Hmm, I'd say Napoleon was a partial backlash against the Revolution, not proof that it "went too far".Don't think there's ever been a revolution without excesses or errors.
There was that chronology as discussed upthread....revolution that went too far (reign of terror), then military dictator, then the return of the monarchy. Not that Napoleon I was the element that drove the revolution too far. I think they would have managed that without him.
Whatever that desire is, I think you are drifting a bit from both that consumer loop, and money as coercion.
Unless we are to believe that a warm cup of coffee is just more subtle version of a slave driver with a gun in his hand.
I think it is a bit of a stretch.
Unless we are to believe that a warm cup of coffee is just more subtle version of a slave driver with a gun in his hand. I think it is a bit of a stretch.
Have you ever looked into the history of coffee production?
I most certainly have. It won't stop me from starting off the day with a moka (stovetop espresso), though I do buy fairtrade. The thought of coffee entices me out of bed.
Unless we are to believe that a warm cup of coffee is just more subtle version of a slave driver with a gun in his hand. I think it is a bit of a stretch.Have you ever looked into the history of coffee production?
Yes SJ, I have. I also know that the key to reversing abuses in that industry is to pay a fair dollar for it - directly to the producers - so that those who make it have a good living, have control over what they do, and aren't compelled to trash the land in order to grow quantity over quality.
Another example of how money is a key to making things better.
money is a key to making things better.
Sounds like a slogan for the NDP.
It was when they first got in.
You don't think all those wires and poles flew into the ground by themselves, do you?
The province shared the costs and work with local farmers and communities. And that involved paying for it to get done, and loans.
http://esask.uregina.ca/entry/rural_electrification.html
And it involved giving them lights at night which meant more work work work.... coercion, right?
It's like, 'are guns dangerous?' Well, not unless someone picks one up, points it at someone, and pulls the trigger. Prior to that it's little more than weighty pieces of metal fashioned into an inanimate shape. To ask if money is the coersive element is to assign it human characteristics. It's a type of logic used to convince judges that corporations are people.
Not quite the same, because a gun is a machine with a single purpose (and no, I don't think it is inherently evil, and in some settings an important tool), whereas money is not a tool, but a medium of exchange -what we turn our work into in order to accomplish just about every material goal we need to function.
Can't eat it. I suppose you could beat someone to death with a sack of pennies, or heat your house with million Reichsmark notes, but again, I think you are stretching this beyond a reasonable comparison.
Not quite the same, because a gun is a machine with a single purpose.
Not a single purpose. No more so than nuclear tipped missiles have a single purpose, ie: that of incinerating enemy cities. That they certainly are able to destroy cities if certain buttons are pushed is not in contention. Since it would be foolish to wave such devices around with abandon, or even to contemplate their use, maintaining an arsenal of nuclear tipped missiles has, as it's more logical purpose, the goal of deterring an enemy from using theirs. The concept of mutual assured destruction, as insane as that sounds, has arguably prevented WWIII lo these many years, along with all of the planetary scale violence that would entail. Whether it's a gun, a missile, or money, these are tools that have to be handled to have any effect. The person doing the handling actually engages in coercion. If we accepted money as being inherently coercive, which in essence imbues paper or coins with qualities of their own, we would have to do the same for guns, ie: guns are dangerous, all by their lonesome.
If we accepted money as being inherently coercive, which in essence imbues paper or coins with qualities of their own, we would have to do the same for guns, ie: guns are dangerous, all by their lonesome.
??
Well I didn't make either claim. I don't see money as inherently coercive. And I don't see guns as inherently dangerous (any more so than cars or gas stoves or a knife).
I was simply saying that you can't draw an equivalency between the two any more than you can between money and a toaster.
Sorry, what was your point there?
?? Well I didn't make either claim. I don't see money as inherently coercive. And I don't see guns as inherently dangerous (any more so than cars or gas stoves or a knife).I was simply saying that you can't draw an equivalency between the two any more than you can between money and a toaster.
Actually, if a person bartered a toaster, or a gun, for say, a bottle of hooch, an equivalent effect is produced as if it were money that was being exchanged for the bottle.
Sorry, what was your point there?
Seeking clarification is all. Probably getting a bit too Wittgenstinian, but it seems money and abstract material conditions are interrelated. Money, guns and missiles do nothing on their own. It's what people do with them as you'll agree.
Money is just stuff.
As for the problems, they are all caused by people, not the inanimate objects which are used for commerce.
Another example of how money is a key to making things better.
Sure, but money is something quite distinct, because its only purpose is commerce. It isn't a physical tool, resource, good or service; it has no purpose other than its agreed value as a medium of exchange.
That difference, and the articicial nature of money becomes crystal clear when things screw up so badly that one has to use wheelbarrows of it to buy a loaf of bread.
