{"title":"Monetary sovereignty and the ‘Invisible Leviathan’: the politics of Marx’s theory of money","authors":"Jack Copley","doi":"10.1332/26352257y2024d000000020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A debate has recently emerged in Heterodox Economics and Political Economy on the nature of monetary sovereignty, and whether it can be democratised and wielded to address the social and environmental catastrophes of our age. While Modern Monetary Theory understands monetary sovereignty to be relatively unconstrained, post-Keynesian, Structuralist and Critical Macro-Finance approaches point to various external limits on states’ abilities to govern money – from the international currency hierarchy to the offshore nature of money creation. This article evaluates this debate in light of Marx’s monetary theory. Under capitalism, money constitutes the social adhesive of a world of privatised production and mass dispossession, which conjures an anonymous, competitive logic that Marx terms the ‘law of value’. To function in this way, money must be underpinned by an historically novel form of state sovereignty. The state must both back money with its coercive powers and insulate monetary governance from popular forces, or else risk losing the confidence of the profit-driven private actors upon which money relies. Yet in exercising its sovereign capacity to govern domestic and international money relations, the state inadvertently reproduces the law of value on a global scale – an ‘Invisible Leviathan’ that subordinates states to its dictates. Contra the Heterodox literature, then, monetary sovereignty is not a vehicle for radical democracy or social/environmental justice, nor is it simply constrained by external limits. Instead, monetary sovereignty is innately a practice of depoliticisation that unwittingly produces a global logic of economic domination that binds states’ hands.","PeriodicalId":302702,"journal":{"name":"Global Political Economy","volume":"29 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Political Economy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/26352257y2024d000000020","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
A debate has recently emerged in Heterodox Economics and Political Economy on the nature of monetary sovereignty, and whether it can be democratised and wielded to address the social and environmental catastrophes of our age. While Modern Monetary Theory understands monetary sovereignty to be relatively unconstrained, post-Keynesian, Structuralist and Critical Macro-Finance approaches point to various external limits on states’ abilities to govern money – from the international currency hierarchy to the offshore nature of money creation. This article evaluates this debate in light of Marx’s monetary theory. Under capitalism, money constitutes the social adhesive of a world of privatised production and mass dispossession, which conjures an anonymous, competitive logic that Marx terms the ‘law of value’. To function in this way, money must be underpinned by an historically novel form of state sovereignty. The state must both back money with its coercive powers and insulate monetary governance from popular forces, or else risk losing the confidence of the profit-driven private actors upon which money relies. Yet in exercising its sovereign capacity to govern domestic and international money relations, the state inadvertently reproduces the law of value on a global scale – an ‘Invisible Leviathan’ that subordinates states to its dictates. Contra the Heterodox literature, then, monetary sovereignty is not a vehicle for radical democracy or social/environmental justice, nor is it simply constrained by external limits. Instead, monetary sovereignty is innately a practice of depoliticisation that unwittingly produces a global logic of economic domination that binds states’ hands.
最近,在《异端经济学与政治经济学》(Heterodox Economics and Political Economy)中出现了一场关于货币主权性质的争论,争论的焦点是货币主权是否可以民主化,是否可以用来解决我们这个时代的社会和环境灾难。现代货币理论认为货币主权相对不受制约,而后凯恩斯主义、结构主义和批判宏观金融学的观点则指出了国家管理货币能力的各种外部限制--从国际货币等级制度到货币创造的离岸性质。本文根据马克思的货币理论对这一争论进行了评估。在资本主义制度下,货币构成了私有化生产和大规模剥夺世界的社会粘合剂,它产生了一种匿名的竞争逻辑,马克思称之为 "价值规律"。要以这种方式运作,货币必须以一种历史上新颖的国家主权形式为基础。国家既要以其强制力支持货币,又要使货币治理不受民众力量的影响,否则就有可能失去货币所依赖的以利润为导向的私人参与者的信任。然而,在行使其主权能力来管理国内和国际货币关系的过程中,国家无意中在全球范围内复制了价值规律--一个使国家听命于它的 "隐形利维坦"。因此,与异端文献相反,货币主权并不是激进民主或社会/环境正义的载体,也不仅仅受到外部限制的制约。相反,货币主权本质上是一种去政治化的实践,它在不知不觉中产生了一种束缚国家手脚的全球经济统治逻辑。