Such a “socially” recognised exchange-commodity is, of course, always a means of payment, and therefore is included in the concept “means of payment.” On the other hand, it is untrue that every means of payment is a socially recognised exchange-commodity. It is indeed always so¢ially recognised and also is always used for exchange; but it is questionable whether it is always a commodity. In order to be a commodity it must, in addition to its use in the manner provided by law, also be capable of a use in the world of art and industry, and this is not the case with all means of payment. The sheets of paper, which are all the eye of the craftsman sees in paper money, are an example of an object which has no other industrial use. They are therefore not an exchange-commodity, though they are a means of exchange.
The result of our considerations, cautiously stated as theory demands, is as follows. In the socially recognised exchange-commodity we have an instance of a means of payment, and therefore not its definition; it is only a special case of a means of payment, and that the simplest that can be imagined. Let us assume that this exchange-commodity consists of a metal—which is not absolutely necessary, but occurs in the most important case—we can then give a name to this simplest form of the means of payment; it is “autometallistic.”
Autometallism views metal only as material and
