Zeitgeist: Moving Forward, Part 2b

The Inevitable Symbol

___________________

Having purged my criticism of the absurdity of the status quo in economics, I will now turn my attention to the nature of money. Now, the definitions of the term "money" and its synonyms are largely derivative. "Money", "coinage", "currency" etc. do not refer to any basic concept of symbolized worth or transferrable value. Perhaps the closest we come to this connection are some of the oldest words and phrases which refer to pay for a days work. At least in these instances, the concept is connected to a real thing etymologically. Otherwise, "money" refers to a demigod, "coin" refers to a smithing tool, and "currency" refers to the circulation of tokens. Now, the word "token" is perhaps more interesting since it can be traced to an old Saxon word for something used to teach. Thus, it is important because it is mainly used for its attribution of significance or signification. A token is something which represents or symbolizes something else. I can give you a token of my affection, a rose perhaps, to signify my feelings. I can alternatively give you a token, a fifty-dollar federal reserve note, to signify the value of services rendered. Now, "token" in this second sense is important because when tokens act as money, they have transitive value. I paid you $50 to change my oil, but certainly you will not spend it the same way. Perhaps you will give it back to me in order to plant your spring garden. The allure of tokens in this sense is that they create a medium through which individuals who are not directly and equally useful to one another can trade with equity.

If you want a garden (but aren't going to plant it) and I want my car maintained (but am not going to maintain it), then we can simply trade services. Tokens are not necessary to equitable exchange here. But what if I'm a lawyer, not a gardener, and you're not in need of legal services. At this point we have two options, assuming a lawyer has no other marketable skills and that trading goods isn't in question. First, I can basically write you an I.O.U. which would symbolize my promise to future services at the convenience of the holder. Such a promissory note could be used to lubricate trade of services directly since it would take immediacy of need out of the question. If you, the mechanic, know that you'll need legal service sometime in the near future, this may be a good trade. Another option would be for us to use tokens which hold value not only to me as a lawyer, but hold value in a larger economy of various tradesmen and laborers. Although a mechanic may not have sufficient need of a lawyer in the future, he will likely need some service from somebody sometime. Thus, a currency could be issued from a central body (it could be a group of tradesmen, a government, a bank, etc). There are many issues which attend how such a currency of tokens might be issued, how to initially start the engine of such an economy, but once it is started, it isn't difficult to see how it would enable more trade.

So far, so good. But I have one nagging question, and it's a question that the film begs as well: Is the use of money inevitable? Perhaps a more telling version of the question is: Is the use of money inevitable in civilization? I think that the latter question is fairly easily answered "yes", unless we seek to reshape the meaning of "civilization". But, contrary to my examples given above, there aren't any mechanics as such, or lawyers as such outside civilization. Of course if we're assuming civilization, we're likely to assume the inevitability of money. How would a lawyer function if he weren't able to be useful to a large amount of people through the use of tokens? In a small village, there probably isn't enough "work" for a lawyer to do to maintain a living. Similarly, there probably isn't much of a chance that a car mechanic, so specialized, could make a living without currency, especially one who doesn't know how to garden.

My only point with this post is to establish that the question of market capitalism founders on the ground of assuming the inevitability of money. If we assume money, then the best way to have peace is to allow markets to be free and for people to make war with money instead of swords. The beauty of the dollar is much like the beauty of the gun: it allows Bill Gates to be a badass. It negates the types of barbarism which proliferate in warrior cultures. But, it doesn't negate social darwinism. It doesn't negate capitalist barbarism. It keeps the blood off the hands, so to speak. It allows modern morality to be built on mass murder buried under a thousand layers of externalizations.

But, assuming money to defend capitalism is fallacious, since we must assume civilization to defend money. In the end, we must live or die on the premise that civilization is an assumed good. That all those people who lived in pre-history (since history was created by civilization as a mirror for self-admiration) weren't really human. We assume that civilization is good because we need to believe that work and death are bad. But what does it say about our civilized humanity if we can only maintain it by dehumanizing others? If I realize my human dream through independent wealth built in a capitalist system in which a thousand (I made up the number) Brazilian farmers are working harder than I've ever worked to pay me interest, then is my dream really without work (and death)? Perhaps the dream is really to connive a way to externalize my work and my death, and perhaps my dream is not truly to be human, but to be God.