Editing A New Introduction to Capital (section)

==== MONEY: UNDERSTANDING M-C-M' ====
So what is money? Money: the alienated human ability in general (Marx).

Money is the universal otherness of the state within the economy. Again; exchange has a material reason, social relations are not given, they are determinate. Of course we are materialists, so we have to reconcile with the fact that Oikos reproduces itself in otherness to the state. Or in dumbfk terms: "VALUE" IS CREATED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF THE MONEY SUPPLY. 

Let's expound upon this fact.

WHAT DOES M' mean?

What does M' mean? M' means more money, right? Simple. More money means money taken from somewhere else? Atleast we think so, in common sense this is true. M' = more money taken from somewhere else.

The part about freezing time is not important to understand this point. The amount of money in circulation is always finite; During the gold standard (when Marx wrote Das Capital), it was almost infinetly finite. 

We have two capitalists; Regard and Marxoid. Marxoid has 4 dumbcoins, and Regard has 1; There exists only 5 dumbcoins in circulation. 

Regard invests his dumbcoin into something, a commodity, to get more money, M'. But that money has to come from somewhere if the amount of money in circulation is finite. In this example it will have to come from Marxoid. So Marxoid gives Regard 2 dumbcoins for the commodity.

Regard has 2 coins and Marxoid has 3. This is what happens right? M-C-M'. Regard invested his dumbcoin (M) into a commodity (C), and somehow he gained 2 dumbcoins (M'); which means that someones a loser here, since the amount of money is finite. So M-C-M' in this sense means that the *proportion of money changed*.

Trade wars between countries is (really simplified) more or less this fact, there is a finite amount of money in circulation, a finite *instantiation* of value.

Is this what Marx was getting at? Is this the meaning of capital for Marx? Well, this is what it's going to look like initialy.

But when it comes to '''modern industrial capitalism''', for Marx, this explanation is not enough. 

For Marx, as most people already know, the M' is a proxy(not technically the same) for surplus value.

But then the question is: How could there be a ''surplus'', if there is merely a ''change in proportion'' between Regard and Marxoid?

But this line of thinking, and this type of question, ''fundamentaly'' misunderstands Marx and the meaning of M-C-M', because it is individualistic. 

Even though Regard and Marxoid act both as consumers and capitalists, they also acts as a ''class''. And that class exists within a polity, meaning they are acting within the range of possibilites of that polity.

They are at the same time subjects being limited by an object (society), and also acting upon that object, changing it. This should not be taken lightly. It has ontological, historical and epistemic implications. This is the very reason that Marxism requires dialectial insight. Marxism is a scientific method (Object-Subject) for acquiring knowledge about the laws governing the historical development of societies, a development which is already taking place materially.

So again, for Marx, M-C-M' is at the scale of THE POLITY. NOT INDIVIDUALS.

Even though at individual levels, it seems as though the proportion of the money supply is just being redistributed, at some fundamental level on the scale of society as a whole, at the scale of the Oikos, there is more value being created.

There is multiple ways to explain this dilemma of M-C-M'.