Explanation of work... money?

Here's a thought...

So the suggestion is that "work" only becomes work when it is controlled by capital. "Work" that is DIY ceases to have the quality of work that is done under contract.

It is clear that it is the same people and the work regardless whether it is done by your friend under contract for money, or is done by him as a favour. If you doubt that imagine employing yourself and paying yourself through a contract, and compare that with just getting it done. Its the same "action" isn't it? "Professionalism" seems to be a fetishisation of the concept of work. We would rather have something done by a professional than by a non-professional even when the "quality" is the same! And as we often experience the professional does not supply a very high quality. Business is a different skill to craft. Someone may have hidden talents for a craft but never go into business. Someone may be excellent at setting up business, getting clients and all the paraphernalia but actually supply a poor service when it comes down to it. The experts at business know how to go bankrupt and get big redundancy payouts and also how to restart the business again under a different name (I know some who have made millions) - these are true businessmen and they are professionals but their craft is poor.

Craft is maybe the word for the underlying nature of work. It is the word (Techne) from which more modern concepts Art and Technology have been derived. Craft is both art and technology combined. It is the essence of human action. As we mature we develop craft in our relationships, our language, our thoughts, our emotions, our skills etc. Craft is closely connected with quality. It is however free from capital - being skillful in something is simply "doing" it, "being" it. It comes from within, it is an expression of ourselves, of our lives. When someone says "what do you do?" the authentic answer is similar to the answer for "how do you do?" - both enquire as to your state of being. Inauthentically the former now means - which capital reserves do you protect, i.e. what "work" do you do, or what are you paid to do. Someone may be a doctor professionally, but we are all doctors of varying skills in that our lives are based upon the premise ' do not harm' and more proactively 'create wellbeing'. Many people who are not trained or paid to be doctors carry this out far better than any doctor - a mother would be an excellent example. The concept of paid employment poorly fits the notions of skill, responsibility, craft, or life. It does seem better allied to capital and business.

Now the point of this blog is money. For all the rehashed philosophy the concept of money and Smithian economics seems sound. A contract is created in the free market between free agents who decide the terms. One person agrees to pay what he things is a "fair" price and the other does what he thinks is a "fair" job. Assuming all does well the exchange is satisfactory to both parties. The accumulation of money by any party is a record of their completing satisfactory exchanges and their contributing of value to the society. Their then spending of money in fair contract seems only rightful given their healthy membership of society. Capital will "fairly" accumulate where people want it by definition. It is as good as a measure of the General Will as any. The hand of the markets is the Genaral Will - how can Rousseau have criticised this? How can anyone demean money or professionalism in this process?

It escapes me. Yet an equally ugly picture of capitalism can be written. I wonder where the truth really lies.

But, stepping over that issue a suggestion. If all things can be viewed as "action", and work can be viewed as those actions which preserve capital then the movement of money is not caused by "production" and "consumption" as it traditioanlly viewed but rather simply by the action's relationship to capital.

Normally we think a farmer produces and an eater consumes. The farmer exchanges what he makes for money, and the eater exchanges his money for food. Thus commodity distribution happens in one direction and money flows in the opposite way.

But the eater is working isn't he? He needs to shop, and travel, and maybe cook and needs to sit to eat and his body will do the digestion. Once digested the food can be put to use to fuel him in his job for example to do something productive. It is a cycle. If we abuses his freetime eating poorly, living unhealthily etc then that will affect his work. There is a peak in industrial accidents on Monday I understand due to alcohol consumption at the weekend - at college I had a bicycle accident once on Monday due to the same! So while the eater gives money to the farmer in exchange for food, in reality is there really an "exchange" - its just the cycle isn't it? The money comes into it not because the crops cost anything to grow - crops grow all by themselves and the sun shines all by itself and the rain comes all by itself - not because the farmer gives any money to the sun or the ground or the clouds - but because some of what the farmer does involves "capital".

Run out of time and need to explore this more in depth before I write more ....