> Marx seemed like a goldbug in vol. 1 of Capital, but
> by vol. 3 he was emphasizing how credit broke
> beyond the limits of capitalist possibilities. It seems
> like we're living in that world.
Volume 3 of Capital was (or the manuscripts that made it into it were) written before volume 1. And knowing the onion-like nature of Marx's "economics" planned architecture, the apparent contradiction is easily resolved.
The money form is that -- the *form* of a more substantive (permanent, stable, structural) content under certain social conditions. In turn, that content is another form: the commodity form. Money is a more superficial form than commodity. When commodity production leads to the production of money, the rest of the commodities gain something and they also lose something, just like the emergence of a leader in a community allows for the rest of the community to gain something at the same time as they lose something. The general commodity form could conceivably survive the removal of the conditions that make the money form necessary. It wouldn't be a very pleasant experience for us, but it is conceivable.
But not vice versa. The money form is one side of the commodity form stretched to its limit. The money form is latent insofar as commodity production persists (we are all leaders, in spe). Now, if the social conditions that make the commodity form necessary are gone, then the money form ceases to exist. In turn, the commodity form is the form that social cooperative labor takes under certain social conditions. It is possible for a society to eliminate the conditions that force cooperative labor into the commodity form, but that does not abolish the need for cooperative labor altogether. Thank God.
If you zoom in to the money form, you find a similar onion-like (or fractal, if you wish) structure. Money plays various roles in enabling social cooperation to flow under certain social conditions. The roles that make money what it is are (1) measure of value, (2) means of exchange, (3) means of payment, and (4) store of value. In principle, every commodity can perform those roles. Although not all can do it well. (If you think about it, measure of value is the primary role, a role today's economists never mention.) Now, it is entirely possible that money can play each of these roles through surrogates. Again, some surrogates can do a hell of a job. But that is all temporary, because society being in flux there's nothing truly permanent.
Precisely, the test of a social form, a measure of its robustness, lies in its ability to withstand the shaking of conditions that appear to be sine qua non. No doubt, there *is* a connection between fiat money and commodity money (precious metals or whatever may do the job should the fiat money-issuing state experience a sufficiently disruptive crisis). The connection may thin out and appear to be completely severed, but this is only -- to use the old term -- a case of "relative autonomy." If the state that issues fiat money experiences a sufficiently deep crisis, then people may fall back to more primitive forms of money. The surrogates prove ineffective. (Unless the crisis is so deep that even the conditions that make the commodity form necessary are also compromised.)
Aside from the fetishistic behavior goldbugs exhibit, there is a rational element to it under current circumstances -- if the existing legal and political arrangements are in crisis, and there's no reason to believe that new (say, socialist) structures may emerge and promptly jell in replacement, then people will need means of exchange, payment, and value storage more robust than those that seem particularly tied to the legal and political status quo. What's the value of any financial asset if people massively default and renege on their promises? How can you ensure your necessities in a socially chaotic scenario? Precious metals have proved to be historically resilient. (As we speak, Cuba and Venezuela are partially clinging to gold. If China falls, it may not amount to much, but they are placing more faith in it than on the USD.) Goldbuggery reduces the illusion (an illusion with deep social roots, no doubt) of private property to its absurdity.
As I tell my money-and-banking students, what financial assets (i.e. exclusive ownership over the productive wealth of society) do is give us the illusion that we can escape the inescapable fact that all we really have is our reliance on one another. We either make society or we withdraw and unravel it. We cooperate or else. Holding on to gold, silver, or whatever will prove foolish if those who hold food lose interest in your gold. All we really have is one another, and as complicated as making society is, the opposite is worse. (To be fair with Cuba and Venezuela, they are making society by promoting regional integration via CELAC, Mercosur, Banco del Sur, etc.)
The logical and historical precedence of commodity money over fiat money (I know Graeber thinks differently, but I am unimpressed with his understanding of the issues, and I'm past the mid point of his book) is akin to the logical and historical precedence of commodity production with respect to capitalist production proper.
Nobody who understands the issues will make the empirical claim that, in today's capitalist societies, market prices gravitate around direct prices (prices proportional to labor values), just like nobody with eyes to see will claim that people in today's society are not cooperating through commodity exchange or that production is not organized in hierarchical capitalist enterprises. Yes, they are. For now. But, what, are we saying then that market prices have liberated themselves from any tie to the fundamental fact that *ultimately* all production is for need and that all production is *ultimately* the transformation of nature by cooperative labor?
Yeah, watching Michael Jordan dunk the basketball on youtube may appear to us as a violation of the law of gravity, especially in slow motion. But, is it really?