Is it possible for money to be coercive?

Just because we deal in money (as pretty much all of us do) doesn't mean that we do so under duress.

And even when someone is compelled to do something for money it isn't the money which is "coercive", but rather the circumstances - specifically the lack of something else, which they hope to get with money.

For them who think money is inherently evil, I don't think our prime minister was doing any favours when he cut funding to women's groups, Native groups, and other progressive organizations.

Money is just stuff. Very important stuff, but just stuff. And a careful reading of that bad old book shows it is the LOVE of it which is the root of all kinds of evil.

Yes, although many who are pressured to do really horrible or hard work do so because of needs like not having enough food, shelter, and basic services. Or because of addiction.

Or because they are being forced to by other people.

David Harvey (reading through Marx) has a wonderful discussion in "Money, Time, Space, and the City". Money objectifies labour, breaks down collective social practices, and helps to obscure inequalities (after all, it's an ostensibly rational abstraction of value based on ostensibly objective notions of individual merit and ability). Yes, it can be seen coercive, but it cannot be separated from its role in reproducing inequality.

"Money becomes the mediator and regulator of all economic relations between individuals; it becomes the abstract and universal measure of social wealth and the concrete means of expression of social power" (p. 168)

I can't find a pdf of the article online, but I may be able to assist anyone looking for it -- via PM. Guess what's about to go on the syllabus!

mersh wrote:

but it cannot be separated from its role in reproducing inequality.

Yeah, though the opposite is also true. I get your point, but I did have to snicker at the "objectifying labour", the assumption that objectifying, like money itself, is inherently negative.

Fact is that whether it is goats, salt, gold or buffalo sinews, commerce is a pretty natural thing, without which societies wouldn't get far. And whether we are talking micro-loan systems, or societies which have a wealth of only certain kinds of resources and labour and limits in trade, access to finance is a necessary equalizer.

(edit)

Cross posted with you SJ

Considering that one of the first challenges to absolute power in Europe was a banking system - that of the Templars - I'd say it is a two-edged sword. Societies don't exist without money. The question is how equitable the access to that power is.

And when we have the cutting edge of modern finance being invented in developing nations - commerce by cell phone for those who have neither bank accounts nor the ID to get them - I'd say it still has a role in progressive change.

...until it is all rendered unnecessary by the revolution, of course.

The ironic thing is that some of the latest experiments with guaranteed housing are being tried in jurisdictions we usually think of as "free market" - Utah and Alberta. Reason being is that they save money in the long run, and are good for the bottom line.

Not saying I support the predatory free market; I don't. It is just odd that even within that system equity makes sense to all those who look at the numbers, and aren't in it to abuse.

In our experience, equitable access to the medium of exchange facilitates better access to the production process with it's material goods.  It is difficult to imagine the environmental sustainability of a drive toward equality rolled out on a global scale, that intends to use the bloated North American concept of material as the minimum standard for everyone.  To stave off environmental collapse for awhile longer we will have to reduce our material pursuits and standard of living to a more manageable level.

But this question isn't at its heart about consumer culture, SJ. If we are talking about coercion, we are talking about real needs - not just a burning desire for cable and D&G handbags.

Pondering wrote:

If money is power, and power can be used coercively, then money can also be used coercively, but power can also be used for good. So money isn't inherently coercive although it can be used that way.

When money is being used for good, it's often to mitigate what money does in the first place, which involves imbalances and tragedy in many instances.  If it were possible for a society to decide that they wanted to use money exclusively for good purposes, they would still be coerced into working toward the creation of more money through taxation to enable the 'good' programs to receive funding.

You could say the same thing about food, housing or any other necessity. It's not really any different with money, except that it is required at a slightly higher (though not by much) level of society.

As for the problems, they are all caused by people, not the inanimate objects which are used for commerce.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

But this question isn't at its heart about consumer culture, SJ. If we are talking about coercion, we are talking about real needs - not just a burning desire for cable and D&G handbags. 

Well, I disagree with your attempt to limit and frame the discussion.  Money, coercion, consumerism, etc?  Oddly enough it all sounds interrelated to me.  At any rate, 'real' needs are subjective in a society like ours.

Pensioners are an interesting study though.  Generally speaking, they've chased the materialist dream all along, and for many who now live on fixed incomes, they mostly already have all they're going to get from the materialist world, aside from paying the utilities and living hand to mouth.  As a result many tend to live quite frugally.  I know pensioners who don't stay at home during the day.  Instead they hang out elsewhere, usually at the malls, and turn off as many utilities as possible while they're not at home to save money.  On the other hand they do get out, socialize, network, talk politics, etc.

lagatta wrote:

But is that a bad thing?

No not inherently bad.  Granted it's not exactly the same type of coercion as one that involves being motivated by material possessions, no more so than a door to door collection being taken up to benefit a local volunteer fire department involves materialistic coercion per se.  Individuals who make up the community will give toward such a project in the spirit of community and of their place within it.

lagatta wrote:

Parks are important as well, though in our climates they might not be as useful for all in the colder months.

Yes the colder months are even more critical for the frugally inclined, whether by necessity or otherwise.

I think a good deal of the problem lies with the naturalization of money -- of course we need it, how do we not pay in chickens, etc. But the very abstraction we are currently participating in almost removes money from "real" needs entirely. I say almost, because there are geographic, logistical, legislative differences that open and close opportunities for transfer and accumulation. These often have little connection to use value, which we might confuse with "need".

I wholeheartedly support redistributive strategies and greater protection/ expansion of public goods and services, but to say that these are in essence objectively linked to greater or lesser amounts of money vs. say, ideological stances, or systems of knowledge and power (to invoke not-so-Marxist critiques) risks ignoring this abstraction. At worst, it's a trap.

mersh wrote:

 I am discussing the function of money in general under conditions of advanced capitalism -- extended from Marx's reading of industrializing capitalism. Objectifying labour, as I understand it, undermines the ability for workers to draw other, non-monetary meanings from their labour, and individualizes work, fostering alienation, etc.

It used to be that children were indoctrinated into the competition processes via testing of various personal abilities in elementary school.  The kids that did well on this or that assignment received gold stars or some other form of recognition.  Little thought was given to what impact certain social determinants might have on individual performances.  In that vein, by the time high school rolls around career paths have generally been determined based upon everything that had since transpired.  Depending on the nature of the society, generally speaking imbalances are carried over from one generation to the next in this model, without getting into any psychological effects that might accrue over time.

I once saw a poster from the Soviet days.  It was a picture of an industrial worker with the obligatory hammer and sickle flag in the background, stating that the person depicted was the best furnace attendant at the factory, similar to today's 'employee of the month' awards at fast food joints, or at a bank for having set up the most accounts.  Aside from speculation of the social determinants, we're not sure from the poster what it was that prevented his co-workers from being recognized like that, or as a team.  Objectifying ability or labour within a socio-political structure can be problematic as we can see from the example provided by different economic models.

It is even better if pensioners live near a community centre or a library (with an area where talking is allowed and people can have coffee, tea etc). I live within walking distance of both those amenities. This is why urban design "aménagement" is so important in creating "access to the city" (or town, or village) without having to consume.

There is a group of Vietnamese seniors who do tai chi every day at the community centre, maintaining not only social networks but also very supple joints!

Parks are important as well, though in our climates they might not be as useful for all in the colder months.

Slumberjack, such motivational posters were a legacy of "Stakanovism", and indeed drew on (capitalist) Taylorism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Do see Man of Marble, by Andrzej Wajda, about a fictional Polish Stakanovite.

lagatta wrote:

Slumberjack, such motivational posters were a legacy of "Stakanovism", and indeed drew on (capitalist) Taylorism:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stakhanovite_movement

Do see Man of Marble, by Andrzej Wajda, about a fictional Polish Stakanovite.

learn so much from your quick posts lagatta.

but wiki says "Taylorism" died out back in the 30's and we hear nothing today if it isn't all about "efficiencies". is it coming full circle again from the days of the rober barons?

In another life I worked as a technology journalist, and during the late 90s Taylor was quite enthusiastically invoked through activity based costing & related software applications.

lagatta wrote:

I'm glad my labour (and migration) history studies are useful for something!

I dunno, I'm sure the original Taylorism has been superceded by a whole series of other management theories, but the idea of breaking skilled work into its component parts still remains. I remember in the 1970s and 80s when it was being used to deskill nursing work...

i share the knowledge gained by everything i read from you, timebandit and sineed. and i read or try to everything you post and link to along with doing my own suppliments. it keeps bubbling up and out. lol

hmmm.... because i hear nowadays about effenciencies gained from having one skilled person able to do several skilled functions. which sounds like over working someone to me.

got to explore this more now.

If wooden sticks were recognized as the medium of exchange, then those would become the channel through which coercion is facilitated.  If there was a society that had no abstract medium of exchange except for what one could barter, then the bartered objects become that channel.  Coercion toward material effects seems like an overarching conversation, and then what a person does or uses to acquire the effects seems to be subordinated to basic requirements, or desires that are beyond the basics of life as Capitalism promotes.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

And again, you seem to be spinning the essential nature of money as something that makes people want to acquire more (and go on to destroy the environment). In the first place, it not money which does that, it is people. And they can do it with anything from baseball cards to houses, but we don't think of those things as inherently coercive.

No, I'm suggesting by my understanding that money, or whatever else is being used as the medium of exchange, is entirely abstract.  I believe the earliest uses of currency involved baked clay.  I've quite clearly said that it isn't necessarily about money.  The value of whatever is being used as money is related to the value of the thing in demand.  The thing in demand is assigned a value, which is the coercive element.  Money or some other form of exchange is being used to facilitate the coerced activity, which is the acquisition of the 'thing.'

Quote:

Money is something which gives people power, and that is often an important and good thing, especially when one does not have it. And it is also something which can drive positive change. After all, A number of our major revolutions (The French, the English) happened in part because someone used to absolute power wasn't so absolute because those he was used to thinking of as lesser than him controlled the money.

I don't see the money=power equation as being a particularly good thing at all, in that, those with the most money tend to have the most power in that situation, as we plainly experience in this society.  Progressive politics, for those who still remember what that was all about, sought to overturn that structure so that power is flattened out to enfranchise more people, even if they were of limited means. 

Btw, the French Revolution wasn't exactly the 'good' thing people made it out to be.  As necessary as it initially was, it went too far, and they wound up with a military dictator instead, followed by the installation of an Emperor.  Your logic (money = change) suggests that money is a good thing...because when people have it we're better able to identify them as political enemies when they get too full of themselves, which can lead to systemic change when we finally get sick of them.  What you've written is a curious analysis indeed.  I've never thought of money that way.  It's better to let the rich gorge on their ill gotten horde while they can if I'm following you, because eventually we'll set things to right.  That’s a complete inversion of....well....I don't know what exactly.

Quote:

If I get your drift you seem to see it as something which perverts people and allows them to dominate others. And again, while the bad book certainly says it can do that, there's also a passage in there about it being nothing but an instrument of material power (Caesar's) and while that is important, it is our choice whether we let our desire for it control us or not. 

I suggest it is actually the production and circulation of desire that coerces, perverts and dominates.  Money is simply a tool that provides the means of accomplishing all of that.  It could be something else like gold pieces, or doubloons.  If trillions of dollars of QE can be created just like that on the US Treasury Department's computers and sent into Wall Street's gaping maw, then the value of the actual greenback is entirely ephemeral.  Its what Wall Street chases after with all of that fiat currency that matters, which is enhanced political power obtained through economics for the major players in that particular casino.  To bring it back to the original question, 'Is it possible for money to be coercive?'  The attempted answer is that what can be obtained with money is the more coercive element.  Beyond the necessity of attending to our our daily hunger and keeping a roof over our heads, we're coerced into obtaining money by something else.  You could say, well, people themselves are the 'something else' because collectively we're the ones that actually channels human desire in certain directions by designating the material effects that are of most interest to us, and thereby enhancing its value, but as correct as that is, it is only half of the equation.  The feedback that creates desire and thus coercion is a two way street, between the managed and the managers of society.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I know some people work because they are forced to do so for money. That would indeed  be coercion (or in some cases learning how to grow up).

But they can't eat the money and expect much in the way of nourishment, or stuff it down the gas tank and hope it will get them to where they're going.

Quote:

And "the managers of society"? I figured we'd get around to those mysterious puppet masters sooner or later. 

So nobody is in charge?  We're already living in a world where anarchy reigns, and we can all relax a little more in that knowledge? 

Slumberjack wrote:

Quote:

And "the managers of society"? I figured we'd get around to those mysterious puppet masters sooner or later. 

So nobody is in charge?  We're already living in a world where anarchy reigns, and we can all relax a little more in that knowledge? 

I'm not being deliberately obtuse. My point is that not everything we do with money (for that matter, not everything in our values either) is tied in with this consumer feedback loop of yours. Fact is, given the trends of disposable income, it is getting less and less all the time.

And you can't eat money or fill your car with it? Yeah, I saw a fellow in the back of a cop car earlier this week who I expect was demonstrating that principle at the grocery store. I think we have gone around the "limits of bartering" argument already.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

 My point is that not everything we do with money (for that matter, not everything in our values either) is tied in with this consumer feedback loop of yours.

Well it isn't my consumer feedback loop, it's from D&G remember?  Would that it were though.  But I'm not so sure that this isn't the case however.  If we drop a quarter into someone's tin cup, as altrustic an impluse as that may be, are we, whether we realize it or not, attempting to facilitate the desire of the person holding the tin cup.  She or he clearly has a desire, whatever it may be, that they are currently unable to realize until enough change is accumulated.  The person giving the quarter likely has in their own mind the notion of what it's like, or what it must be like, to have a desire that cannot be realized, and so they do their part and walk away from the cup holder with whatever sense it is that they derive from such gestures, ie: tHe desire to feel good about oneself, of believing they're soon be off to purchase a sandwich to eat in no time, or whatever other sensation the benefactor derives from the giving.  Again, currency is the medium for that.