At this point, I’m just hoping that if it happens the “damage” it does is to the rich and corrupt leaders lol

  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Sure, that’s one practical aspect of money that lends itself to superficial quantitative analysis. But it’s not the whole picture. Money is fundamentally about the power to get people to do things for you. That’s what it represents. With money I can force people to give me things and do things for me, almost like magic.

    Now the origins of money is rooted in debt (and power). When a ruling body exercises a monopoly on violence over a region, it can offer promissory notes (IOUs) that others value, because they have faith that this ruling body can force its citizens to work by extracting taxes from them.

    Check out “Debt: The Last 5000 Years,” or similar anthropological work on the origins of money.

    • artificialfish@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 hours ago

      Why will people do things for you in exchange for money?

      I’ve read a lot of that book. I know about the power theory of money. But the very concept of money is about power changing hands. A person who receives money now has power over someone else. Exploitation occurs when that exchanged power is less than the power the laborer put in. But there’s no way money can exist as power in a purely top down command economy. In that case, power takes a different form, like direct police action. Money as power can only exist when it can be exchanged for goods and services. That’s its gimmick as a medium of power. Other power mediums have other gimmicks.

      And under that gimmick, capitalists actually do have a dialectical relationship to workers, and therefore to their means of living, their means of social reproduction, their environment. That’s Marxism.

      So all money is power, but not all power is money.