>At 1:46 PM 7/27/98, Jones, Peter-Cultural Studies wrote:
>>27 july
>>from peter jones
>>in response to jay's message <<snip>
>
>>
>>certainly according to the marxian theory of money and value,=20
everything
>>changes financially if there is no gold for the paper tokens to stand
for,
>>indeed there is no money at all. money is not merely a sign since money
as
>>gold is itself a commodity and its exhange relations with all other
>>commodities is determined by the law of value (ie by the relative
>>quantities of socially necessary labour time embodied in them). nor=20
is
>>value a signifier. i think the link between money and language can be
>>pushed too far (eg baudrillard).
>>best wishes
>>P
>
>I think that language-as-currency actually goes a long way in revealing
how
>money signifies transactions more than value-in-itself;money is a
>commodity, certainly, but money also operates to commodify in the
>transactional uses - money is only actualized in its uses.=20
Money is also actualised when passively amassed: Its ownership creates
the perception (and therefore the reality) of power. Whether or not - or
even how - it is used becomes irrelevant in terms of the power it
signifies.=20
The widespread acceptance of money as a commodity is probably the most
destructive social phenomenon I can think of. Apart from Marx =96Hume,
Aristotle, Smith, and Mill all argue quite cogently to the societal
dangers inherent in the commodification of, and subsequent trade in,
money.=20
The benefits of such commodification, claims Marx, 'has all the charms of
something created out of nothing', a phenomenon that can be seen quite
plainly during times when speculative interests outweigh productive ones;
such as now (<italic>Capital,</italic> Vol 1, p. 325).
>The key perhaps is in
>the accommodating ideological frame. Volosinov (1986, 23) writes
>something interesting here:
>"Existence reflected in sign is not merely reflected but _refracted_.
How
>is this refraction of existence in the ideological sign determined? By
an
>intersecting of differently oriented social interests within one and
the
>same sign community,
> i.e., _by the class struggle_.
>Class does not coincide with the sign community...various different
classes
>will use one and the same language...Sign becomes the arena of class
>struggle."
Exactly. The struggle for the ownership of meaning, at least where money
is concerned, is most definitely the arena of the current class struggle.
Excuse my crude Marxism here, but I do think that class interests are of
primary importance at this particular juncture. By focusing on the
"economic", broader societal issues are rendered invisible or, at best, a
sad third. As Adorno points out: Talent is owned by the culture industry
prior to its display. Otherwise, he says, why else would talent fit so
neatly into the industry? A heavily structuralist argument, but
nonetheless valid in light of the propogating effects of media, money,
and the signification thereof.
In light of so-called globalisation, money, it seems, really does speak
all languages.
>Ultimately, it is about economic conditions, modes of
>production...globally, aiy-yi, it is about slavery,=20
Slavery is now called "Factor-Price Equilibrium" by economists and is,
according to Thurow (1996), the sole purpose of neo-liberal economics
and "globalisation".=20
>still.
>Jay's thoughts on affect suggest a question about "greed" in-relation
to
>ownership and the practices of amassing money-as-property; greed as=20
the
>desire which is both about wanting and lacking (lacking more therefore
>wanting more) but
>
>lacking what?
I dunno. But Aristotle put it nicely (at least from my [capital "M"]
Marxist perspective): "Whoever heard of a man making himself a dictator
in order to keep warm? For this reason, there is more honour in slaying a
tyrant than a thief" (<italic>Politics</italic>, p. 130).=20
I'm not condoning violence (or ancient greek sexism) here, but the "will
to power" is, to me, most apparent in those who seek to control others =96
Perhaps it's not a "lack" as much as an add-on. Today, it seems that
power is actualised by owning or wielding mind-numbing sums of money in
new, increasingly abstract, and increasingly speculative ways.
I have a mile of refs for anyone interested.
Cheers,=20
Phil Graham
Student=20
Queensland University of Technology
Australia