Re: two currencies and Korean war

[Alan Cibils <abcibils@xxxxxxxxx>]

At  1/14/2002, Per Gunnar Berglund wrote:
> In the light of the gaping holes in other theories of money, I am left
> wondering why the Chartalist notions are so controversial to some? It sure
> looks like it is rooted in some general neo-liberal or neo-conservative
> aversion to government?

Dear Per,

A couple of thoughts on your response. First, it is not only right wingers
who are state-averse. Anarchists (or libertarian communists, or libertarian
socialists, or radical democratic socialists or whatever you choose to call
them) also see the capitalist state as undesirable (though there is great
divergence as to what sort of coordination structures, if any, are desirable).

Second, it is precisely because the neoliberal state has become this
minimalist parasite (collecting taxes from the poor while cutting back most
services, and making sure the wealthy and corporate powers can make a
killing) that I find the emergence of alternative monies to be relevant and
desirable as a form of challenging the status quo (besides providing for
the survival of hundreds of thousands of people who are excluded from the
"formal" economy). Of course, the intentions and social forces behind the
new monies are of key importance. But when they arise out of democratic,
decentralized, cooperative or participatory environments and social
institutions, I think it is a step forward. Perhaps here lies my personal
dislike of taxation element of the chartalist definition.

Of course, this is a discussion which is probably beyond the scope of this
list and more at home in PEN-L....

Alan


_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com