one of the main things i think i'm getting out of reading about marx's theory of money is how extensible it is, because the backing commodity is largely irrelevant and it fundamentally is societally dictated. even when you admit that marx thought that fiat currency would never happen, his theory still like- holds. it's not necessary for the backing commodity to be anything but a commodity, and commodities are a very general thing.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tulips@shrike.club
a minor bugbear is that i think that the simple exchange-form shouldn't be written
x commodity A = y commodity B
but instead something like
x commodity A -> y commodity B
because while it is technically a symmetric relation, there's a kind of understanding with "equality" in mathematics that it's a law of nature and also that the content of the equation is the same as the flipped equation. in marx's exchange-forms, the side of the equation matters A LOT.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tulips@shrike.club
i mean, notation is largely irrelevant and doesn't actually fix anything. but i like this because it implies that exchange is an ACTION and not a LAW, because in marx's theory of money that action has to be mediated by the society it takes place in (on the macroeconomic level) and the individuals who engage in it (on the microeconomic level). even in barter, there is negotiation, and the relative-value of A can change based on the words of A's owner.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tulips@shrike.club
don't worry everyone, i will stop posting about marxist theory eventually and i'll return to my normal 22-year-old depressed ramblings and also occasionally homestuck. i promise.
=> More informations about this toot | More toots from tulips@shrike.club
text/geminiThis content has been proxied by September (3851b).