You are on page 1of 2

I think that momey has been well defined by Marx as a general equivalent. Money is what is equivalent to anything else.

This is what cause apssion for money to exist. Because that passion for money as if it was a a passion for all the thing s we want, all that we desire. It is as if money appeared in front of desire and as if it was the means to satisfy any desire. So finally, passion for money is actually the passion for an object of desire that is not really defined. It is s omething that appears as a vague desire, a desire that is general, a sort of des ire for everything. And this is why money is like a stand-in. This necessarily c auses violence, as that practically undetermined desire, that desire that is at the same thing--absolute and general, is a desire that enters immediately into a regime of competition. Also, in society, society has other things, it is the so ciety of money, but also at the same time and out of necessity, it is the societ y of competition. So money is what organizes the violence of competition. And wh y? Naturally, in the violence that reigns among human beings and money, there is a direct connection. Also, always, after all, it is mainly for money that we ki ll! The language of money is precisely a language that pretends to have no limit s. That is the reason why it is an insane language. It is a language that presen ts a world that has no limits. A world of unlimited desires. Actually, money mak es money! Money is something that always ask for more money! That is why the ric h are never rich enough. It's clear: the rich are never rich because it is not about "money", they want even "more money". And that is an unlimited desire. And as an unlimited desire, we could say, that in reality, it does not build a real world. There is a reason to say that the limit of a language is also the limit of that world, and if the language pretends to have no limits, then it is as if the world did not have limits: so as a world it melts down. As a conclusion, th en, passion for money is an abstract passion, not a passion as a means to do som ething; it is an abstract passion. And that is also the root of the matter. I think that the dominant fictions in the capitalist world are the fictions that in one way or the other, are related to the domination of money. They are ficti ons that are around the question of unlimited desire and competition, both at th e same time. They are fictions that tell us how money triggers passions, crimes the possibility of love, betrayal, etc. They are the passions of unlimited desir e. I think that if we want to get back to a truthful world, that implies that we admit the limits of language, and that we know how to use fiction in the servic e of truth and not in the service of unlimited desire,--then we need to change f iction, that is for sure. We need to change fiction and that is very important. It is very important and I would say that could be the great challenge for conte mporary artists...their responsiblity. It is the responsability of contemporary artists to propose new fictions. It is not that easy because at the beginning, n ew fictons are not recongizable. They seem foreign to a world, dominated by com petition and money. I think the invention of new types of fiction and new ways t o create fictions is extremely important. I think that the problem is the relati onship between people, that the relationship between people does not take place within the compeititve model. That is the first point. Why not within the compet itive model? Of course it needs to be inside of the model of money in circulatio n. So then, how could a non compeitive relationship among men and women be? Of c ourse there is love, but it would be a bit violent as a solution, because we can not love absolutely. We religion says, "Love each other as you love yourself", b ut it is a bit difficult if "love" is taken in its deep sense. I think that we n eed to leave for love its expectional meaning, its meaning related to a deep tru th, that is shared between two persons. On the contrary, what I think is that we can have relationships that I would call friendly, a relationship of friendship , it is a way that is not exactly that of the passion of love, but it is a way t hat lets us let the other come close, share that is not immediately dominated by judgement, by condemnation and competition. I would propose some kind of univer sal friendship. I think a different way of regulating exchanges that would an al ternative to the present way is something than can be imagined. Particularly, th ere are many possiblities of direct exchanges, of objects, goods, etc, that are neglected. But this society, is a society of a huge waste. As the appropiation o

f things is always private, that implies an enormous waste. In fact, the amount of things that a person accumulates and never uses is enormous. It is up to each of us. I could throw away my things or donate them to another person, or do som ething else. Society not only regulates the exchanges and competition for money, but it also organizes huge waste. I think that what is needed is a friendly org anization of the exchanges, that is done in some other way. Now...if I had a complete and precise idea, I would have already advertized it. Naturally, it is a very difficult matter, a very delicate one, that would take a lot of time. But I am convinced that exchange--developed, massively understood-non-monetary exchange is possible. Entire socieities have practiced non monetar y exchanges. They were smaller than ours, I agree, but we can--no doubt--solve t he problem of non monetary exchanges on a large scale. There have been many utopian projects of provisional currency, currencies that a re useful at a given moment and cannot be accumulated. They are currencies that serve only for that exchange, but cannot exist, cannot continue in capitalism, b ecause they are not capitalizable. It is true but since today capitalization tak es place by clicking on computers, the dissapearance of currency would not solve our problem. Computer memory would need to disappear also. It is difficult. The internet is a technical means, it can be a service for good or evil. It deci des nothing by itself. It cannot do anything for itself. Today, the internet is already massively repeating dicatorships based on financial trade, finanicial ac cumulation and it is also useful for communication between people and for politi cal demostrations. It workers for absolutely everything. I think we can and real ly should take advantage of the internet positive aspects. But the internet is n ot going to tell us how to do it, we have to invent these things. I think that for the momemt international organizations are under the spell of t he dominating vision, whcih is that of power after all. So they really dont have a program dictated by a new vision of the world. The programs are charities, me must say it as it is, this is a slight redistribution of vital necessities to t he poor. That has always been a part of capitalism, always capitalistic charity. Also in the 19th century, there's the bourgeois Lady giving things to the poor. At the time it was based on religion, now we have the international organizatio ns, but it has always been pretty much the same thing. I think that we can rebui ld a world where passion and happiness were orientated towards the truth. Especi ally in the conception I propose for truth. Truth in reality is what we are able to create, to invent. So that can be the passion of humanity: invention, creati ng, sharing the creation. I hope it will be possible. Much more than passion for accumulation, treasure and competition. Why do evil passions matter more that g ood ones? There is no eternal reason to that: it is related, actually, to the fa ct that society is organized in terms of money and competition. If it was organi zed in another way, we would see and we can see in similar circles, in small soc ieities, we see creation, invention, can be truly greater and happier ways.