The Rise of Money and Class Society: The Contributions of John F. Henry

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis paper explores the rise of money and class society in ancient Greece, drawing historical and theoretical parallels to the case of ancient Egypt. In doing so, the paper examines the historical applicability of the chartalist and metallist theories of money. It will be shown that the origins and the evolution of money were closely intertwined with the rise and consolidation of class society and inequality. Money, class society, and inequality came into being simultaneously, so it seems, mutually reinforcing the development of one another. Rather than a medium of exchange in commerce, money emerged as an "egalitarian token" at the time when the substance of social relations was undergoing a fundamental transformation from egalitarian to class societies. In this context, money served to preserve the façade of social and economic harmony and equality, while inequality was growing and solidifying. Rather than "invented" by private traders, money was first issued by ancient Greek states and proto-states as they aimed to establish and consolidate their political and economic power. Rather than a medium of exchange in commerce, money first served as a "means of recompense" administered by the Greek citystates as they strived to implement the civic conception of social justice. While the origins of money are to be found in the origins of inequality, a well-functioning democratic society has the power to subvert the inequality-inducing characteristic of money via the use of money for public purpose, following the principles of Modern Money Theory (MMT). When used according to the principles of MMT, the inequality-inducing characteristic of money could be undermined, while the current trends in rising income and wealth disparities could be contained and reversed.

The “Control Space” of the State: A Key Element to Address the Nature of Money

“…After all, silver and precious metals had a deep relationship with religion and the collection of certain tributes by these same authorities. Normally, it was what was donated to thank or ask the gods for something or to mediate their wills (Goelet 2000;Semenova 2011;Semenova and Wray 2015). With the division of society into classes, religious guides occupied the highest place in the hierarchy, which is why silver and precious metals, given their religious function, can also be linked to illustrate the power and opulence in these societies.…”

El dinero moderno y el enfoque cartalista institucional

“…Por otra parte, la naturaleza del dinero depende de prácticas complejas que incluyen la existencia de una relación de dominancia entre clases. A este respecto, el metalismo sostiene que el dinero surgió en un entorno de igualdad entre los participantes en el intercambio, mientras que el enfoque cartalista plantea que la existencia de dinero exige una brecha social entre quienes pueden imponer obligaciones y quienes deben atenderlas (Semenova y Wray, 2015). De modo que en la evolución histórica hubo un proceso que alteró los lazos de reciprocidad y, así, un segmento de la sociedad tribal pudo llegar a ejercer el usufructo de la propiedad productiva, que antes estaba en manos de la comunidad.…”