First, money is sometimes used to describe all media of exchange--gold, silver, paper, checks, bank drafts or the deposits which they represent, commercial bills of exchange, and even corporation stocks. These things all effect exchanges; in a way they all relieve the difficulties of barter. But this definition, however, is too inclusive, Prof. Kinley contends. It is inclusive because all mentioned articles do not attain the character of media of exchange because there is a demand for them for that purpose primarily. The medium of exchange includes money but its content is greater than that of money. All money can be a medium of exchange but all medium of exchange is not money[14]. 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. Third, between these two extremes fluctuates the view that all media of exchange and payment, whose acceptance the law requires in discharge of debts, may properly be called money. This definition confines to standard money, or inconvertible paper, if it were legal tender. Both kinds of money circulate without reference to the possibility of recovering their value from the payer if they should fail to pass, and their value as money depends entirely on the fact that they are generally acceptable in exchange[15]. 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. This is one of the most typical definitions including nearly all others supported by current political economy. Tolstoy as always disagrees with the teaching of economics and he simply says that money is a new and terrible form of slavery[16]. His full definition is as follows: Money is a conventional token which gives the right, or more correctly, the possibility, to exploit the labor of other people[17]. To explain this inadequate definition of money more appropriately and in its fuller extent, it is necessary to turn our attention to the functions of money as they are enunciated by Leo Tolstoy.