While revisiting earlier discussions on Marx and modern monetary theory (MMT), I came across an interesting comments thread. In it, a commenter raised an argument that seems worth addressing (the full comment can be found here). The commenter writes: MMT treats money as a public utility, while Marxism treats it as an expression of value. And I think that no matter the engagement between these two schools of thought, one has to choose either one or another. Either money is an abstract public utility (grounded only in people’s accepting it, through the force of taxation or whatever), which can then be used quite unproblematically for public goods within any context whatsoever … or one realises that money is not an abstract public utility, but is concretely rooted in material processes,
peterc considers the following as important: Economics
This could be interesting, too:
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Modern macroeconomics
Bill Mitchell writes The rich are getting richer in Australia while the rest of us mark time
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Pourquoi un changement de direction théorique est nécessaire
Lars Pålsson Syll writes Hicks on the lack of scientific progress in economics
While revisiting earlier discussions on Marx and modern monetary theory (MMT), I came across an interesting comments thread. In it, a commenter raised an argument that seems worth addressing (the full comment can be found here). The commenter writes:
MMT treats money as a public utility, while Marxism treats it as an expression of value. And I think that no matter the engagement between these two schools of thought, one has to choose either one or another. Either money is an abstract public utility (grounded only in people’s accepting it, through the force of taxation or whatever), which can then be used quite unproblematically for public goods within any context whatsoever … or one realises that money is not an abstract public utility, but is concretely rooted in material processes, i.e. is a concrete expression of value. In which case the one can’t really treat it unproblematically as a public utility to be used by fiscal policy to achieve any ends under any circumstances.
Disregard the references to policy being viable “within any context whatsoever” and “under any circumstances”. MMT emphasizes that policy is constrained by the availability of real resources, as well as political factors. The focus, instead, can be on the substance of the comment, which concerns the distinction between currency as public utility and currency as expression of value.
On this distinction, I think it can be argued that:
- A currency’s role as public utility hinges on currency acceptance.
- A currency expresses (marxist) value in the sphere of commodity production so long as it represents an amount of socially necessary abstract labor.
If so, it is relevant to distinguish two questions: (i) what drives acceptance of the currency? and (ii) what determines the value of the currency?
Currency acceptance and currency value
Acceptance. Government has the authority to impose taxes (and other obligations) on members of the community and specify what will be accepted in payment. In principle, this authority is bestowed upon government by the community and, ideally, will be exercised in a democratically accountable way. Reality, of course, can diverge from the ideal. But, in any case, by nominating its own currency as what is acceptable in payment to it, government can ensure some level of demand for the currency. At least for the purposes of meeting these obligations, people will accept the currency in payment for goods and services. Experience also suggests that so long as taxes are effectively enforced, the community will be inclined to use the currency for other purposes as well, such as for transacting and saving.
Value. In the marxist sense of the term, ‘value’ (defined as socially necessary labor time) governs commodity production and exchange. A commodity, by definition, is a good or service produced for sale in a market. Not all goods and services are commodities. Public education, for instance, is a service but not a commodity. Modern economies employ a mixture of commodity and non-commodity production. For a currency to facilitate commodity exchange, it must express value. So long as a unit of the currency can be said to be the equivalent of an amount of labor time, the currency will in fact express value in the marxist sense. As observed in the previous post, currency value can be conceived in two closely related ways, either as the amount of labor a unit of the currency commands or as the amount of labor needed to reproduce a currency unit’s worth of the commodity labor power; in short, on the basis of either a labor command theory or a commodity theory. A currency-issuing government, through its price-setting capacities, is in a position to exert strong influence over the currency’s value, under either definition.
The primacy of currency acceptance
The government’s capacity to ensure acceptance of its currency, at least sufficient to transfer available goods and services to the public sector in accordance with its socioeconomic program, applies irrespective of (marxist) value considerations. The government is in a position to set and enforce the rules of the game. At the level of theory, these rules might or might not permit a role for commodity production, embedded within the economy’s institutional and regulatory structure. Under present practice, of course, considerable scope is granted for commodity production and exchange.
Taxation induces a supply of goods and services for sale in the government’s money of account. This creates markets for commodities exchangeable in the government’s currency (as opposed to some other currency).
These markets function under the rules established by government. Markets depend on government for their existence, and market tendencies can be overruled at the government’s discretion. If a particular good or service would be of social benefit but an adequate market supply fails to eventuate, its production and provision can be kept outside the sphere of commodities (such as occurs with public health care, the public court system, public roads, and so on).
So long as a currency remains viable, it can be employed at minimum for non-market purposes. This viability depends solely on the currency’s acceptance, which in turn depends on taxes being high enough to induce a supply of real resources (not necessarily commodities) commanded by government. So far as currency viability is concerned, acceptance is everything, value considerations are nothing.
In the sphere of commodities, to which value considerations do pertain, production is subject to the ‘law of value’ (the profit motive). To the extent that economic decision-making is delegated to for-profit enterprise, society subjects itself to the law of value. But it is always within society’s power to reassert its authority over production and distribution; in other words, to override the law of value, or even to do away with it completely.
Viability of a monetary economy
Distinguishing currency acceptance from currency value therefore carries a social significance. So long as a sovereign government’s currency is accepted, neither the currency nor society is ultimately beholden to the law of value.
Since a currency can be made viable irrespective of (marxist) value considerations, a currency-issuing government can override the law of value whenever this is the political will. This opens the way for an extension of not-for-profit activity and, if desired, a transcending of capitalism.
To reiterate what was stated earlier, however, this does not mean that policy is feasible “within any context whatsoever” or “under any circumstances”. For instance, it might be that certain policy options negatively affect the profitability of capitalist firms. In that case, certain policy options might not be compatible with a preservation of capitalism.
This only means that society, in such instances, will face a choice between reinforcing capitalist social relations or transitioning to socialism. Ultimately, the viability of the capitalist class is contingent on the actions of currency-issuing governments, not the other way round.