Abstract

By demonstrating how epistemology and methodology shape economic thinking, we attempt to explain the reasons for the existence and survival of rival interpretations of the nature of money and its role in the process of commodity production. The monetary theories of Alfred Marshall and of Karl Marx are considered as representatives of two rival conceptions of money. ;We demonstrate that Marshall's singular interpretation of money as a medium of exchange is shaped by his understanding of empiricism as an epistemology that treats money as a static object and satisfies its interpretive task by casting a singular meaning on it. His inductive-deductive-inductive methodology, in turn, preserves the singular meaning of money, thus leading to the neutrality theses. Marx's epistemology, however, allows him to analyze money through an interpretational mechanism that assigns to money multiple meanings. His methodology of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete traces money as it acquires multiple meanings, thus becoming a store of value and capital besides being a medium of exchange. This more complex meaning of money has serious implications with regard to the possibility of economic crises. ;However, if philosophical foundations have played a role in shaping rival interpretations of money, and if each validates its conclusions according to its own "paradigm," does it follow that it is futile to evaluate rival theories against each other? We conduct a "test" that provides a negative answer to the latter question. We show that Marx's interpretation of money can be derived with Marshall's philosophical foundations. The "test" also shows that Marshall's theory of money is a one-sided abstract determination within Marx's multi-sided discourse. We, therefore, conclude that the consequences of each interpretation of money can be evaluated according to the rival's criteria for validity. This means that rival theories of money should not continue to survive on philosophical grounds. The fact that the rival interpretations of money were generated by rival epistemologies and methodologies should not preclude rational dialogue between theories of different philosophical traditions