(OPE-L) Re: value, money, and the exchange of equivalents

[glevy@xxxxxxxxx]

Phil wrote:

> To give up the idea that money is a universal equivalent merely
> because prices can fluctuate while production conditions remain
> unchanged seems to me to be folly.  Marx does it, of course.

I'm not sure I follow.  What is "it" that Marx does?  Is it
"folly"?

>  If
> money is not a universal equivalent then what is it?

A medium of exchange along with many other social functions.

One doesn't have to give up on the idea that money is
a universal equivalent to recognize that prices of
individual commodities are not necessarily equal to
their value.

> Consider the circuit of money capital.  The capitalist starts off
> with some money but the value of the constant capital acquired with it
> is not equal to the value of the money.  The capitalist ends up with
> more money but the value  of this money is not equal to the
> value of the commodity capital sold.

Can't the MELT change?

> The question is not whether I should read Volume 3 but rather why, if
> the universal equivalent is rejected, anyone should bother to read
> Volume I?

Because the concept that money functions as a universal
equivalent is only one (relatively small) part of Marx's
analysis in Volume 1.

In solidarity, Jerry