Marx’s Explanation of Money’s Functions: Overturning the Quantity Theory

  • Martha Campbell


Marx’s account of the functions of money, I will argue, is simultaneously a critique of the quantity theory. This critique has three parts: it identifies the misconceptions that make the quantity theory false, explains why the theory seems obviously true and, last, presents an alternative explanation to replace it. On the first count, Marx argues that the quantity theory conflates different functions of money — measure and means of circulation — and different forms — gold, tokens and credit money — and misconceives value as a result. Regarding the second, the quantity theory fits Marx’s definition of vulgar economics: the means of circulation function is immediately apparent and the quantity theory results from defining money in terms of it. Finally, Marx’s alternative to the quantity theory focuses instead on money’s function as means of payment, with the implication that capitalist money is credit money. This is the position of Tooke and his followers, with whom Marx so clearly sides in the Contribution. According to Marx, their refutation of the quantity theory is incomplete because they jumble both money with capital and money’s different aspects with each other.1 Marx corrects the first of these defects by explaining money first in the context of simple circulation; he corrects the second by presenting money’s functions in the order in which they presuppose each other in capitalism.


Capitalist Production Circulation Function Real Money Price Form Credit System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arthur, Christopher J. (1997), ‘Against the logical-historical method: Dialectical derivation versus linear logic’, in Fred Moseley and Martha Campbell (eds), New Investigations of Marx’s Method (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press).Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, Christopher J. (2004), ‘Money and the form of value’, in Riccardo Bellofiore and Nicola Taylor (eds), The Constitution of Capital (Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  3. de Brunhoff, Suzanne (1976), Marx on Money, translated by Maurice Goldbloom (New York: Urizen Books).Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, Martha (2004), ‘Value objectivity and habit’ in Riccardo Bellofiore and Nicola Taylor (eds), The Constitution of Capital (Basingstoke, New York: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
  5. Marx, Karl (1858), The original text of the second and the beginning of the third chapter of a contribution to the critique of political economy, in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 29, pp. 430–507 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987).Google Scholar
  6. Marx, Karl (1859), A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 29 (London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1987).Google Scholar
  7. Marx, Karl (1867), Capital, Vol. I (translated by B. Fowkes) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1976).Google Scholar
  8. Marx, Karl (1894), Capital, Vol. 3 (translated by D. Fernbach) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981).Google Scholar
  9. Marx, Karl (1939), Grundrisse (translated by M. Nicolaus) (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973).Google Scholar
  10. Murray, Patrick (1993), ‘The necessity of money: How Hegel helped Marx surpass Ricardo’s theory of value’, in Fred Moseley (ed.), Marx’s Method in ‘Capital’: A Reexamination (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press).Google Scholar
  11. Williams, Michael (2000), ‘Why Marx neither has nor needs a commodity theory of money’, Review of Political Economy, 12(4), 436–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Martha Campbell 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martha Campbell

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations