore !end

them his tongue, or hang a ticket on them , in order to communi­

cate their prices to the o utside world. Since the expression of the

value of commodities in gold is purely ideal, we m ay use purely

imaginary or ideal gold to perform this operation ... In its function

as measure of value, money therefore serves as merely imaginary

or ideal money.1«;

1 expand on the first two issues in §3.2 and on the third in §3.3.

3.2. Marx's notion of measurement: 'verwandlen' and standardised measurement.

When Marx refers to money's measurement he refers to an ab­

stract genus. Usually when we think of a measure we think of a standard.

However, when M a rx says 'money m easures value' he m eans that it es­

tablishes commensumtion, i.e., homogenisation . On the other hand, the 'tak­

ing measure' (and ticketing) of the value of a commodity is established in

te rms of a standard of price. The distinction between this 'measurement

in genera!' and the specific 'taking measure ' by way of a particular stancl­

a rd is most importa nt. (Marx's terminology might seem icliosyncrati c - in

current la nguage, that is. However, in H egel's Logic (both of its versions)

we have a similar usage of the term 'm easure'. In hindsight, this also sheds

light on Marx 's usage of 'immanent measure' for the Chapter 1 moment

of value.)

As the measure of value it [money] serves to transform [veiwan­dlen] the values of all the manifold commodities into prices, into imaginary

Q_UANTITIES OF c;ow {that is, money in genera!}; as the standarcl of price

it [money] ... measures, on the contrary, Q_UANTITIJ:s OF c;o1.n BV A UNIT

quantity of golcl .117

86. Marx 1867F /1890, pp.189-90; Marx 1867M/ 1890, pp. 11 0- 11 ; translation mocl ificd; <'111-

phasis in small caps adclccl. 117. Marx , Jfl(i7 F/ lflClO, p. l!l:l; l\tarx lllfi7.M/ lll<JO, p . l l:l, 11.111 "t.11i111111111difwtl : 1•111pli.1'i ' i11

"1i;ill ( ·'I'' .1tld1•d , p lll .1'1' 1111111! ~ }11;11 k1 •1, .1 dd1'fl

Note again (cf. §1.3) that Marx of course embarks from the f11 :;1

Chapter's notion of 'immanent value' - a notion that is now, with the cxt111

version, transformed into amore concrete concept of value.

The second phrase, about the standard, specifies a unit (a qu:111

turn) for the measurement of the quantity in the first phrase. As the stand

are! of price, particular money (named, e.g., euro or dollar) measures q11.111

tities of money (a pile of notes or coins) by a unit of price (e.g., one cum 111

one dollar).

For the first phrase, regarding measure and transformation, 1 sl101tl1 I point at a metaphor used by Marx throughout Part One, namely thal 111

the Catholic ritual of the 'transubstantiation' of bread and wine into 1111

body of Christ. This is one connotation of the G erman term Veiwand/1111.i: 1 ''

Compare the direct reference to the priest holding the bread and wi11e 111

the quotation from Chapter 1 (§2 above): 'But even the product of lal>c1111

has a lready been transformed in our hands [bereits in der Hand verwm1rlr·ltl (Appropriately, whether the transubstantiation is real or ideal has IH'rn . 1

matter of debate within Christianity)

Now reconsider the quotation. For the commodities, prior to 1111

measurement of the first phrase, we merely have the ' introversiw ~111i

stance', which is a purery ideal or imagined introversive substance (as incli< .111·d

in the earlier quote, §3 .1). The act of measurement by money (that is, 111tt11

to the actual exchange) ideally ' transubstantiates' commodities into 1111111

determined entities and hence commensurate or homogeneous (sec tlll' l.1 ~ 1

quote). This is like a miracle. Butjust as most Catholics that go to< h111111

every week or perhaps every day may not be very attentive any mem· to tl11

miraculousness of the transformation of bread and wine into the bod) ,-,1

Christ, we are, when we mundanely buy our daily bread, usually not V< 1

attentive to the miraculous ideal transubstantiation that is pnfornwd li)

the people in the bakery. (You point at half a loaf of breacl and ask . ' l 111 \\'

much is this?' They reply: ' It is 1.47 ' - 'Hic est 1.47 euro.') Tirns money's measurem ent per-forms the valuc-ho11wg1·1w1I) 111

commodities. Or: money turns the hopelessly abstract irn1m11 w11t 110111111 111

'abstract labour' into cx trowrs iw form, and thercwith into :i < 11111 11 111111

(concrctu m, that is wlw11 1111' 111//11 111111111/i• is complc t<'cl into tlw 1111 1,1111111

phosis (;-+~J ). Willu1111 1l11 i, ' 1111 .1~1111 1111 · 111 i//)('/hrnrfil', sta111 l.1nb 111 111111 (111

st; 11Hi:trcls ol° v: d1 11') 111.il .1 1111 f.1•11 t.1

' 1'1111 ~ v.tl111 1 1 Îll /111//, ÎIN ! 1111 Nlil111111 111111111 • 111 ~ i11l111\I 1; Î\1 • 1111!1

1111 . S11° l{1 111111 IU'l 'I

extroversive - imaginary or ideality. Although it is beyond the subject of

this paper, 1 should add that ideality can have real effects.m1

3.3. Imaginary measurement by imaginary money 1 now turn to the third aspect of the 'programmatic' quotation. lf

we restrict the discussion to money's function as measure of value, Marx

goes as far as one could go at all in the commodity-money based monetary

regime of his days (1867) .90 lf we consider today's (2011) 'pure credit-mon­

ey' regime, the crucial episode was not the demise of the gold- dollar stand­

ard, or the Bretton Woods regime, in the mid l 970s - the latter is the tai!.

Crucial is the national irredeemability of banknotes and the prevalence

of 'money of account' at all: imaginary money (see Marx's treatment of

money of account in Section 3 of Chapter 3). Thus the ideal Ve1Wandlung is accomplished by ideal, or imaginary, money! (Or - from a perspective of

pure credit-money - by nomina! money.)

Here we seem to have before us all the ingredients of a weird spec­

tra! world.91 Yet for those possessed by spectres, spectres are real. And since

we engage in the ideal transubstantiation every day, it is normality. This,

the presentation of a weird normality, is the almost insurrnountable prob­

lem of Marx's entry point of Part One - and one that he struggled with

throughout its many versions.

89. See Murray 2000b and 2004 on subsumption. 90. Over the last fifteen years commentators of Marx have much focused on the aspect of the 'commodity money' basis in Marx's theory. This is of course relevant for the current Marxian theory of capitalism, but it is irrelevant for the historica! assessment of an author writing in the second half of the nineteenth century. It is obvious that a Marxian theory of pure credit-money can be constructed. See Williams 2002, Realfonzo & Bellofiore 1996, Bellofiore & Realfonzo 1997, Bellofiore 2004 & 2005; see also Reuten & Williams 1989, Chapter 2 and Chapter 8, §4). However, pure credit-money cannot be introduced early on in Capita[: an implantation of the stuff of Capita[ 111, Parts Four and Five early on in Capita[ 1 would demolish the systematic structure of the work. Hence it would requirc ;i

complete reconstruction of the work. A relatecl issue is the methoclological question of why Marx - given that commodity money basis - postpones a full account of credit lllOlll'Y

until later in the work. Here I agree with Campbell , who argucs that this issue shoulcl lw assessed from within Marx's method and systcmatic, csp<'cinlly the· i. 1;1d11.il 11111V<' llH'llt f'rrn11 relatively simple to complex conccpts and arrnunt s. Sc·c· C:a111pl 11 ·11 1 '1'17, 1 '1<)11 & '200'2. Sc·c· also Willi ams 2002. 91 . Tltis thc•nu· Wi ts fi w11 ss1·d 11p1111 hy, J.11q1ll's 1)111id:i (.'i/•fflCll •// , \/111 1, 1'1'11 ), fk1• .d" 1 \1111111 '.l()() 1

'lh

CONCLUSIONS

The normality is weird. Much of twentieth century Marxisnt 111 1

refused to read that in Part One of Capita/ 1, and instead has interpr<'t1•1 l 11

Chapter 1 in a 'sophisticated' Ricardian vein!

However, value cannot be concretely measured without m o11 c}

any effort to do so comes down toa Ricardian 'timber-nail tale ' o l' 11 11 .1

urement. Of course 'as every child knows', next to nature, labo ur is 1I11

co-source of materialily (use-values) - but that is not even worth m e11tio 11 111rn

especially not given the mainstream Ricardian discourse of Marx's d :t) !. 11 '

which labour is the source of a 'naturalistic' value. For Marx, tha t 111 .1 11•1 i ality is ideally transubstantiated into the social form of value - so11w1l1 11 1

that bears a spectra! logic of its own, which is the logic of capita!.

In my interpretation of Part One of Marx's Capita/ 1the 11w 11 111 /111

versive substance ef value - 'abstract labour' - is inseparable from the irlml n

troversivefarm ef value - money. Money establishes the actual homog<'tH't I \ , il commodities, and is the only one actual ideal measure of valuc (aclopl111

particular standard). lt is only with the latter moment that 'valuc ' h:is l 11c •11

fully constituted. Consequently, the term 'abstract labour' cli sa pp1 · :11 ~ Ît 1

and after Chapter 3. To be sure, 'concrete' labour does not clisapp1 ·: 11 (' Ij,

ing labour', as Bellofiore emphasisesr because labour in pror ess 1H'< c11 111

explanatory for value and surplus-value. Of course, any Ricardian icll'lll il 11 .1

tion of labour and value would make the rest of Capita/ a ta utolog)'.'' 1

The impact of the spectra! ideality of value is unfolcled in liic · 11 •Kit

of capita! (the further subject of the book). The continuous transul>sl.11111_1 ·

tion that is the essence of the expansion of the circuit of rapital is 11.11111111 1

the world.

Das Kapital posits (qua intention) the truth of r a pit<ll : tlw ~ pc • c 11 id logic of capita! that has taken possession of the world. Ün<' 111ig li1 111' 11111

scious of the material power of capita! (as most people are of' n1111 ,,1 l, l 111\\

ever such consciousness does not imply consciousness of th<' sp1 ·c 11 .il li 'HÎ1

sinrc that is as 'normal ' as the brcad a nd wine transubstantiati111111 11' 111 111

tising Catholics. Wc participatc in it cvcry day. Tl1L1s a wl'ircl id1 ·,il11 1· 1111

l'<·al rnatnial impacl.

~1 · .1 s," ll1 ll11lt1111 '-'111) 1 '1 ll1 ll1d1 11 11• l 1 H11

'11 ~. 1 lt1 1111 ·11 "lllll

REFERENCES

Superscripts indicate first and other relevant editions; the last mentioned

year in the bibliography is the edition cited.

Arthur, Christopher J. 2001, 'The spectra! ontology of value', Radical Phi­losophy, 107 (May-June); reprinted in Arthur, The New Dialectic and Marx's 'Capita/', Leiden/Boston/Köln, Brill: 153-74.

- 2004, 'Money and the form of value', in Bellofiore & Taylor (eds 2004):

35-62.

- 2005, 'Value and money', in Moseley (ed, 2005).

Arthur, Christopher J. & Geert Reuten, eds. 1998, The Circulation ef Capi­ta/: Essays on Volume II ef Marx's 'Capita!', London/New York, Macmillan/ St. Martin.

Bellofiore, Riccardo 1999, 'The value of labour value; the ltalian debate

on Marx: 1968-1976', Rivista di Politica Economica, 89, No. 4-5: 31-69. Italien version: 'Quanto vale il valore lavoro? La discussione italiana intorno a

Marx: 1968-1977', Rivista di Politica Economica, 89, Fase. 4-5: 33-76.

- 2004, 'Marx and the macro-monetary foundation of microeconomics',

in Bellofiore & Taylor (cds 2004): 170-210.

- 2005, 'The monetary aspects of the capitalist process in Marx: a re­

reading from the point of view of the theory of the monetary circuit', in Moseley (ed, 2005).

Bellofiore, Riccardo & Riccardo Realfonzo 1997, 'Finance and the labour

theory of value; toward a macroeconomic theory of distribution from a

monetary perspective', lnternational]ournal ef Politica/ Economy, 27 /2.

Bellofiore, Riccardo & Nicola Taylor eds. 2004, The Constitution ef Capital; Es­says on Volume 1 ef Marx's 'Capita/', London/New York, Palgrave- Macmillan.

Campbell , Martha 1997 , 'Marx's theory of money: a defense', in Moseley

& Campbell (eds 1997): 89-120.

- 1998, 'Money in the circulation of capita! ', in Arthur & Reuten (eds

1998): 129-58.

- 2002, 'The Credit System', in Campbell & Reu ten (eds 2002): 2 12-27.

Campbell, Martha & Geert Reuten eds. 2002, n1e C11lmination qf Capita!; Essays on Volume JIJ ef Marx's 'Capita/', Lonclon/Ncw York, Palgravc Mac­millan.

Elson, Di ane 1mn, 'Til <' Va liw Tlwrny o l l .; dH1111 ', i11 F.lt1111 1 (1·d.), Jii/111• ·1 hl' N1°/111·11·11/11tw11 o/ l !ll11u11111<.'11/1il11ft1111, 1 rn11l1111, c :S I ~ llu1il :11.

_JjJJ

Marx, Karl 186 7 1 M, 18904, Das Kapital, Kritik der politischen Ökonomie, Band 1, Der ProduktionsprozefJ des Kapitals, MEW 23, Berlin, Dietz Verlag 1973.

- ( 186 71 F, 18904), Capita/, A Critique ef Politica/ Economy, Volume 1, transla­

tion of the 4th German edition by Ben Fowkes (1976 1), Harmondsworth,

Penguin Books, 1976.

Moseley, Fred ed. 2005, Marx's Theory ef Money: ModernAppraisals, London/ New York, Palgrave-Macmillan.

Moseley, Fred & Martha Campbell eds. 1997, New lnvestigations ef Mar.\ '.1

Method, Atlantic Highlands (NJ), Humanities Press.

Murray, Patrick 2000a, 'Marx's "truly social" labour theory of value: Pari

I, Abstract labour in Marxian value theory' , Historica/ Materialism 6: 27-6(> .

- 2000b, 'Marx's "truly social" labor theory of value: abstract labour in

Marxian value theory (Part 2)', Historica/ Materialism 7: 99-136. - 2002, 'Reply to Geert Reu ten', Historica/ Materialism 10.1 : 155-76.

- 2004, 'The social and material transformation of production by capita!

forma! and real subsumption in "Capita! Volume I'", in Bellofiore & Tayl111

(eds, 2004): 243-73.

- 2005, 'Money as displaced social form: why value cannot be indcp<'nd·

ent of price', in Moseley (ed, 2005). Realfonzo, Riccardo & Riccardo Bellofiore 1996, 'Marx and money', /11

mestre 2911-2: 189-212.

Reu ten, Geert 1988, 'Value as Social Form', in, Michael Williams (cd .), lr1/ ue, Social Form and the State, London, Macmillan: 42-61 [Spanish transl.1IÎ1111

retrievable from http:/ /www.feb.uva.nl/pp/greuten publications 200111

- 1993, 'The difficult labour of a theory of social value; metaphm~ .111d

systematic dialectics at the beginning of Marx's Capita/', in Moscl<-y (1 1 I, 1993): 89-11 3.

- 1999, 'The source versus measure obstacle in value thcory' , N1f'lll11

di Politica Economica, 89/4-5: 87-115 [retrievable from http://WW\\.ltl

uva.nl/pp/greuten, publications 1999] . ltalien translation: ' Il prolilrn1.1

dell 'origine e quello della misura nella teoria del valorc, R ivisla di / }i/1/1111

Economica', 89, Fase. 4-5: 97-128;

2000, 'The intcrco11111·c1ion of Systematic Dialectics ancl l li s101 i1 .il ~ l .1

tcria li sm ', lli.1!01 iml /\111/1°1111/11111 7: 1 :17-66 r rctricvabk f rom h.tlpJ' i WWl\JLI 1

lM\JllLV u4u:.ru ll.." u p 111> l 11 "111 111 " ·moo 1

- 2005, 'Money as constituent of value', in Moseley (ed, 2005) [retriev­

able from http:/ /www.feb.uva.nl/pp/greuten publications 2005] Reuten, Geert & Michael Williams 1989, Value-Form and the State; the len­dencies ef accumulation and the determination ef economie poliry in capitalist sociery,

London/New York, Routledge Williams, Michael 2000, 'Why Marx neither has nor needs a commodity

theory of money', Review ef Politica/ Economy 1214: 435-51.