9 Comments
User's avatar
A. Jacobs's avatar

This lands for me because it treats money as a measurement system before it treats it as a moral system, which is where the real lock in seems to live. If the unit can only see private exchange and can’t register commons impacts, then extraction is less a failure of ethics and more a failure of semantic fidelity in what we’re able to count.

Michel Bauwens's avatar

Thank you, I let the author respond.

mosamorphing's avatar

Precisely! And as it turns out, we have always been able to "count" other forms of value, most of them have just been inverted and repressed. That said, this is not a call for another re-inversion; there is no end to that path. Civilization will get more complex and with each level of complexity is an apparent demand to re-imagine multiple levers to contain [said] complexity.

David MacLeod's avatar

From Kojin Karatani:

"In his youth, Marx discussed money, quoting Shakespeare’s “Timon

of Athens” as follows.

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and

natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and

distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and

nations.

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities,

the fraternization of impossibilities – the divine power of money – lies in

its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species

nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

This is clearly Marx’s application of the Feuerbachian critique of

religion to money. And just as Feuerbach’s materialist inversion of Hegel

remained within the framework of Hegel’s thought, Marx also remained

here within the framework of classical economics, even as he criticized it

with great fanfare.

However, Marx in Capital is different. There were quite a few

thinkers who pondered the riddle of money. But Marx was the first to

trace it to the commodity, which appears so “obvious” and “trivial” that

nobody had really paid attention to it. “A commodity appears at first sight

an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a

very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological

niceties” (Capital 1, p163).

A commodity is not a mere object. It is a form that a thing takes

when exchanged. The thing is a “sensuous matter,” but “as soon as

it changes into commodity, it changes into a thing which transcends

sensuousness.” Something like a spirit attaches to the thing. “I call this

the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor as soon as

they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the

production of commodities.”( p165). “The riddle of the money fetish is the

riddle of the commodity fetish, now become visible and dazzling to our

eyes” (p187)."

- Kojin Karatani, Capital as Spirit

https://www.crisiscritique.org/storage/app/media/2016-11-16/kojin-karatani.pdf

Michel Bauwens's avatar

Thank yiou David!

Michel Bauwens's avatar

Thank you, we have a very extensive article on it on the p2p foundation wiki as well: https://wiki.p2pfoundation.net/Modern_Monetary_Theory

mosamorphing's avatar

Thank you for such deep work, Michel! Honored to see my reflections woven into a much larger fabric of how we are rethinking this! ❤️

User's avatar
Comment removed
Dec 25
Comment removed
Michel Bauwens's avatar

Thank you, I'm in full agreement!