[lbo-talk] Goldbugs/ Marx As Anal Retentive

shag shag at cleandraws.com
Tue Oct 21 15:38:48 PDT 2008


At 06:19 PM 10/21/2008, Doug Henwood wrote:


>On Oct 21, 2008, at 5:55 PM, Cseniornyc at aol.com wrote:
>
>>" Goldbugs tend to be very strange people - paranoid anal
>>retentive. Go to a
>>gold bug conference and you'll want to take a shower soon after. "
>>Major problem with this statement is that Marx is a self-confessed
>>gold bug
>>and therefore a major "anal retentive". Marx makes it clear right at
>>the
>>beginning of Chapter 3 -Section 1 of Volume 1 as he states
>>unequivocally:
>>"Throughout this work I assume ...gold as the money commodity.The
>>first chief
>>function of money is to supply commodities with material for the
>>expression of
>>their values....It thus serves as a universal measure of value"
>>Later on in a reply to a poster,Doug Henwood says that this is
>>"only the
>>Marx of Das Kapital" .However, this work is considered by everyone
>>Marx's Magna
>>Opus..
>
>I can't find the original post you're referring to, but I'm almost
>certain that I said - and if I didn't I should have - that that's
>Marx's view in vol. 1 of Capital. Vol. 3 moves way beyond gold into
>the world of credit money. It's true that in Marx's vol. 3 model of
>crises that credit collapses and the system falls back onto gold - but
>the credit system is clearly a way for capital to overcome its limits
>and reach new heights of expansion during the boom phase. In our
>modern, post-gold world, T-bills are the new gold, which is why
>they're yielding 0.06% now.
>
>Doug

What you wrote, below. Question, though: when Marx says, "The first chief function of money is to supply commodities with material for the expression of their values....It thus serves as a universal measure of value"

In the first part, he's saying that money is merely a vehicle for the "expression of their values" -- right?

And the second part, I would interpret that as that, at this historical moment it "serves as a universal measure of value" -- yes? or does he say more elsewhere to indicate goldbuggery?

Anyway, here's your original post:


>From: Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com>
>To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
>Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 15:33:07 -0400
>Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Kucinich on money
>
>
>On Sep 30, 2008, at 3:19 PM, boddi satva wrote:
>
>>Karl Marx, after all, was a goldbug.

If you stop at vol. 1, yes. http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20080929/016028.html



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list