The Concept of Currency

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

I think the fundamental change needed would be a complete loss of the primitive brain that controls urges such as mating (and thus courting, competition and dominance), fight/flight, hunger/thirst, physical maintenance, love, hate, fear, contentment etc.

Speaking from experience (I'm transsexual, a eunuch) this would happen if we castrated men . . . we could start with the rapists.

 

[Obyron]

I think the fundamental change needed would be a complete loss of [...] mating[, ...] fight/flight, hunger/thirst, physical maintenance, love, hate, fear, contentment etc.

So in other words, "If only we weren't human."

 

[GoddessLSD-XTC]

^^^ No, ppl have to mature, evolve, nurture, idealize -- a different attitude.

Without $$$ everyone will see what motivates ppl to do good and those that do good and have goodness in their hearts are happiest.

 

[B9]

TBH it wouldn't hurt if people could drop all reference to religious text & interpretation of said texts . It seems that it only serves to muddle an issue which is hard enough for most people to even conceive of.

 

[Obyron]

^^ It seems to me that if we're maturing and shedding unnecessary traits, reliance on imaginary friends in the sky and slavish adherence to the patently false written propaganda that props them up would definitely be good to get rid of.

Perhaps we might try getting rid of that before we get rid of mating. The Shakers kept the religion and dropped the mating, and we see how that worked out. (Hint: There are none left.)

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

I think the fundamental change needed would be a complete loss of the primitive brain that controls urges such as mating (and thus courting, competition and dominance), fight/flight, hunger/thirst, physical maintenance, love, hate, fear, contentment etc. It is these 'urges' that drive us to immorality because they exist without a verbal framework and work 'behind' reason.

They also keep us alive during uncertain events (i.e. almost all) and to remove them would be to remove our individual personalities. Jungian archetypes? Gone. We would actually be the philosophical zombies of the Hive Mind required to produce and given resources with which to do it. Veritable cells of the larger entity without a clear definition of it's supra-environment. I'd go so far to say we would cease to be conscious as we know it now.

These statements do not make much sense to me. Given the existence of these feelings, how did our species manage to survive without a monetary system for 99% of its existence? Surely it wasn't a 'hive mind', and we were conscious, so how were we able to sustain ourselves, let alone form communities, if we are predestined to immorality? We wouldn't have made it past the initial radiation phase of evolution if we were so inherently self-destructive, as the behavior would have caught up with us long before now. On the other hand, observe the consequences of the last, and in my opinion most self-destructive, 1% of our existence; it just isn't working.

Nobody is born with the inclination to hate and dominate others, it's a learned cultural behavior like any other. We are all taught that rejection by the ones we love is normal from a young age ('I can't stay with you, I have to go to work'), and if that's what we're taught, that's what we will act out in our behaviors, whether we are conscious of it or not. If such a rejection is expected, and love something reserved for daydreams, and looking out for ourselves is paramount because of this, hate and dominance follow.

Every culture seeks to perpetuate itself, and our culture is no different. It does this by telling us things like 'man is evil by nature' and 'the only certain things in life are death and taxes', because presenting opposing viewpoints and lifestyles would only result in people choosing (or at least considering) to live outside the system. We are taught that we are living in the best way possible, and are discouraged to take the ideas of indigenous cultures seriously because they're living 'in the past' or 'backward', because they don't follow the growth imperative I spoke of before.

As for examples of other ways of living/thinking, I have to reference this article, one that helped me immensely to understand what an alternative to the 'every man is an island' psychology (preached as universal fact everywhere Western civilization rules) looks like.

 

[Obyron]

These statements do not make much sense to me. Given the existence of these feelings, how did our species manage to survive without a monetary system for 99% of its existence?

Some of the oldest examples of writing historians/paleontologists/anthropologists have found-- notwithstanding the much-bandied Sumerian beer recipe-- were clay tablets which had been carved with what appeared to be tax records, levied in the form of X amount of grain to be remitted to the local ruler. That is a currency transaction in the form of a commodity, just as much as trading oil futures is a currency transaction.

Money is as old as human civilization. Our species survived without money for 99% of its existence, because we were cavemen who didn't give two shits about three shits and ran around fucking mastodons and getting eaten by sabre-toothed tigers. And I'm sure even Muglok traded shiny rocks for Urthog's bear pelt, which you have to admit would be an improvement over just killing him and taking it.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

^^^ The oldest forms of writing, including cuneiform, are approximately 10,000 years old. Humans beings have been around for approximately 1 million years if not longer as a species. Most cultures on this planet had no form of currency until it was imposed upon them by us 'civilized' folk.

Also, don't you see what I'm getting at about the whole superiority complex our culture has, when your rebuttal to my statements centers around mocking and discrediting 'non-civilized' peoples?

 

[neonads]

Given the existence of these feelings, how did our species manage to survive without a monetary system for 99% of its existence? Surely it wasn't a 'hive mind', and we were conscious, so how were we able to sustain ourselves, let alone form communities, if we are predestined to immorality?

Because morality (putting the group before the self) is a mammalian invention that arose out of the need to hide from dinosaurs and nurture a family. We started out as small, furry, nocturnal animals ever fearful of being eaten by physically superior dinosaurs and success was more achieveable by acting as a group rather than hoping any one individual could go head to head with them long enough to procreate. Note socialism and its need for "evil capitalist" propaganda, using fear to drive up group cohesion. We even have it in the West now with "terrorism".

Nevertheless, we evolved from reptiles and took their brain with us so when the requirements of the group outweigh the perceived benefits received we have divergence and this is shown in human migration patterns, even in primate societies too. The key here is perception. A Hive Mind mentality is certainly possible, but only if the members are shielded from outside influence. Heavy censorship in countries like China & Russia serve this purpose. Had their people the same level of political awareness as the West, civil war would tear them apart. Socialism is vitally reliant on censorship to mitigate natural divergence.

Nobody is born with the inclination to hate and dominate others, it's a learned cultural behavior like any other.

Hate is an extreme emotion, IMO, formed from denying the primitive brain for too long. e.g. Knowing that you are better than your boss in every regard but having to live under their dominance without being able to challenge their position. Switch "you" and "boss" to "Islam" and "The West" for an insight into radicalism. Dominance is most assuredly inbuilt. Look at mammalian, avian, and reptilian behaviour across the board, alpha-male hierarchies and sibling rivalry in every species. This is why we don't see Hive mentalities in these classes. Fish have schools, insects have hives. They act selflessly all the time.

Every culture seeks to perpetuate itself, and our culture is no different.

Cultures do perpetuate, but the intention arises from fear of the unknown in the individuals. A primitive urge that is acted upon by the higher brain. Our derision of indigenous people actually comes from morality. The group cohesion drops when people begin outlandish behaviours, such as endorsing their ways, and the reptilian fears creep in to be acted upon by mammalian morality in the form of social alienation.

The problem is not what we are taught, because ultimately, we teach ourselves everything we know. When you figure out how to make that horse drink, you'll prove me wrong.

 

[Obyron]

^^^ The oldest forms of writing, including cuneiform, are approximately 10,000 years old. Humans beings have been around for approximately 1 million years if not longer as a species. Most cultures on this planet had no form of currency until it was imposed upon them by us 'civilized' folk.

Also, don't you see what I'm getting at about the whole superiority complex our culture has, when your rebuttal to my statements centers around mocking and discrediting 'non-civilized' peoples?

Homo sapien sapiens is only around 200,000 years old. Anything before that is about as human as a chimpanzee. We spent the greater part of that 200,000 years foraging, herding, planting, and painting shit in caves. If that is your ideal culture, you're welcome to it. You are only able to have this conversation because of modern conveniences, and you are only intelligent enough to articulate your ideas because of modern society and modern education.

I'm sure there were many cultures that did not have money or what have you until we "imposed" it on them. They also lived in dirt-walled hovels, got mauled by cheetahs, and died of malaria. They're welcome. I'm no kind of believer in this frankly racist and insensitive idea of the "noble savage" who was somehow so much better off Before The White Man Came. I am not discrediting primitive people, I'm just not giving them more credit than they're due just because they had the forbearance to shit in the woods, live their entire lives shrouded in nonsense religions and superstition, and hunt and kill their own food; while occasionally taking a break to rape and pillage the next tribe over. In fact, primitive society sounds pretty much exactly like modern society, except we have indoor plumbing and supermarkets.

If you want to go out in the woods and live a primitive lifestyle then do it, plenty of people do. I think unplugging your computer is a good start.

 

[HoneyRoastedPeanut]

So I take it neither of you cared to read the article I referenced? This thread seems to have made a distinct turn from open, thoughtful discussion to personal argument, which I think is counterproductive.

Neonads, your ideas of conflicting reptilian and mammalian psychology are interesting, but I feel something is missing because it sounds like far too simple an explanation for such a complex idea; could you give me some further information on this theory? Anyways, because we are human, and because we can choose how we live, I think altruism should guide our behavior, including a system for conflict resolution that appeases the dominance dynamic without compromising personal freedom. When we permit dominance to rule, even in personal conflicts, it negates everything we work for, and hate arises as you have said. When our lives are governed by dominance, as it is under capitalism or any economic system based on hierarchy, hate becomes the societal norm. Likewise, if a people whose minds have been conditioned to accept hierarchy, hate, and dominance attempt to change (as in historical communism) without a radical change in psychology, the results are the same. Form determines function.

Obyron, if you notice, I never put any culture up on a pedestal of superiority, in fact I was arguing that the notion that any way of living is superior to another is a psychological problem connected to the monetary system. If you think modern capitalist society is functionally identical to the societies you or I have mentioned, it is because it is convenient to your argument to think so and does not reflect reality; ask any anthropologist. My aim has only been to give an effective critique of the subject at hand, not try to tell people what to do with their lives.

 

[Obyron]

Version 3.0:

I've tried like three times now to write a response to this, some of which were quite long, and it keeps getting scrapped. There was some insightful shit in there, which I'll save for my book, and some not-so-insightful shit, which I'll save for when there's a more relevant thread, for which I can carefully shellac it to give it the appearance of being insightful.

Version 1 was lost because of an errant mouse-click (hooray for laptop touchpads with "tap to click" being too close to spacebars). Probably for the best.

So I started on Version 2, which had a lot to do with the essay HoneyRoastedPeanut (henceforth "Peanut," because the most obvious abbreviation of your tag that stands out happens to be a venereal disease, and that's a little too ad hominem for casual reference) linked to. I mentioned that it pretty quickly hit my tl;dr threshold for anthropology. It immediately reminded me of Terence McKenna (using Riane Eisler's terminology) talking about "Dominator" cultures versus "Partnership" cultures. For me this was actually where Food of the Gods bogged down into an impenetrable trainwreck, and I began to consider suicide as an alternative to finishing the book. Luckily it got better, and is still really worthwhile reading for anyone interested in the history of humans and psychoactives. Just know how to pick out bias, remember that there's a reason the book is labeled "New Age" and not "Non-Fiction," and steel yourself against some of McKenna's more... fanciful... "conclusions." (Here's looking at you, "Stoned Ape" Theory.)

The reason I dropped Version 2 was because I looked at the title of the thread at the top of my window, and suddenly couldn't remember what the fuck it was we're actually discussing. I dropped it all immediately and went back to page one to read this thing all over again. I saw this:

Where's Obyron when we need him? He had a lot to say on this topic.

Essentially his take on money, which I found myself agreeing with, is that it's at its core nothing more than the quantifying of the value of one wanted thing in terms of another wanted thing. If you and I decide that an armful of picked wild apples from you is good for one axe sharpening by me on my stone, then we're using money. Money is something of a concept where 'ought' becomes 'is' -- it's a mathematical quantification of how widely thought of as 'desirable' that exact item is, right now. Or, if you will, how often and strongly 'I/One ought to have that item' is thought about that item.

And it made me laugh, because I completely missed that post on my first read of the thread, and it could've saved me so much trouble and typing by just saying, "Yes, this is what I thought the last time it came up, and this is what I still think." I actually had a much longer explanation of this typed up in Version 1 of this post, which I'll reproduce at excruciating length in a minute. In my estimation you could eliminate all currency and outlaw its use on penalty of death, and people would still use "money" every day without even meaning to. Even communism for all its high-minded anti-capitalist rhetoric of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" absolutely depends on money, because it becomes the abstract quantification of whatever the hell it is they're taking from each to give to each.

Let's abstract it way the hell out there. Follow along closely, because it's going to get mathly. The Politburo (or the PolPotburo, if you're a Cambodia apologist) looks at Komrad Peanut, who makes anvils (why does he make so many damn anvils? Because there's a quota in the Five Year Plan, that's why!), and decides that his production has given him 15 Anvil Points. Peanut requires .2 Steel Points and .37 Smelter Points (because the smelter is actually collectivized, and is not the sole property of Komrad Peanut, who, despite his better nature, might be tempted to capitalize on his ownership) per unit Anvil, as well as a certain quantity of Optimal Physical Labor Points, to be determined by the Politburo. Let's call these Opals, because opals happen to be a neat thing that are worth money, not unlike physical labor.

Now, the Politburo has, in accordance with the Five Year Plan and the Little Red Abstract Math Book, determined that the conversion factor for Anvil Points to Opals is 12.7:1. In other words, the daily production necessary for an anvil maker to be credited with a full day's work is 12.7 anvils. (This is kind of funny, and indicative of the generally parsimonious and arbitrary nature of government, as becomes apparent when you attempt to make seven tenths of an anvil.) Komrad Peanut has 15 Anvil Points, which gives him 1.18 Opals (The People's Revolution must be frugal with its assets in order to promote the general good, and so recognizes only two decimal places. The truncated fractional Opals are deposited in a numbered account in the Caymans-- like in Superman III-- unless someone puts a decimal point in the wrong place). Praise the proletariat, and the glory of the People's Revolution that has given Komrad Peanut the drive to work above and beyond what is asked of him!

The Politburo duly reports to The Auditing Committee, headed by Komrad MDAO, that Komrad Peanut has earned 1.18 Opals for the day. Komrad MDAO knows from memory that this number entitles Komrad Peanut-- according to his need-- to 2 Grain-Based Foodstuff Points, 2 Meat-Based Foodstuff Points, 1 Vodka-Based Foodstuff Point, and so forth. Komrad MDAO can recall this information from memory because he is a motivated public servant, and because if he can process 800 Opal Allotments today he will have earned 1.21 Opals, and will be eligible for a Get Out Of Invading Afghanistan Point. He sends the requisite paperwork over to Komrad Obyron at The People's Central Directorate For The Disbursement Of Required Shit, along with a note that Komrad Peanut should receive .3 Steel Points and .42 Smelter Points per unit Anvil so that he might be encouraged to do even better, assuming he is not already above the Theoretical Usage Allowances specified in the Five Year Plan. Who gets the anvils? No one does. Who the fuck needs anvils?

No currency ever exchanged hands here, but I challenge anyone to look at me (as it were) with a straight face, and tell me that's not money. And if the whole thing sounds like a bunch of numbers from some kind of simulation game (because who doesn't want to play Will Wright's "Sim Politburo," due out from Maxis in 2009), that's because that's what economics is, and you really need to read about Game Theory!

But no lambasting of the Soviet Union was necessary. You could easily replace all the cogs in that operation with the members of some "preconquest" island somewhere who have never heard of money, who all live in perfect harmony according to their needs and their abilities, and it would be the exact same thing, and it would still be money, even though they would have no concept to define the abstraction.

I think I've made my point about money without any need to go fudging with intellectually dishonest numbers, or using deceitful rhetorical devices, circumlocution, and personal argument to try to bludgeon home a point.

In re-reading this thread, I determined the precise point when the whole thing went off the fucking rails into crazy land as being when it stopped being about economics and the underpinnings of paper currency, and started being about anthropology, the moral bankruptcy of the West, and the Khmer Mother Fucking Rouge. And I've decided I'm a much happier person just writing posts like this one, and ignoring all of that stuff, because, frankly, it's intellectual masturbation.

Version 3 is five times longer than Version 1 and 2 put together, but I'm much happier with the intellectual integrity of what I'm saying this way. Please don't pick this and that line and quote 95 different snippets at random, because I doubt five people will read this entire post anyway, and they certainly don't want to be bothered reading responses to it. If anyone wants to talk economics I'm game, but I'll skip the bull session about What If We Got Rid Of Money And All Just Loved Each Other!?!?

EDIT: Edited for typos and to fix a few passages that get jumbled between my brain and my fingers.

 

[B9]

^ That's pretty funny.

I gave up reading once I hit the point " I challenge anyone to tell me that's not money".

It does indeed incorporate the values of money.

but I'll skip the bull session about What If We Got Rid Of Money And All Just Loved Each Other!?!?

Clearly so.


A lot of typing to address a simple concept easily refuted in purely physical terms

 

[Obyron]

Only if you believe money is a purely physical concept, which was the whole point of my post.

EDIT TO ADD: My initial figure of five people may have been optimistic! Still, sitting around trying to be entertaining instead of just being argumentative beats Plan A for my afternoon, which was blowing a few lines and playing Call of Duty 4 on Live. =)

 

[B9]

Money is not purely a physical concept tho - is it ?

It's an extension of the concept of ownership made physical.

Which is a concrete reality.

Clearly with inherent flaws - yes ?

Why is so unthinkable to attempt to address these flaws at a fundamental level ?

Thanks for the effort at entertainment

EDIT - I am not trying to be argumentative for the sake of it, that'd be tantamount to accruing money for no purpose, excepting the accquisition of money.

 

[The_Idler]

so everyone felt like ignoring my challenge of explaining exactly how we would achieve all the advanced production, without money?

I guess that means there IS no other way, not that anyone here knows of, anyway.

So you can shut up, and admit that, as humans, we need money.
It is inevitable.

 

[Obyron]

A lot of typing to address a simple concept easily refuted in purely physical terms

Money is not purely a physical concept tho - is it ?

No need to worry about seeming argumentative, because I can't tell if you disagree with me or not.

I am using what seems to be a non-standard definition of "money." That was the point of going through the long, drawn-out example, which I tried to make less physically painful to read by using an amusing metaphor and injecting humor-- to show what it is that I mean when I say "money."

I don't know how to state it any more plainly without pulling an Alfred North Whitehead / Bertrand Russell, and writing some massive post to reconstruct economics.

You say money is an extension of the concept of ownership made physical. My entire point was that money is not physical at all-- it is ENTIRELY abstract-- and that it can exist, and even thrive, even in a society where there is no concept of private property or personal ownership.

If there's a way I can make this make more sense I'd love to, but I felt like my example pretty well spoke for itself? Some people are just going to get what I'm saying, and some people aren't, and I'd really like to make the first number a lot bigger than the second one, but I'm really happy not dropping textbombs on threads all the time, because it's rude and comes across dickish and professorial.

I only replied because the thread started off being about paper currency, and why it works even though on a physical level its only good for bumwipe. That was the part that interested me, so that's what I responded to talk about, because I felt like it was pointless for me to keep arguing about points I really don't care about, and I wanted to get back to what I do care about. I also wanted to demonstrate that you actually CAN'T get rid of money, no matter how much you want to, because it is the very essence of what happens when two people exchange things.

This'll have to do for now, because this is already ten times as long as I'd intended any replies to be. If anyone wants to discuss this, feel free to hit me up in a PM or something.

 

[B9]

because I can't tell if you disagree with me or not.

now that was proper funny :D

 

[The_Idler]

Noyou actually CAN'T get rid of money, no matter how much you want to, because it is the very essence of what happens when two people exchange things.

which is what makes us human,
which makes it an inevitable consequence of human nature.

I dont see how anyone can argue against this.
In fact, i dont see people arguing against this,
i see people disagreeing, but they never actually explain how humanity could exist without it, without becoming something other than humanity.

Humanity cannot exist without money,
because money is one of the concepts, which fundamentally defines humanity.

We cannot be human and not have money,
because having money is what makes us human.

 

[B9]

which makes it an inevitable consequence of human nature.

Current human nature yes

I dont see how anyone can argue against this.

I'm not arguing against the current position, I'm simply suggesting that we do not confine ourselves to thinking " this is it"

because having money is what makes us human.

Really ? so before money we were subhuman ?