Alice: One is dependent on commodities, which can be converted into money and then to use this money to bridge the gap between oneself and another commodity. Here, money is first of all a means (the facilitator between commodity and commodity) and not purpose of the whole operation.

Bob: One is dependent on money. If one has only one commodity one cannot only exchange it for money, but one must convert it to money. Commodity against commodity does not work. The purpose of organising the social metabolism via C-M-C contains both: Money as the master of commodities, which one needs to get, in order to use it as a means for one’s needs and desires (which works because money subordinates commodities).

The price-form therefore implies both the exchangeability of commodities for money and the necessity of exchanges. (198)

The servant becomes the master. The mere underling becomes the god of commodities. (Contribution, Money Chapter)

Before in the analysis money becomes an end in itself, money is grounded as a permanently present simple end in society. I want to emphasise what it means when a “means” becomes an “end”.

Trivially this only means that whenever I choose a means for an ends then obtaining that means (if available) becomes my temporary end. If for example a state makes war in order to break the will of another sovereign, then it must be its temporary purpose to destroy the source of the other sovereignty, i.e., destroy land and people. From that means no new ends arise permanently for the warring state, because in times of peace it engages in negotiations and chooses between acknowledging and breaking another sovereign. Just because killing people is a means for governments, this does not imply that states have to kill people from foreign states all the time. This is different if a means is exclusive and without alternative as a means and this is the case with money. If the access to use-values can only happen through money without alternative, then every person who wants to satisfy his/her needs permanently must have the purpose of getting his/her hands on money. This is a not unimportant political economical argument, which Alice simply ignored: “One is dependent on commodities, which can be converted into money.” No, “must” is the point here. Because of the absoluteness of money it becomes necessarily a permanent end. Satisfaction of needs is only possible relative to this end, because there is no choice, not even for capitalists.

Charly: Because money has the quality to be the universal means of access to material wealth, but its quantity decides how much material wealth can be accessed, it follows logically from money that one cannot have enough of it.

Alice: Not so easy. If this conclusion is reached so instant, this presupposes that needs and desires are without boundaries and that is bourgeois ideology. This ‘excess’ of money is btw. a very metaphysical reading of Capital.

Charly: Insofar the purpose of making money out of money includes making as much money as possible.

Alice: If the conclusion above is not consistent, then here the same applies. The infinity of needs and desires results from the competition, in which no reached position guarantees the survival in future periods (Alice is referring to relative surplus-value production here, introduced in Chapter 15). Only under these conditions we can consistently think the purpose to make more money out of money. Also, only under these conditions it holds that more is better than a little more.

Bob: On the one hand Alice is right when she says that simply from money it does not follow that one cannot have enough of it, since there are examples where some people decide that they have enough. Not only rich people retire and eat up their capital, also some workers retire voluntarily early because their rent and savings suffice for them. One criterion for this decision can be for both: relative to the stress and hustle which earning money brings about, I think that the money I have already suffices for a decent retirement. This is btw. also something that Dave mentioned: such decisions exist and there people relate to their money and their claims on money with their needs and desires and decide: this is enough.

The boundless purpose of money accumulation is thus imposed on everyone at any given moment as a personal purpose (even though the personal purpose is dependent on it, but more about this later). Presupposed is of course, that one took care of earning money beforehand. But so far no boundless nature can be detected.

On the other hand, Alice is wrong when she thinks competition has to be added to moneymaking such that the boundless nature of the purpose becomes valid. In the passage of Capital where the quality-quantity argument is made which Alice labels metaphysical, Marx (C1, p.228) talks about the uncertainty of the selling commodities to explain why everyone has to be a hoarder to some extent. He talked about the variants of uncertainty before: The limits of the market for the producers, turns the sale of a commodity into a salto mortale (C1, p.200ff): is there demand for my commodity, and if so is it effective? What are my colleagues doing? Are they producing a commodity which beats mine in quality and replaces it? Are they producing faster and thus cheaper, such that I cannot reproduce myself from my labour power? Or are we all getting faster, can produce more and have to sell off our stuff really cheap which is beneficial for none of us? A few more uncertainties can be added to this: what about my suppliers, are they increasing prices? What about the stuff I want to buy, does that stuff become more expensive? How come that one cannot rely on buyers, sellers and fellow producers? Because they are concerned with their own business which means “selling expensive” and “buying on the cheap”; which means attracting “effective demand”. Why are they doing this? Because they want to earn money. And in the same way, the person which has a problem with them. He acts in the same way and causes uncertainties for the others. Thus even before the end “make more money” one needs to note that the purpose “making money at all” contains having and producing a lot of uncertainty.

The conflict is founded in the purpose “social access power” around which everything circles necessarily. Money is the “possibility of all use-values”. This verdict is not to be swallowed lightly, but it contains some harshness. “Possibility of all use-values” contains a claim to power. The possibility to have everything, contains the license to be ruthless towards anybody who is dependent on these things as well. Here the objective relationship of interests/needs/desires is erased, such that these interests oppose each other this way: if you have money you are something, if you have none, you are out. “Thus the social power becomes the private power of private persons.” (C1, p.230) To secure social power in the form of money contains an antagonistic and exclusive interest of all economic subjects (not only the concrete figures worker, capitalist and lawyer). That what I secure for myself is uncertainty and subordination for others.

Competition is not added to money making but follows from the purpose to attract “social power”. Thus not only capitals compete for money accumulation but it applies to anyone who wants to earn money because he has to.

Because of the uncertainty which results from the purpose of earning money, everybody must make hoarding an end, because the use of private access power for consumption destroys this power [money is spent]. Separated from the permanent purpose to use the means for reproduction one needs to gain money for the worst-case scenario. And this worst-case scenario is quantitatively undefined just like the quality of the means: earning money without loosing it in consumption.

The quantity of the quality of the means is undetermined:

The means for the worst-case scenario, the social access power is undetermined in its quality quantitatively undetermined. “Social access power” taken on its own is quantitatively undetermined, because it is a totalitarian thing. For comparison: “Every useful thing, for example, iron, aper, etc. may be looked at from the two points of view of quality and quantity.” (125) Why does Marx say this about use-values? Because use-value is the property of a commodity which is a relation between an object and a human need. Thus the quantity is relevant. From 20 grams of wheat I cannot sustain myself. From 2 tons one can bake bread for a couple of month or burn it to generate some amount of energy. The quantitative side of the use-value is important, but does not have a boundless nature in itself, because it is directly related to a human need or desire, which as Alice pointed out is not infinite. Money is for itself in its quality a claim to power on the results of someone else’s labour (even when I buy a pint for 3 quid, so not only for the capitalist). And as a claim to power there is no boundary in money itself. This determination/quality of money has to be appreciated on its own. Alice does not do that when she counters: I can relate the quantity of money to my needs and I can then say that the money I have is enough. Even if with this determination/quality of money it is not explained why a person who is after satisfaction of needs and desires has the purpose of accumulating money without bounds, one has to characterise this means first on its own/for itself.

The worst-case scenario is undetermined:

The immoderateness is because all people can only satisfy their needs through money, are thus posited against each other and competition is the way this antagonism is executed. This brings about uncertainty and thus one has to prepare for the worst-case scenario. But this scenario is quantitatively undetermined: a future illness (with the knowledge, that money can buy the best medical care), the break down of earnings, change of flat, a car which breaks down prematurely, etc. But of course money as social access power also raises new needs & desires, which make the worst-case scenario even more undetermined. I want to note that Marx brings the right argument for the development of needs and desires which develop relative to the available possibilities. With “social access power” new possibilities emerge: I can fund a college education for my great-grandchildren. This is impossible in agricultural subsistence. I can accept the offer from Russia and fly to the moon. I can eat a Christmas dinner in New York for 10.000 Euro. I can own a flat in every important capital of the world. I can try to help people in the Third World and thus if I am Bono from U2 or Bill Gates I cannot have enough money because there is so much poverty – just to counter the accusation that I want to spread only negative judgements about the point of view of rich people. No, they have sometimes, often, maybe more often than workers, maybe less often than workers – I don’t know and don’t want to measure it – that what commonly is referred to as best intentions.

Both sides, precautionary and the new possibilities for needs and desires Marx mentions, when he talks about the purpose of earning more money than needed for immediate consumption:

When the circulation of commodities first develops, there also develops the necessity and the passionate desire to hold fast to the product of the first metamorphosis. This product is the transformed shape of the commodity, or its gold chrysalis. (227)

Interim Conclusion: With my explications I want to have expressed that competition follows from the simple purpose moneymaking and that the purpose of accumulation follows from the purpose of simple moneymaking necessarily.

Accumulation as impersonal purpose of the capitalist economy:

With the purpose “making more money” (regardless of as hoarder or as capitalist) all economic subjects deny each other, because the simple purpose “make money at all” is included in it – but in quantitatively exponentiated form – and the purpose of attracting social access power contains an antagonism. Competition thus does not follow from the purpose of making more money but from the purpose making money at all. In the exponentiated content “more moneymaking” all economic subjects compete in exponentiated form, such that the content “more money than needed for immediate consumption” becomes a means for itself: money that is available is invested, in order to make more money, and thus it is capital.. Eventually this content and the exponentiated competition escalates itself to accumulation as a way of reinvesting the gain, in order to be able to make a gain permanently (this is Chapter 23 and following). This way the capitalist purpose of this society, accumulation of capital, boundless increase of value is executed “through the subjects” and detaches itself from their personal arbitrariness (impersonal domination). Even if this arbitrariness can be witnessed for some capitalists, for example Reetsman (a well known German capitalist) who exchanged his capital into money in order to fund antisemitism research from the interest. He personally does not accumulate any more, but only the companies which receive his money as loan capital from the bank. Value as means of survival without alternative imposes “holding on to value against consumption” on a social level, thus imposes “using value to get surplus-value” and imposes “using surplus-value for the purpose of permanent surplus-value creation” - this is the content of the first volume of Capital.

We still have to clarify the question why when not everybody permanently follows the purpose to accumulate money the purpose of society still is this accumulation. Before the afore-mentioned early pensioners and ex-capitalists enjoy their retirement, they must have earned money or claims on money. In order for them to exit their company, they are reliant on other capitalists who pay them and continue with production. Their rents have to be produced by future wage labour or successful stock market operations. Also the stability of currency depends on successful capitalist growth. Eve said correctly: „Even if he retires with a certain size of hoard, he does not exit competition but remains dependent on it.“ But in order to relate this verdict to my prior statements one needs to note the following: because the dropouts from the purpose “money accumulation” live on the money they have, their purpose is reliant on the continuous efforts by others for more money. They live on the existing social access power or claims on it and in this way of living the antagonism to others is included. They are not only dependent on successful capital accumulation but are also encouraging others simply by using money as a means of living.

To clarify: impersonal domination does not mean that this society does not include personal purposes. But these are not the reason and not the governing principle of the capital mode of production.