9/ I digressed into a video where the author of “Late Soviet Britain” Dr Abby Innes summarizes her book. And in this clip she much more eloquently states what I’ve been trying to say. (Thanks to @bobthomson70 for pointing me to it) https://mastodon.social/@bobthomson70/112705819512473529
18/ Chapter 2 seems to be about money, so far a bit too abstract for me. If you’re on the fence about money, I recommend the book Money by Jacob Goldstein (basically the biography of money), which convinced me that money was a practical solution to a real problem and the lack of it creates a society that doesn’t work very well. Especially a section in there where paper money was invented in China and then banned again (ages ago, if anyone has dates let me know), and the effect of both on society. (Deleted and reposted since I made a threading error 😅)
17/ Ok, chapter 2 concludes that even if we only consider and support “use value” we still want to assign a (monetary) value to homes (and other goods) because barter is a difficult system.
16/ Ok, for context, the chapter is called “Use value and exchange value” and I do like using homeownership as the scaffolding for the narrative, because it is very relatable. What he is describing is homes as both a home for people (use value) and as a “financial instrument” (I think this is “exchange value”) that can be used in various forms of speculation. And that when that type of speculation goes wrong, real people are hurt because they might lose their homes (both homeowners and renters) or end up in unlivable conditions.
21/ “Money, in the first instance, is a means whereby I can make a claim on the social labour of others: that is, a claim on that labour which is expended on the production of goods and services for others in the marketplace (this is what differentiates a 'commodity' from a 'product' like the tomatoes I grow in my backyard for my own consumption)”
Maybe I’m just a bit dense, but I’m struggling with this. “A claim on the labor [of] others”? A “commodity” vs a “product”? Maybe it’s me not being a native English speaker…
Which are his homegrown tomatoes? And where does the unpaid labor in the home (often done by women) go in this? And just because someone buys something you made, how is that “making a claim on your labor”?
19/ I’m struggling with his definitions here because it seems to me that he is saying that something has “value” if we assign a price to it. Maybe I’m misunderstanding. Because how does unpaid labor work in this context? Childcare, chores, cooking… do they only have value when we pay someone to do it? Is this like homegrown tomatoes? I have questions.
24/ ok, I give up on this part and tbh I’m not sure it’s important. He has drifted into one of the features of FIAT/normal money being an instrument by which a state can eliminate its debt in that currency by tanking the value of its currency.
Given this, why would anyone lend a state money in its own currency? Sweden wants to borrow money, why wouldn’t you lend them euros? It seems a bit risky to use their currency. Though I believe these “loans” are actually in the form of government bonds, so in that case the borrower has taken control of the currency in which it is expressed. I bet the developing nations debt is not expressed in their own currency, just to make sure we can erase our debt, but they sure as hell can’t erase theirs.
23/ “monies which were originally required to give physical form to the immateriality of social labor”
… fine. Just all with a partner who does not have a “job” outside the home: pay them. Pay into a pension plan for them. Make sure they have sick days and vacation. (I’m completely serious about this actually)
Maybe I’m just getting annoyed with what is just a technical definition. Maybe I’m just too sensitive to the language.
27/ Ok, I think the homeowner thing was maybe a metaphor for money? Basically saying homes/money are not Bad In Themselves, but that both can be misused when they are manipulated into instruments?
30/ Ah ok, what if money expires/rots like a gift card? Tbh then I think a money renewal market would appear, where you could turn in your About To Expire money, and get Fresh Money. And when you want to use it the… let’s call it a bank… would give you About To Expire money. And for this they would for sure find a way to make “money”. Either in an “exchange fee” or something like it. As long as you get in fresh money all the time you are golden. Oh no, this sounds like cryptocurrency exchanges.
29/ tbh I feel we’re way too far into model land here. Are humans intrinsically bad or good? I’m not sure it’s a useful question. Even “good” people can be driven to do “bad” things.
Like a person shoplifting diapers and formula because they can’t afford it and they have a baby at home, are they “bad” or are they “good”?
28/ “If exchange value weakens and ultimately disappears as the guiding means by which use values are both produced and distributed in society, so the need for money and all of the lustful pathologies associated with its use (as capital) and possession (as a consummate source of social power) will also disappear.”
I really don’t know where he’s going with this. He seems to say that money is needed as a practical medium for exchange in a society, but I think he’s also saying that if we can remove the “instrument” part of money then it cannot be abused. I don’t know what that means in practice.
37/ This seems very US centric and seems to assume that a state is inherently imperialistic. Now I’m sure this could perhaps apply to other contemporary states (Russia comes to mind) but I don’t believe that this is true as a general rule. And tbh, I don’t believe that this is the type of state neither population wants.
36/ ok he went from defining concepts in baby steps to jumping to conclusions and from those to more conclusions and now suddenly the purpose of a state is war and maintaining the property rights of the powerful. I’m sorry, but we’re not even in model land anymore, we’re straight up in “that’s your opinion, man” territory now.