I wanted to blog about an idea I found particularly interesting in this week’s reading. It is an idea presented in the 1944 manuscripts section titled, “The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society”. In the begging of this section Marx uses examples of Shakespeare to describe the nature of money. Marx then goes onto talk about the nature of money in capitalist society, and its power.
In the next paragraph, Marx expounds upon the role of money in society as basically encompassing all that is seen as positive. Marx has asserted earlier that the individual’s worth is driven down as the worth of money rises. Now we see from this section that not only does this exchange take place, but also that money seems to inherit value. For example Money is seen to contain those positive attributes of man and deposits them onto whoever has money. Marx says that now it is no longer the man that is powerful, honorable, beautiful, but it is his money. Mans power is not the extent of “his” power in fact but the extent of his moneys power. Marx says, “I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honored, and therefore so is its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good.”
Now what I find interesting here is that Marx doesn’t restrain money to simply buying objects. But moneys power bleeds into the realm of human virtue, and can even put a price on honor, beauty, etc. According to Marx, In the capitalist market place literally anything can be bought and sold. Thinking about this, at first I wanted to reject the idea. I was resistant to it initially, but then I started to think about it a little more. After thinking Marx’s idea doesn’t seem all that farfetched. I think of these examples and find that I have witnessed these invaluable things be bought and sold. I have seen men with money that are dishonest buy credibility with the presence of their money.
I hate to think that this is actually the way the world works, and though I can see through it, I don’t know that a lot of people do. I don’t want to live in a world where money is the ultimate power, and the value of a person’s actual virtues is nil. I don’t know if the world is this way, I have seen examples that could support both sides, but at the same time, it is still troubling to me.
In many ways, I agree with your observation on Marx’s assessment of money: that society – in particular Capitalist societies – places a greater value upon monetary worth than it does human worth. As you noted, human worth is now assessed in terms of monetary value in so far as labor qualifications (i.e. how skilled one is in the work-place) determines the monetary worth of the individual. If an individual posses a “more qualified” skill than another individual, then his worth, in monetary terms, is higher. Sadly, this principle of economics is practiced by most countries.
ReplyDeleteThus Marx was right to show his disgust with the then current state of economics. This also true for authors like Charles Dickens who sent subliminal messages about the poor and unequal treatment of workers, especially the exploitation of child labor. Yet aside from this sad actuality, I think change can still be made – even in free-market economies. One the unique elements of a liberal democracy where free-market enterprise is practiced is that encourages improvement. Whether it be personal improvement or societal improvement, in a free-market there’s always room opportunity, which can then be transformed into positive change.
Yet Marx saw that the “good” in “improvement” can only come through material means. However, contrary to Marx’s belief, goodness and value can be restored to the individual, but only when we begin to view the each other as ends and not a means. Meaning we must recognize that people entail an intrinsic worth that trumps the manufactured worth of money. In my opinion, individuals must burden themselves this responsibility. We must stop viewing individuals as objects, as is the case in both non-democratic and democratic countries like Iran and the US, and start treating individuals with the inherent respect they deserve. Then will we be able to restore true value to the individual.
I agree with Marx's assessment of money in this instance. It definitely appears in modern society that money can buy and individual nearly anything. On top of this fact, it appears that individuals seem to regard money as a way to keep score, to see who is the "better man". While this idea seems terrible to think about, our society seems to measure success merely by how much money one makes. We presuppose money is a good thing and thus having money seems to make one a good person. We cannot view money possession as a measure of a person's goodness, however we make it that way. As a society we have to mindfully change how we view money and what its value in our society is. We do this to ourselves.
ReplyDeleteI think you are right on point here. Have you ever heard of the halo effect? The halo effect is the effect in which people are more likely to trust or agree with someone who is powerful, wealthy, or attractive. As you mentioned it is interesting to see how commodities such as money bleed into things like human virtue and the social world, but it is also interesting to see, as Marx points out, how humans are bleeding into the commercial world (humans as commodities). I wonder if there is a relation between the two.
ReplyDeleteAs far as treating individuals with respect they deserve in order to restore their true value, I believe it possible if not probable in a capitalist society. While capitalism yields a competition among individuals to satiate their self-interests, it is possible that the true value of individuals be recognized in this arrangement. In a capitalist society, individuals might be valued as the only truly valuable things, rather than devalued things. Objects have no intrinsic worth, but are only valuable insofar as their relation to the individual.
ReplyDelete