What is Monetary Relativism?
“We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires.” — Pope Benedict XVI
“[Relativism] claimed that all truth is culturally situated (except its own truth, which is for all cultures); it claimed there are no transcendental truths (except its own pronouncements, which transcend specific contexts); it claimed that all hierarchies or value rankings are oppressive and marginalizing (except its own value ranking, which is superior to the alternatives); it claimed that there are no universal truths (except its own pluralism, which is universally true for all peoples).” — Ken Wilber, A Theory of Everything
“In economic terms, relativism is clearly an absurd position, for the monetary tools and systems that we choose have profound consequences on social order and dynamics. A relativistic position that suggests barter is equally as ‘good’, ‘true’ or ‘worthwhile’ to use as, say, an international currency such as the Bancor put forth by John Maynard Keynes is utter madness when one takes into account the context of global complexities, capital flows and the instantaneity of transactions on which the international system now depends.” — Jordan MacLeod, New Currency
***
In New Currency I briefly touched on the prevalence of philosophical and moral relativism in academia and Western culture. These positions hold that there are no absolutes in the universe, only relative claims. As Wilber points out, the problem with such ideas is that they themselves are absolute claims dismissing the possibility of absolute claims. Thus, they run into the fatal error of performative contradictions.
These unreasonable positions can only be understood as intellectualized protest against the status quo. When one cannot transcend or resolve the current problems related to globalization, it is apparently in the interest of many academics and activists to attack the systems that are “causing” these problems, as if that will solve anything. Relativism can therefore be understood to have an inherently nihilistic nature that presents itself as a serious roadblock to further economic and social evolution. It simply cannot discern between the shadows of current systems and cultures and their essence and totality. The enormous and indispensable contributions of, say, capitalism are thereby tossed out with its increasingly apparent shortcomings. The baby is thrown out with the bath water.
A relativistic critique of capitalism is inherently unable to transcend its limitations and problems because it ignore the context of the values, technologies, traditions, life conditions and human capabilities that gave birth to it. It merely engages in idealized wishful thinking about how things “should” be, and deems it “oppressive” to the working classes in an act of historical revisionism that utterly ignores the fact it is one of the single-most important driving forces in the escape of slavery, rigid social control and feudalism.
Indeed, capitalism is the worst system – with the exception of all others, as Churchill used to say. It has its flaws and warts to be sure, but its imperfections are also indicative of its success. Its remarkable worldwide acceptance and integration have created entirely new sets of problems and complexities for an interconnected global village, with finite resources and diverse cultures. Its success has brought to light problems such as exponential growth in a world of limited natural resources, the concentration of wealth effect, transnational financial risks, and environmental degradation.
We urgently need new thinking to address these problems. Unfortunately, relativism falls well short in the call for new ideas, for it merely leads to malaise at best and social anarchy at worst. It erodes our capacity to develop brighter visions and greater understanding of our problems. It merely states that nothing is better or worse than anything else, which is a direct attack against not only common sense and reason, but the spiritual wisdom that is the cornerstone of Western cultures, including an authentic cultural creative subculture.
A mature understanding of economics and money, however, holds a powerful key for breaking through narcissistic and anarchic beliefs that anything goes on a fragile, interconnected planet. When we account for the context of global life conditions, for the emergence of green and holistic values, for the yearning for deeper meaning, and the means to actually solve our problems without placing an impossible burden on our children and grandchildren, then we have to acknowledge the need for economic innovation rather than mere relativism.
Many of those involved in the alternative or complementary currencies are some of the best positioned to help lead a positive and grounded transformation of the global economy, because they inherently understand the critical importance of monetary design in determining the qualities and propensities of the economic system(s) that we use.
Once we have acknowledged that only specific qualities in money and economic systems are conducive to resolving global (and local) problems, ranging from unemployment to environmental degradation then we have no choice but to reject monetary relativism and then stand up for innovations - the means - that actually work.
What is Monetary Relativism?
Monetary relativism is not an official position or theory propagated in the world of academia like its moral and philosophical counterparts; but it is every bit as dangerous. It is not perhaps a conscious strand within the complementary currency movement but it is nevertheless prevalent within it.
I define monetary relativism as the belief that all forms of currency are equally valid or appropriate; and that no monetary design can be deemed better than another. As a consequence of this belief, the notion emerges that money can be arbitrarily created at the whims of an individual or group, that anyone and everyone should have the right to create money according to their personal desires and impulses.
As we have seen above, the problem with this position is that it ignores the context of economic, social and environmental life conditions and the impact of currency design on our ability to address what we deem the most critical and relevant challenges of our times.
I would suggest that monetary relativism emerges as a consequence of reacting against national fiat currencies, which are inherently monopolistic, arbitrary and concentrated forms of power that are also widely recognized, at least in the alternative currency movement, as imperfect (if not fatally flawed) for solving the challenges we face. Yet, rather than firmly state that only specific and more conscious monetary tools can address the complexity of global life conditions, monetary relativists react against this reality by stating that everyone should be able to produce the kinds of currencies that they see fit.
This position, unfortunately, does not lead to liberation and the good life, but rather to economic anarchy and the dominance of ego in social affairs. Why? Because it abdicates the responsibility for, and denies the possibility of, making value judgements about money and the context of life conditions on our planet. Further, I would argue that it is precisely because today’s individual is not held accountable for the welfare and integrity of the whole system that we’re in the deep mess we are. Consequently, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to systemically discern ego from individualism, impulsiveness from reason, and myopic greed from constructive self-interest.
An Example of Monetary Relativism
Not long ago, I came across this excellent video by the Wall Street Journal’s Andy Jordan on the coming currency revolution. In it, Jordan introduces Stan Stalnaker, the founder of Hub Culture and its digitized social currency, Ven.
Hub Culture is a brilliant social enterprise and the Ven is a solid example of how complementary currencies are performing important functions where traditional, national currencies are not. Stalnaker rightly compared the emergence of new digital currencies as part of a process where money is shifting its qualities, comparable in its nature to a shift from stone to pebbles and now to sand. What he essentially means by that is money is becoming increasingly accessible, liquid and decentralized. It’s increasingly including more people into an integrated economy in new and innovative ways. Sand can seep into the cracks that stones cannot. His conclusion, however, of where this sand-like currency was taking us almost jolted me out of my seat:
“So we think at some point there will be millions of different currencies, essentially everyone will have their own virtual, personalized currency, and we’ll trade on some sort of, you know, NASDAQ for personal currencies.”
Here, Stalnaker makes a significant error in understanding how money really works. He is literally missing the beach for the sand, the forest for the trees, the ocean for the raindrop. Why? Because he is reducing currency to the idiosyncratic whims of personal taste, and thus overlooks the critical importance of a currency’s relationship to, and appropriateness within, the context in which it operates. It also misses how a single currency creates its own interconnected ecosystem, an ecosystem with unique and distinct properties, that could only possibly function when several people come together to co-create a shared vision of reality.
Currencies are inherently social and cultural creations. Ironically, Ven is a perfect example of the redundancy and pointlessness of individualized, personalized currencies.
Transcending Monetary Relativism
In order to cut through the dangers of gross error via relativistic and idiosyncratic money design, we must ask a simple yet powerful question: What currency (or currencies) is most appropriate within a given set of life conditions?
By first identifying life conditions — the environmental factors, values, technologies, problems, cultural dynamics and so on at a given point in time — we are from the start required to contextualize our monetary design for a specific purpose. After identifying the set of presenting challenges and opportunities, we can then begin to adequately evaluate and judge the appropriateness of specific currencies for a specific job. It might be how well X, Y and Z currencies complement national currencies (and help to compensate for their limitations) or, more importantly, how well a currency is able to transcend the national economic paradigm altogether.
Indeed, for humanity to effectively build the capacity to collectively confront the enormous global challenges of our times, a new economic paradigm is now required. We can’t simply continue to try to impose “solutions” on top of an unsustainable system. The 2,000 page health care and cap and trade bills currently under consideration in the US will saddle this and future generations with higher taxes, energy costs and debt. While they may be well intended, if they pass they will ultimately only accelerate the failure of an already overburdened and overwhelmed system. The sooner the delegates meeting in Copenhagen next month realize this, the better.
At some point, and I believe that time is now, alternative currency thinkers and doers, along with others who are serious about developing new economic capacities, will have to dedicate their energy primarily towards demonstrating how real world economic problems can be solved using specific designs.
While diversity and experimentation has its value, we live in a time when we can no longer afford to be distracted solely by peripheral currencies that have marginal impact on the global economy as a whole. A central emphasis must be placed on making qualitative judgments about which monetary systems are most appropriate in the context of solving our most pressing problems. The more the alternative currency community as a whole is able to coalesce and integrate new ideas and collectively focus their energy like a laser beam on the challenge of transcending national fiat currencies, the more powerful and lasting impact it will have.
+
Updated: 8:50AM AT November 27, 2009
Monetary Relativism, New Currency | admin | 
November 26, 2009 9:57 pm
4 Comments
Other Links to this Post
-
P2P Foundation » Blog Archive » Against Money Relativism — December 1, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
By Stacey Derbinshire, November 26, 2009 @ 10:00 pm
I finally decided to write a comment on your blog. I just wanted to say good job. I really enjoy reading your posts.
By Mike Harmon, November 26, 2009 @ 10:15 pm
I found your site on Google and read a few of your other entires. Nice Stuff. I’m looking forward to reading more from you.
By admin, December 1, 2009 @ 2:05 pm
Responding to Michel Bauwens’ headline that “Jordan MacLeod thinks the time of play is over for alternative currencies”:
I guess it depends what you mean by play. As an attitude, playfulness is a gift. Our future economy will be collectively based far more on play and enjoyment than it is today.
But if “play” comes at the expense of ignoring the critical paradigmatic problems, then it’s a problem.. Because we’ll still be at the mercy of an unconscious monetary system.
The more the community is able to focus and collaborate like a laser beam on the CENTRAL systemic problems such as exponential growth, I believe there are profound opportunities for enormous breakthroughs, general consensus and grounded solutions. That, in my opinion, is not at all the end, but rather the beginning of play for this community. That’s where things get really interesting.
Jordan