In Defense of Anagorism

political economy in the non-market, non-state sector

Quotebag #57

Written by

Lorraine Lee

in

“The fact that music and the arts is argued for inclusion in our schools primarily as a way to raise math scores shows you how useless the whole exercise in education ‘reform’ is.”—Purple

“If I somehow manage to come into the classroom every day and keep my religion to myself, I don’t understand why a politician, a judge, a doctor, anybody else cannot do the same.”—Clarissa

“Well, there are plenty of historical societies that dealt in people rather than money. I personally believe that printed money maintains a separation — a boundary, if you will — between the individual and the work that the money symbolizes. Money, as a result, allows us to look past the humanity and excuse atrocious behavior like layoffs and cut benefits as ‘only business.’ When in fact it is extremely personal and inhumane.”—Academic Monkey

“If I sell my TV and other ‘gadgets’ that are always used to show how rich poor people are compared to earlier days, it will get me exactly nowhere today as far as paying my rent.”—Isabel

Comments

3 responses to “Quotebag #57”

  1. Rad Geek Avatar
    Rad Geek

    Well, there are plenty of historical societies that dealt in people rather than money….

    I agree that people often use money to make excuses for doing shitty things to each other. On the other hand, I hear that dealing in people had some problems, too….

    Reply
    1. n8chz Avatar
      n8chz

      I doubt that slavery is what Academic Monkey meant by dealing in people. I interpret it more as akin to the credit union slogan “where people are more important than money.” Certainly market interaction is a lesser evil than slavery, but hopefully it will turn out to be one of several steps removed from it…

      Reply
      1. Rad Geek Avatar
        Rad Geek

        doubt that slavery is what Academic Monkey meant by dealing in people….

        Probably not. But it does seem to be one of the most prominent examples in “historical societies.” That, and family relationships — which of course have their own sort of violence and their own fettering “bonds.” I am not being fair here, of course, but I do think it’s important to remember and to stress that, if we are supposed to be viewing this historically, those non-monetary ways of “dealing” with each other could offer their own kinds of shittiness and inhumanity — to say the very least. But to the extent that that’s true, I wonder how much the problem really is a problem either with monetary or non-monetary relationships — and how much it is a problem with the social or interpersonal context within which those relationships occur.

        Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

More posts