Translated by Miron Makarov
Human mind took the painfully long time to form, from orienteering in the space around to examining exterior and interior conditions of life to going into the depth of phenomena and establishing their essence. Human reason has always been an integral part of humans’ practice and served as a reliable instrument in social production. By paying tribute to the role of reason in human formation, people decided to call themselves homo sapiens. Well, maybe a bit too early.
May modern people be considered intelligent spices meanwhile they praise artificial transfer links in the form of minted money, printed paper, and bank reports? There is no living being besides the homo sapiens who would allow itself to be neglected from means of life by some metal stuff, paper, and virtual numbers.
However, some people claim that money — is a sign of civilization and intelligence.
Market adepts claim that money is a means of accounting for the exchange within society and the share of the social product due to a person, because we live collectively, work collectively, and consume mainly individually.
However, if money is just simply means of accounting for the exchange, how can it become riches in the private hands, become an instrument of oppression, exploitation, violence, and dictatorship of the will of few for the rest of society? All unjust wars of humanity were conducted because and for the money.
Market economists claim that money — is the means of motivation, that humans by their nature are lazy, and to make them work without a carrot and stick we need money. They are echoed by market psychologists who tell us that money opens doors of opportunity before the individual to execute his right of free will and give him freedom.
However hundreds of thousands of years humanity lived without money, and for several tens of thousands of years — with a small role of money, humanity somehow didn’t die out and not degenerated because of its «natural laziness». Meanwhile most developed in the sense of market countries which are soaked with money relationships in all spheres of life degenerate, their culture and moral state are rotting.
When humans got money, think mostly about money, when everything is measured by money we can see moral degradation, depopulation, the rise of perversions, madness, mass shootings, and killings.
Well, then maybe «the natural laziness» of humans has born that cult of money?
When they force you to work not for societal benefit but for money isn’t that the same nice soil for laziness like you were being guided by the stick hits at your back? While most of the rich men don’t even hit a finger on the finger because they are busy — «they are making money».
Isn’t the fact that money is much easier to steal than things, or redistribute for dependency — to live on benefits or other people’s incomes — not create an atmosphere for the rooting of laziness and the desire for idleness? And the older sister of laziness — envy — isn’t it born of the bastard luxury and impudence of the oligarchy and even officials?
Money in the market economy plays a role of impetus but with that money also separates the process of labor from its results, alienating man from goals of production, perverting and degenerating humans, making him a quitter and a hooch even to a greater extent than the overseer’s whip.
The spontaneously developing labor market turns out to be indifferent to the measure of labor, diligence, and harmfulness. The amount of money a person receives for work practically does not depend on the stupefying severity of work and the damage to the body. Some work hard for pennies, grind bones daily, sweating and rubbing calluses, while others shift pieces of paper in comfort and scratch their tongues for three or four times more money.
Does not this obvious injustice become a breeding ground for the flowering of laziness and the desire for netting? moreover, the harder a person’s work is the more he is despised by office handlers, dependents, rentiers, bloggers, coaches, and other biosocial misunderstandings.
Psychologists who advocate for the universalism of money motivation, don’t notice that an employee who works for money rewarded by his psychic state of mind isn’t much different from an animal in a circus. manuals for management aren’t that different from the circus method of training.
Is this the highest achievement of humanity?
Reason/intelligence of humans past five-seven thousand of of of years ago was developing so painfully long due to artificial redirection of its powers not to understanding society itself but on the justification of luxury of the highest classes. the reason was in the chains of religion for a very long time and without destroying them it didn’t get rid of its exploitative bonds.
Human minds long ago learned to understand the depths of exterior material processes, or in other words, created science — a system of adequate knowledge about reality. but as long as science existed it was forbidden from making adequate conclusions about the most important material substratum of being for the humans — society.
So-called «social sciences» were and remain pseudosciences because their conclusions go against the truth, and are designed to strengthen the domination of antique slavery, feudal slavery, and now capitalist slavery.
True social science appeared only in the 19th century, and it was independent of state and social institutions, official universities, grants, and subsidizations it was done by whom we would call nowadays: «marginals» and «amateurs». The subject of this science — society appeared to be too sharp and uncomfortable for the ruling social classes and its conclusions were dangerous for their greedy plans and intents.
Even by the relationship of science — the nucleus of humans’ reason and money — the highest manifestation of private interests, we can see that where money reigns we shouldn’t expect scientific knowledge. Disclosure of scientific secrets of money isn’t in the interest of those who concentrated in their hands most of the world’s treasures.
People noticed, even without any science that big money gives power, and power — brings money. Unfortunately, the majority accepted that. Even more, sadly that oligarchy persuaded people that when power brings money — it’s corruption meanwhile money gives power — it’s almost a normal state of things. When someone is trying to clean society from the reign of money — he is considered a crazy fanatic but the oligarchy that buys 200-meter yachts and buys islands is considered a norm.
Humans for hundreds of years of the market economy are now convinced that access to the means of life is impossible without buying/selling operation, and that money — is an essential need of civilized man. And most importantly that money but not the scientific knowledge and scientific organization of life give humans freedom.
Money, they write in encyclopedias, is a universal equivalent that serves as a measure for exchange. But let’s think again: if money carried out equivalent exchange of goods and services, how would commercial activity be possible, how could narrow groups of entrepreneurs accumulate huge amounts of money in their hands?
An entrepreneur can buy only what is connected with human living labor: 1) the employee’s working time directly, that is, to hire an employee; 2) indirect working time in the form of services provided; 3) the results of previous labor — means of production, technologies, raw materials, intermediates or finished products. The combination of these acquisitions, regardless of the marketing issues, is what is called a business or commercial activity.
The labor force is the living labor of a person, and capital is primarily «dead» labor, materialized in buildings, structures, tools of production, technologies, and raw materials; as well as the land was taken away from the same working people.
So if at all stages money was equivalently exchanged for goods and services, then where does their final increase in the pocket of a profit fanatic come from?
For a long time, the bourgeoisie convinced everyone that profit is a payment for the work of organizing enterprises. But today, employees are already engaged in the organization and management of the business, and profits are growing.
Then a new philistine «theory» was put forward: it turns out that profits are a «reward» for the entrepreneur’s risk. What an employee risk is clear to everyone: if they are fired, then their family will face a hungry and cold death on unemployment benefits. He risks his own life and the lives of his loved ones. But what, excuse me, does a businessman risk if he has not created anything with his own hands?
The entrepreneur even risks the results of someone else’s work, which he has seized with the help of monetary exchange or forceful seizure. Capitalists in recent times have come up with special cheating legal forms for their «assets» (JSC and LLC) in order not to be responsible for the personal property obligations of their enterprises and firms. That is, his whole risk lies in whether the wealth created by someone else’s hands will grow or not in his pocket.
An employee risks becoming unemployed daily not of his own free will, whereas businessmen have elevated the risk into a «professional» and even «noble» cause. This risk is equally inherent in both businessmen and criminals. Only the latter risk personal freedom to a greater extent than the former. It is not for nothing that all experienced businessmen know that in the real practice of life under capitalism, commercial and criminal activities are delimited by the finest facet of the judicial and investigative interpretation of criminal and administrative legislation and the facts of doing business. Therefore, liberals of all countries — these heralds of entrepreneurship — are constantly making noise about the inadmissibility of «shaming business.»
Entrepreneurial risk is primarily a manifestation of ignorance and hope for a chance in the conditions of market anarchy and chaos. This is the way of a person who does not want to eliminate the uncertainty that has arisen in front of him, but on the contrary, seeks to fish in muddy water. Naturally, it is possible to realize the benefits due to risk only to the detriment of others, to the detriment of society as a whole.
From what has been said, it is clear that the source of profit can only be the nonequivalence of monetary exchange.
One entrepreneur can deceive another entrepreneur by paying less than the required amount for means of production, technologies, raw materials, intermediates, finished products, or services, thus obtaining an unfair increase in value and, as a result, money.
An entrepreneur can deceive a consumer by selling finished products for more money than they are worth. Which is called the abstruse word inflation.
And finally, an entrepreneur can buy an employee’s working time at a price lower than the value that he produces for him during working time. Which is called labor exploitation. Since any entrepreneur, first of all, needs an employee who brings in more money in the end than the salary paid to him, to the extent that the lion’s share of unequal monetary exchange occurs precisely in the sphere of wage labor.
That’s how they deceive our brother when they write that money is just a universal exchange equivalent, a means of accounting. It turns out that money is not a means of accounting, but a means, first of all, of exploitation, a means of creating conditions when a minority of entrepreneurs fatten at the expense of the majority of workers. This is confirmed by the real-life practice when more than 80% of all public wealth is concentrated in the hands of 1% of the world’s population.
But what could be more reliable for the establishment of this position than the planting of a moral model for workers to perceive money as a resource of freedom, as an instrument for the realization of human needs and desires?
Although it is necessary to maintain monetary slavery by force of arms, it is very troublesome, especially since the rich themselves are not able to protect their wealth, they are least of all like feudal knights in plate armor and are forced to hire professionals for money. They are forced to maintain gigantic states with a huge staff of police, national guard, army, courts, and prisons. However, at any moment their heavily armed defenders can turn their weapons against their domination. Therefore, the best way to guarantee the total power of the entrepreneur class is the spiritual enslavement of the people and the imposition of the ideology of money. As the great writer Gorky said:
«Workers! It is high time for you to understand that the source of all evil and grief, all the misfortunes and deformities of life, this source is the greed of an insignificant minority of people who have gone wild, gone mad from the thirst for accumulating money and lawlessly, senselessly command the life of the working majority, wasting its forces, destroying the treasures of the earth that belong to you… The bourgeois press is an obedient tool to the bourgeoisie, bourgeois journalists are bought people; they cannot tell the truth, and if they wanted to tell it, the owners of newspapers will throw journalists out into the street, just as the manufacturers throw you out.» «Stupidity is the ugliness of the mind, brought up and brought up artificially through pressure on the mind by religion, the church — the heaviest tool of all, with which the bourgeois state is armed to tame the working masses. This is irrefutable, and I do not regret in the least that none of the clever people can say a «new word» about this. A stupid person is necessary for the «beautiful life» of the bourgeoisie. He is so good that he is extremely convenient for exploiting his physical strength. It is precisely based on the stupidity of the working masses that the power of world philistinism is rooted. The bourgeois system of educating the masses is a system of fabricating fools.»
The idea of having money, like a virus, affects people’s consciousness. They all begin to measure money, including under the guise of personal gain, comfort, and well-being. Money acquires a moral aura of freedom, joy, and happiness, because only they, being a transfer link between a person and life factors, open access to them.
Money affects a person’s psyche so deeply that he gets used to thinking about it even when he is not working and does not make any purchases. People in everyday thinking endow money with a living soul, which is reflected, among other things, in the language: «the ruble is falling,» «money is flowing through their fingers,» «prices are rising,» and «crazy money.» Bourgeois science puts forward the concept that money is the leading element of human culture that ensures the existence of society. Whole branches of bourgeois science appeared — behavioral economics, economic psychology, and neuroeconomics.
The upbringing and social relations of capitalism form not only ideological attitudes in people but also stable nervous connections at a purely biological level, specific nervous reactions in the brain to money. From the point of view of neurophysiology, money for a modern person becomes synonymous with physiological pleasure. In other words, capitalism from an early age brings up in people a conditioned reflex for money and a person gradually turns into a natural Pavlov’s dog.
Experiments in which young girls were asked to choose potential suitors only by two parameters — appearance and income, show that in words they mark young men by appearance, and according to polygraph data — by money.
Independent studies of the brains of rich kids in several generations, conducted in different countries on a solid sample, also record some differences in the formation and functioning of neural connections of the brain. Bourgeois researchers have drawn a conclusion from this about the «adaptive advantages» of small majors. But the practice of life gives a much more prosaic interpretation — monetary wealth kills first of all the rudiments of the conscience of individuals.
Civilized people, as noted above, are still mentally weak beings. They are very easy to deceive, and this fact is repeatedly confirmed not only by endless wars but also by by-elections, banking, fraud, and marketing campaigns. It is enough to make impossible promises, a «low interest rate», a «dizzying multiplication of deposits» and draw a «discount» in red, and crowds of gullible townsfolk run headlong to vote and give their money. The existence of capitalism, in general,l, is possible only because the level of development of the worldview of most employees does not go beyond the adolescent with its emotionality and impulsiveness.
Therefore, the overwhelming majority of people do not notice that money is not an instrument of the majority’s access to the means of life, but a guaranteed way of alienation from public wealth. Here, of course, two circumstances play a well-known role. Firstly, the fact that money in the hands of an individual is constantly exchanged for the goods he needs, and secondly, the fact that everyone knows that it is money that makes rich people immensely consuming braggarts.
Market psychologists do not see that the average man who ardently wants a foreign car is not cheaper than his neighbor, does not differ in any way in his mental warehouse from a schoolgirl who envies a bright pencil case of a classmate. Only in the second case is the immaturity of childhood clear to every psychologist, and in the fir,s,t it is modestly hushed up. In the second case, an adult will tell a schoolgirl that it is worth «envying» academic success, and in the first, the will humbly remain silent since he is the bearer of this envy. It is not difficult to guess how such hypocritical «pedagogy» works on children.
Both of the above circumstances follow the economic conditions of bourgeois society. Therefore, it cannot be said that the cult of money is only the result of ideological propaganda, the study of cunning psychologists, philosophers, marketers, and journalists. Propaganda only strengthens and shapes the worldview that spontaneously develops based on the prevailing industrial relations.
Thus, the production relations of capitalism and the mass ignorance of people belong to the objective factors of the existence of money. Whereas, from the subjective side, their existence is served by almost the entire bourgeois spiritual culture.
There is nothing easier than to say that money is a convenient means of payment, to start telling that cattle were originally money, then they began to mint coins from silver and gold, and so on. However, even in this case, the question arises: if cattle can be used on the farm or used for meat if coins can be melted down into spoons and false teeth, then how useful is it to use modern money? Paper — except to glue the toilet at the dacha, and you don’t even use cashless and electronic ones anyway. Generally speaking, the money in the bank account or card belongs to us only legally, that is, even our miserable labor money is in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
What is it, if not slavery, when you work for entrepreneurs, get a salary on a card in the bank of entrepreneurs, and spend this money in the shops of entrepreneurs? That is, an employee lives and works only so that entrepreneurs get rich and go crazy in pursuit of their idiotic palaces, yachts, islands, and the like. How does salary money differ from a slave’s soup? The differences can be said to be for the worse since there was no unemployment among the slaves, and they were fed stably since they were an object of exchange. And the life of an employee is worthless because he «belongs to himself.»
It is amazing, but the modern proletarian puts himself much higher than the ancient slave, although he differs from him only in the level of consumption and blind faith in his freedom. But what kind of freedom can there be, even if you need money to move around the city? And again, money in this case is not a means of access to transport, but a way of alienating from it. First of all, we are artificially deprived of the opportunity to use transport, and only after that do y demand money for travel. And this is a fairly clear example: transport has been created, launched, serviced, and managed by human labor for public needs, and access to it through the «filter» of commodity-money relations is due solely to the tasks of enriching the private owner. If you look at the methodological recommendations of the Ministry of Transport on the calculation of tariffs, then it says so bluntly that «the main purpose of tariff development is to ensure the profitable activities of transport organizations.»
Now it is clear why the monetary form of the distribution of public wealth for most people is expressed by the formula «to hold out from paycheck to paycheck.» Money is primarily a means of exploiting labor.
All of the above is felt by many to one degree or another, many realize that money is a life—poisoning dirt, but this does not bring them closer to understanding that money is the vilest primitive kind of relationship between people. A person performing a monetary exchange operation automatically enters into a certain production relationship not only with market participants but also with all members of society — this is what always remains outside the brackets of understanding money. Money is a phenomenon as deep and extensive as the world market itself is deep and extensive, covering today almost all the peoples of the world and all corners of the planet.
From a scientific point of view, money is primarily a special form of value. Without understanding what value is, a scientific definition of the essence of money is impossible.
At the dawn of civilization, at some point in the development of human society, the transfer of things from one person to another turned into an exchange. Exchange is not just a movement of values or goods, as it is sometimes presented. Exchange is called only such a movement of things or services that occurs exclusively in conditions when subjects are directly opposed, in a situation where the improvement of one leads to the deterioration of the other or the improvement of both of them at the expense of deterioration for third subjects. Exchange is the native child of private property.
Private property and exchange are forms of industrial relations between people. Private property relations are a broader phenomenon, and exchange is its natural manifestation. If there is private property, then, in one way or another, the exchange will also manifest itself.
For tens of thousands of years, private property relations mainly existed in the form of slavery, then for thousands of years in the form of serfdom. And there and there with a small share of exchange, especially monetary. In those days, money was a sign of mercenary work and prostitution.
Over the past hundreds of years, private property has manifested itself in the form of exchange, and money, primarily between entrepreneurs and employees. Some own the means of production, while others own the labor force. And here the cannibalistic essence of private property was covered by the fig leaf of civil society.
It turned out that in economics there is nothing more confusing for an ordinary person than considering exchange through the scientific abstraction of «simple commodity production» when money is presented in a rosy light as a commodity that can be exchanged for any other goods. After all, according to this abstraction, the exchange of some things for others takes place by the costs of the average necessary social labor, that is, in proportion to the average efforts or costs of production, which means that money only expresses the proportions of some things in others. It is this perception of money that is most grossly erroneous. Most of those interested do not bother to understand how money — «social labor embodied in a universal equivalent form» — turns into a means of exploitation, oppression, unleashing wars, and spiritual enslavement of a person.
So, the value is called the proportion of some things in others that occurs during the exchange. Exchange relations and value relations are synonyms. Private property relations and the exchange that naturally follows from them can be correctly understood through the following more general categories.
Everything in the universe moves and therefore changes. This movement can be conditionally divided, as it were, by the direction vector of repulsion and attraction. Fundamentally, human society is built on the principle of attraction, since each person is only a manifestation of society. Society is an integral organism, and people are only an embodiment (not parts!) of this organism, therefore, basically, people are attracted to each other. Society is such a stable connection between people that without it there is no individual at all.
Meanwhile, all people are unique manifestations of society, in this, they are opposite to each other, and this generates their repulsion within society, generating various contradictions between them. So, private property relations are the maximum absolutization of the principle of repelling people, their isolation from each other primarily through the usurpation by some of the means of life of others. The private owner treats all other people as late animals or organisms and strives to live only for himself at the expense of society and denies the fact that society is objectively the environment that gave birth to him and gives him living conditions. The reason for the appearance of private property relations is the inflated instinct of self-preservation of the individual, and animal atavisms in the psyche.
However, social production is impossible outside of society, therefore the objective necessity of collective labor (attraction) is realized based on private property (repulsion), and such ugly social forms as slavery, serfdom and wage labor arise. That is, instead of living and working as a team, multiplying the potential of society, people are divided into classes and the minority begins to live at the expense of the majority.
An important factor in the formation of private property relations is the division of labor, in particular, the allocation of mental, and managerial labor. However, the division of labor itself does not lead to private property, it only accelerates and deepens this opposition of people.
Exchange is also a kind of realization of the attraction of people, exchange creates connections between them, destroyed by private property. Exchange is a specific movement of things and services in terms of private property relations. It is easy to see that the exchange cannot occur in an environment of adequate, thinking people. When the exchange is used in the family, among friends or comrades, it always darkens the relationship.
The question arises: how are the exchange proportions of things formed when the exchange participants are opposed to each other as owners. If we simulate a simple exchange operation, then its participants will try to make an exchange with a private benefit for themselves, that is, to give less and get more. Their assessment of the value of the exchanged can be based only on the average labor costs for production since the absolute majority of what is exchanged is created by human hands. Spontaneously arising proportions of things in exchange are scientifically described by the law of value.
However, in real life, there are no identical things, there are no identical people, there is no identical labor and there are no «clumps» of the average necessary social labor — this is just a scientific abstraction that reveals the economic mechanism of the functioning of exchange. Therefore, with each exchange, one of the parties always finds itself in an objectively more advantageous position, accumulating errors and surpluses in its hands.
Of course, these surpluses do not play a significant role, however, the situation is completely different if money is used as a means of exchange, which can add up to treasures. The money accumulated in the form of treasures in private hands is then used to usurp the means and instruments of production, turning into a means of exploitation, that is, into capital. Thus, the monetary form brings the lack of equivalence inherent in the exchange as a whole to the maximum of the accumulation of money in the hands of a narrow group of oligarchs.
Private property, exchange, and money are extremely primitive, semi—animal relationships that turn any person with an infinitely rich inner world into an impersonal competitor. They reduce all the diversity of social life to the struggle of «predators» for a «food base». That’s what capitalism is based on.
In other words, money is a form of production relations between people, a special type of exchange value, the essence of which consists in the transformation of random, chaotic errors in the valuation of goods into systematic,—sided, and constantly growing, which aggravates the dictate of large private owners, that is, the oligarchy.
All the money in the world is in the private hands of the oligarchy and even large state budgets are only transit points in the movement between the pockets of the oligarchs. Money, for the majority of the world’s population, is wages, that is, its value is such that its main function — to accumulate treasures — cannot be realized in principle. And this is a manifestation not only of the evil intent of the oligarchy but also of the fundamental property of money to accumulate unilaterally in the hands of large private owners.
Thus, at this historical stage of the development of civilization, money is the most significant factor in human unfreedom, the dictatorship of ignorance, and extreme selfishness. That is, the fact that money gives a person access to the means of life is the most large-scale deception of capitalism because, in reality, they alienate the masses from the public wealth created by them.
Monetary tunnel thinking, which serves capitalist slavery, distorts the human psyche and replaces feelings of freedom, joy, and happiness with the narcotic drug of monetary property.
The formation and embodiment of the essential forces of man are the real sources of his freedom, joy, and happiness. Only selfless and selfless service to society can make a person free, joyful, and happy. These processes make their way through the primitive commodity-money relations under capitalism, as they are deeper manifestations of the social nature of man. However, private property and money stop the natural development of the human personality.
From a scientific point of view, freedom is the knowledge of objective necessity and the corresponding activity for the transformation of nature and society. The «freedom» of consumption from spontaneously arising desires and desires is an illusion that arose against the background of chronic poverty and underconsumption of the masses.
However, all of the above should not be interpreted as a call to go into the woods or live in a barrel by the sea, running away from money. The objective reality of capitalism is that without money today it is impossible to eat, stay warm, move around, or live at all. It is important not to destroy money in your life here and now at the same time, but, firstly, to understand the scientific content of these social relations, secondly, to conduct internal work on yourself so as not to become a slave to «monetary morality», thirdly, to embark on the path of systematic struggle for the reconstruction of society on a non-monetary basis, that is, on the path of the struggle for communism.
Every person’s life is infinitely diverse, and the circumstances in which he finds himself are always unique. We need to learn how to find a balance of «observing the rules» of the dictatorship of money to live and have every opportunity to devote ourselves to the struggle for communism. The circumstances of the revolutionaries of the past were often much harsher than ours, so it’s a shame to complain and whine before the memory of the great ones.
Money and freedom: Один комментарий
Перевод так себе. «The reason» — артикль the тут не ставится; «разум» используется в абстрактном смысле. Вместо «reason» правильнее использовать «mind». «a long and painful way to form» — а вот тут как раз требуется «the». Не говоря уже о том, что «формировался мучительно долго» (в русском оригинале) и «a long and painful way to form» (в переводе) имеют несколько разный смысл. И это лишь первое предложение, дальше по тексту — не лучше.
Комментарий оставлен для сведения переводчика.