One could argue pessimistically that the only redeeming factor of human nature is its release of dopamine and endorphins, pleasure chemicals released from the brain to hide the corruption of the ‘human soul’. We are told that at the core of this corruption is money. I believe that ‘money is not the root of all evil’, despite being the attractive scapegoat, a ‘ready-made’ distortion of the human capacity to ‘blame one’s tools for shoddy workmanship’. But what if money made the world go round? What if money was essential to the human reality? What if money was the human currency to the human condition?
If any of those are true, I believe that would demand serious social control from the big chiefs of society. I believe that human gratification concerning the abuse and misuse of money is dictated by the denial that it is the ‘buzz’ of making the money not the accumulation or the spending of it. Otherwise this would rob socialised ideas of reward by materialistic success and more pleasure time’, a ‘gift’ and a self-perpetuating myth exchanged for this loyalty to socialised practices to make hierarchical the human fantasy of the 21st century . In short, it would seriously tamper with ‘rewards’ and incentives of today, and could conceivably provoke the question of whether you could replace the idea of Capitalism with a placebo, and no one would be any the wiser.
So is ‘nasty money’ a liberal democracies way of manipulating society or not? Why would you stab capitalism’s reputation in the back just to maintain the myth of money being a girls and boys best or worst friend, when the truth maybe that people succeed when competing for success and derive the adrenalin of ‘risk taking’ that is part of human activity and therefore politically neutral? Why politically divide, why cheapen the creative flow of human nature by lurid exposure and excessive human incapacity to spend and not invest money wisely? Don’t devalue by acquiescence to ‘the acceptable’ demonization of the capitalistic sector as ‘war-games’ or ‘gambling’ with public savings. Isn’t it a risk that societies bosses will be discovered devaluing ‘money’ and the general massaging of what is true and what is false for public consumption?
Perhaps this is the risk they take about human risk-taking? But if social control is risk taking and risk taking is integral to human nature then perhaps I have undone my own argument? Perhaps the more we are free to discover about state control the freer the individual, the freer the society and the nation state. Or not? You decide.