Money, Master of Itself?

Indeed Marx's view of money is very interesting. Calling Money the "externalized exchange of human production", Marx suggests that money alienates man. He postulates that human production, "the externalized species-activity of man", transfers all its qualities to the mediator, money.

"Man as separated from this mediator thus becomes so much the poorer
as the mediator becomes richer."

What Marx is saying in this portion of text and more, is that money becomes more valuable than the private property and activity of means of production because the power of exchange vested in money is equated with greater value than the natural exchange would dictate. The normal and natural social or human relationship of the exchange has been replaced with the dehumanizing and alienating exchange of externalized private property which is money. This is interesting in that it addresses the questions that I have always had when I cashed a paycheck or paid a bill. Especially today, it seems like there is a disconnect between the work I performed, the personal value of that work to me (opportunity costs included), and the value of agreed upon by employer to pay in the form of externalized exchange private property through money. Something seems amiss this relationship.

Freedom to Govern or be Governed

"For there are no examples so frequent in history, both sacred and profane,
as those of men withdrawing themselves, and their obedience, from the
jurisdiction they were born under [...], and setting up new governments in
other places; from whence sprang all the number of petty common-wealths in
the beginning of ages[....], till stronger, or more fortunate , swallowed
the weaker; and those great ones again breaking into pieces , dissolved into
lesser dominions."

The above quote is one which I found most interesting in chapter VIII from Locke's Second Treatise of Government. Not only is it a most valid counterargument against the suggestion that men are not free to create new governments because they are already born into one, but it also describes a seemingly natural cyclical order of government. Locke argues that if men are not free to set up a new government then there must be only one universal monarchy by which all the world is to governed legitimately. This is of course ridiculous because as he suggests not everyone would subject themselves to such remote dominion. The natural order seems to be that when governments become overstretched, men rebel to create new government. The use of history to demonstrate the transience government is very powerful.

The Price and Profit of Poverty

What I found particularly interesting from this reading in the Discourses was Machiavelli's discussion of the usefulness of poverty in several different contexts. Ordinarilly, my first instinct is to see poverty as a negative consequence of human behaviors however Machiavelli justifies its existence as a positive force in a republic. I am not persuaded by Machiavelli's reasoning but I do see some logic in it. In chapter 16, he discusses the true ability as undesirable in times of tranquillity in comparison to men with wealth and or family connections. He suggests that in order for reputable men to take their proper station, times of war must be prolonged or that "keeping the citizens poor so that they cannot corrupt either themselves or others with riches" are two possible remedies.

Once again, I understand what he is saying but I do think that modern society is more complex than this. Also in chapter 25, in talking about poverty of Roman citizens he says: "the avenue to whatever rank or office you wished to obtain was not closed to you on the basis of your wealth , and that Ability was sought after in whatever home she lived". Machiavelli sees poverty as an equalizing force by which wealth and family connections are removed from societal position placement. This may be a generalization of what he is saying but I can not go much further into it in this blog post. Briefly though, I do agree with the importance of frugality and contentment that Machiavelli see in Cincinnatus and other Romans in times of poverty but since terms such as poverty and wealth are relative, I think a strong middle class can fill that place in today's society. I can not help resist however seeing modern parallels in leaders who are chosen by wealth and family connections during peace time who were then "thrust" (or perhaps premeditated) into war.