Strangely enough, at the same time as its standing on the meta-level and therefore closing the ârelational systemâ of commodity, money (qua commodity) descends, on its own accord to the object level. It is this very âdisequilibriumâ that provides the essentially deconstructive disposition of capitalism
Like Cantor, who treated infinity as a number, Marx developed his âtheory of setsâ by treating capital itself, and therefore money itself, as a commodity. It was thus not the generality but the infinity of money that interested Marx. Money must not be regarded as a general measure of value, but rather as a commodity that is unconditionally exchangeable.
Classical economics ignores this aspect of money by defining money as a barometer that indicates the magnitude of value. By excluding money, the classical schools of economics were able to achieve an equilibrate system. The same can be said for the neoclassical school and, for that matter, most Marxian economists. On the other hand, Marx stresses that such an equilibrium is essentially nonexistent. It is therefore absolutely impossible to control capitalism from the meta-level, because capitalism itself is deconstructive.
This does not mean that Capital can be reduced to this interpretation. What I would like to say here is that Marx was experiencing the same crisis that has accompanied formalization since the latter half of the 19th century; having written the âfoundationsâ of economics, Marx simultaneously realized - sooner than anyone else - the absence of its foundation.
Kojin Karatani, Architecture as Metaphor, âMoneyâ
Sorry for quoting basically this entire chapter, but itâs so good and explains capital and why Marx is so revolutionary so well. I think this the fundamental spirit of capitalism that people donât always grasp.
