How is it that, in the last 100 years ---- (that) in the last 100 years, we've come to consider it a virtue to base the entire society on trade? Or, we are getting pretty close to it. If we start about 100 years ago and proceed forward what we might call the social basis in money seems to be getting stronger rather than weaker. Even churches sell "tats," says Molly Cato, a blogger from England. Today, in fact, what we have is a social elite that spends all of its time doing nothing but transferring money around to each other. Heavens!!
Persons try to create wealth, to attract wealth, for something they have created, be it art, furniture, or any other product, like those cute little "investment vehicles" they have --- and that person is valued by their society. (see the Tod Volpe book on the art world - http://www.todvolpe.com/tv.html - )
Success greets persons who have money---success is money. And this seems disturbing. This cannot go on, so something else must be coming. There will be some kind of change. Such a system cannot last. That's pretty obvious isn't it? It seems to be quite clear. Meanwhile, we'd like to ask this question: is our dependence on money and trade, or our money-based society, truly negative? And, if it is, how so?
For sure: It is only natural to want to know whether this social basis in money is right or wrong. But it is much harder to figure that out than the simple-minded "anti-capitalists" seem to believe. It is a hard thing to make a judgment on this. Why? I would say that this is the case because, before we determine the true level of negativity to assign to the dependence on money, we must recognize and accept that this is our society. Right or wrong has to be put on a back-burner; Because reality comes first. This is how we live. This is our life.So to some degree we have to accept it. We have to (in other words) "love it or leave it." Existence before essence and all that. (Thanks, J.P. Sartre; You were there when I needed you!)
There is a character, in "the Adventures of Augie March," named Simon. All he cares about is money. It is to his ruination, as the panelists of the CPL discussion (see a few posts back for this matter) seemed to pretty much agree. Surely, Simon is not the hero of the story, or the anti-hero. Augie is.
This 100-year history of basing the whole ball of wax on the glommed-together mass of human behaviors related to money-chasing and making it is simply a particular strategem that was employed in the past. Are we to make ourselves over as fools --- as slaves of money? Shall history stop here?
relevant links -----