> Are u saying that money means that commodities are not exchanged
> porportionally to labor time in producing them ?
At the level of abstraction of Vol. Ch.1, commodities are exchanged proportional to the socially necessary **abstract** labor time. The distinction between concrete labor and abstract labor is key for Marx, and key for those who see Marx's value theory as a theory of money.
> Are you saying there were never actually existing money-commodities ?
No, there have definitely been money commodities, historically speaking. I don't think anyone would dispute that. However, strictly speaking, there is no money commmodity currently existing, though I realize that's a controversial assertion. According to Doug's book, Alan Greenspan claimed to "pay attention" to the course of gold or something like that when developing monetary policy, but that's still a rather far cry from gold functioning as universal equivalent.
> Does the monetary theory of value substitute for the labor theory of
No, the monetary theory of value **is** Marx's labor theory of value, properly understood, i.e. as distinct from Ricardo or Proudhon's labor theory of value.