Tolstoy's interpretation of money and property

Transcriber’s Note: Obvious typographic errors have been corrected.
MILIVOY S. STANOYEVICH, M.L.
( University of California )
Reprinted from “Liberty”, December, 1916.
Liberty Publishing Co. Oakland, Cal.

TOLSTOY’S INTERPRETATION OF MONEY AND PROPERTY
Second, at the other extreme is a set of definitions which would restrict money to what may be called commodity money. Those who hold this view insist that money is an article of direct utility with specific value based on its direct services for consumption. They hold that it must have value due to a demand for other than a monetary system. The implication is that in the absence of this other demand the article would not have any value and therefore could not properly serve as a measure of value. This view of the nature of money is definite and clear-cut, but it is not correct because the article has value if there is a demand for it, whatever the reason for that demand.
Taking now in view these three standpoints of the nature of money, we could define it in these words: Legal tender, inconvertible paper, and all commodities which are used as general circulating and paying media, are properly called money.
Discussing money, Tolstoy cannot separate the economic question from the political. To him it appears inevitable that money performes a social service equivalent to the instrument of extortion. He does not take into consideration those inumerable utilities which circulating medium renders to the community and particularly to the commercial world, facilitating the transfer as well as aggregation of capital. “Chremmatistics” teaches us that money is the most general form of capital, capital in the fluid state, so that it can be immediately turned to new enterprises and transfered for investment to distant places. On the other hand, capital in the form of money is the most convenient vehicle of production and distribution of wealth. Tolstoy, as a medieval canonist, regards capital and wealth to be shameful and criminal things. He absolutely repudiates the theory that in all production only three factors take part: land, capital and labor. His disconcerting controversy in these matters contains nothing fundamentally new in political economy, but it is an odd manner in which he couches the notion of money in relation to production.