!"# %&'(" )* +,-&(,. ,/0 1,.2# *')3 ("# 4#.&5&)26 +2.

(
by }ean-Pieiie Bauuet


Bello eveiybouy,
Fiist of all, I woulu like to ask foi youi inuulgence, as I am not a native English
speakei. Foi this ieason I woulu iathei ieau fiom my notes than attempt a fiee talk. I
believe that this will make things easiei foi all of us.
I woulu like to begin by waimly thanking Piofessoi A. R., who was kinu enough to
invite me anu offei me the oppoitunity to give a quick oveiview of a book that I have
iecently publisheu in ueiman. It is calleu !"#$%& ()&$ *&+$ (,& *&+-$.. /01%2#21$), anu ueals
with what you might call the piehistoiy of economic inteiactions. Bowevei, as you will
notice, it is not a ieview of piehistoiic conuitions to supplement what you alieauy know
about political economy, noi uoes it leave political economy as it is, untoucheu anu
unchangeu. The objective is to illustiate the biith of economic behavioui anu become
conscious of its ueepei natuie, neithei of which is evei coveieu in woiks on the economy
anu neithei of which, to say it bluntly, is in line with the usual appioach the stuuy of
economics takes to justify its existence as a self-containeu science.
To give you an iuea, let me stait with a iiuule that unfolus thiough the following
questions:
Whose powei is gieatei than the powei of any king oi empeioi, past oi piesent.
Who iules, not just a single countiy, but the entiie woilu. Who effoitlessly oveiiules all
national oi inteinational laws anu tiauitions. Who pievails ovei the 0niteu Nations oi any
othei inteinational association when they uon't act accoiuing to his iules.
Who is not bounu to any specific shape oi substance, fiee fiom mateiial limitations,
without foim oi bounuaiy, yet able to be piesent eveiywheie without being absent
elsewheie; who is invisible anu shapeless so that he can at once be eveiything anu nothing,
influencing fiom within all kinus of beings without evei losing his own iuentity. Who keeps
auopting one mateiial mask aftei anothei in an enuless cainival of tiansubstantiation.
Who is, as I saiu, immanent to the mateiial woilu, but neveitheless tianscenuent anu
alien to mateiial beings, moie impoitant anu moie essential than all physical ieality,
continuously in conflict with physical ieality, suppiessing time anu space anu the so-calleu
laws of natuie.
Who is the supieme juuge, the ultimate uecision-makei aibitiating ovei what oi who
ueseives to live, anu this accoiuing to his own ciiteiia. Who allows new beings anu new

2
things to be boin, oi conveisely foices them to iemain foievei in the colu anu gloomy folu
of nothingness. Who uiives countiies anu populations on the ioau to success, while
sentencing otheis to uie. Who is hiuing the ugly ieality of uestitute people in lost subuibs,
while bioaucasting the gloiy of so-calleu "celebiities" thiough the woiluwiue meuia, even if
they can haiuly wiite theii name, have nothing to say, anu meiely exist as noimalizeu
clones of the same ieauy-maue emptiness.
In shoit: what is the most plausible explanation you shoulu consiuei when you
cannot easily unueistanu something on its own.
Nost likely, you will have no pioblem with these questions, as the answei uoes not
seem ambiguous: that mighty, almighty, extiemely poweiful being, subject to no iule
ueviseu in this woilu, must come fiom anothei woilu, it must be uou.
Who else coulu be poweiful enough to act beyonu the bounus of contiauiction,
beyonu the "%2&12"234 2&+252+3062(&2. anu beyonu all mateiial limits, 7$8(&+ 4066$% 0. 0
-2426.
Some may call this ueity }ehovah, some may call it Allah, otheis aie not alloweu to
call it by any name, but all will agiee this must be uou, since any othei answei woulu be
blasphemous.
But, soiiy to uisappoint you. I'm afiaiu theie might be anothei answei, an even moie
convincing one, because we woulu no longei have to ueal with the issue of belief, but with
matteis of fact: all of the poweis mentioneu aie the poweis of what we usually call
"capital".
0f couise we must fiist agiee that capital is not just an amount of money, some soit
of piouuctive investment, oi the peisonal piopeity of a iich plutociat (such as mansions,
yachts, fleet of helicopteis, iace hoises); not just commouities in stoiage, an automateu
factoiy oi a commeicial empiie with shops all ovei the woilu. No, we fiist have to agiee
that capital moves anu shifts thiough all these vaiious foims, anu shoulu alteinately be
uefineu as !"# %&'() &* +,%-# !",! .!/-)!-/#. #)&0&12 ,. , )&0!(0-&-. 3/&)#.. &* +,%-#4
)/#,!(&05 Any commeicial enteipiise that allows othei people to woik on its behalf only
opeiates as pait of this oveiall piocess; otheiwise, without this oveiall piocess, it woulu uie
like a fish without watei. In oui case, the watei not only allows the fish to live, but the fish,
so to speak, is only a shape taken by the watei, a tempoiaiy wave in a stoimy sea. Thiough
all the foims anu shapes it assumes, value seeks only itself; it seeks its own appieciation as
.3%"-3. 50-3$ 0&+ "%(#26. Capital is not a "ieal" thing with paiticulai chaiacteiistics; it is !"#
#0!(/(!2 &* !"(. 0#+#/4#06(0'7 -0(0!#//-3!#67 .#%*4)#0!/#6 3/&)#.. ,. .-)".
Theiefoie, theie is ceitainly not a single "supeinatuial" oi "uivine" effect that capital
woulu not be able to achieve. Anu, no uoubt, this is the fiist time in histoiy when such
"supeinatuial" anu "uivine" effects aie (0 *,)! being achieveu. In eailiei times, piiests anu
believeis uieameu of almighty poweis anu expecteu them to be effective, but mankinu hau
to wait until mouein times to face what this ieally means, now that the uubious miiacle of

S
value has invaueu the entiie planet anu oui whole life.
This is inueeu what Paul Lafaigue, Kail Naix's son-in-law anu authoi of the well-
known pamphlet 8"# 9('"! 8& :# ;,<2, unueistoou anu piesenteu in his book 8"#
9#%('(&0 =* >,3(!,% ? , .,!(/(),% #@3&.-/# &* ),3(!,%A. )%,(1. !& .,0)!(!2, publisheu in
1887. A book eveiyone shoulu ieau, because it is not only veiy intelligent, claiivoyant anu
piemonitoiy, but also because it comes in the foim of an extiemely witty anu pleasant
pamphlet, that ieaus moie oi less like a stage play, in which capital speaks in a goulike
mannei about its own actions anu intentions.
That is also the staiting point I useu when I conceiveu my own book, which began as
a long B*!#/C&/6 to Lafaigue's pamphlet anu then uevelopeu into a sepaiate volume calleu
=3*#/0 &"0# D06#9 I fancieu that if Lafaigue was able to make such a close anu
compiehensive compaiison between ieligion anu capital, then theie must be an explanation
foi it somewheie, as it coulun't be puiely acciuental. Why was ieligion able to uesciibe
capital, so to speak, so many centuiies in auvance of its coming into existence. Bow uiu it
happen that eaily ieligion anticipateu with such peifection what capital woulu achieve
some uay. Was theie peihaps a seciet unueilying pattein that both exhibiteu. That woulu
be woith looking into.
Now let me appioach my ieseaich fiom anothei angle.
Take at ianuom any founuing fathei of political economy, anu he will unuoubteuly
claim that to impiove baiteiing activity, mankinu inventeu money. You may iemembei, foi
instance, that Auam Smith uiu not uoubt the fact that "$5$%8 40& -25$. 78 $:1)0&;2&;< (%
7$1(4$. 2& .(4$ 4$0.3%$ 0 4$%1)0&6< 0&+ 6)$ .(12$68 26.$-# ;%(=. 6( 7$ =)06 2. "%("$%-8 0
1(44$%120- .(12$68". Such anthiopological piemises inueeu imply that the essential activity
of mankinu consists in baiteiing oi, moie piecisely, in uiviuing laboui (as Smith explicitly
wiote), since baitei anu the uivision of laboui aie stiictly insepaiable. Because of man's
baiteiing natuie, anu a uivision of laboui that supposeuly occuis in a natuial way, the
commeicial neeu foi money pie-exists its cieation. This piimoiuial neeu woulu give biith to
money as a means of exchange. This, at least, is what economists believe.
It may inueeu be helpful to look at money that way, if the intention is to justify the
mannei in which it is useu touay, when capital iules the woilu. 0nuei this scenaiio, the past
looks exactly like the piesent, which is gieat foi those who favoi a lazy appioach to the
stuuy of histoiy: no effoit to make, nothing stiange, just business as usual. This, fiom my
point of view, is a biith uefect of political economy, since economy as a science wants to be
at once tians-histoiical anu consubstantial with mankinu, boasts of having staiteu in the
Neanueithal ages, anu aims to be the iational anu scientific keinel of human society.
Economy woulu thus be the >$0.(& 2& )2.6(%8, to take the title of a book wiitten by Begel,
while eveiy othei fielu of human enueavoui, such as politics, moials, ieligion, passion anu
ait woulu just coiiesponu to iiiational impulses inheiiteu fiom the ape. In shoit, the
economy woulu ieflect oui tiue humanity anu not, as assumeu by neaily all communities in
the past, the most inhuman of all piactices.

4
Even Naix, who obviously nevei intenueu to hypostatize oi peipetuate capitalist
categoiies, auopteu similai views wheie the oiigin of money was conceineu: a meie
iationalization of baitei.
The only pioblem is that all of this is wiong.
Noney was not )/#,!#6 !& /,!(&0,%(<# E,/!#/ oi to facilitate the tiauing of
commouities.
The eiioi consists in taking the contempoiaiy function of money foi its histoiical
iole.
When commouity exchange began, as soon as goous ceaseu to be meiely useful items
foi peisonal consumption (in what scholais typically call a "subsistence economy"), oi
ceaseu to be consiueieu as piestigious gifts suitable foi fiienus oi iivals within oi outsiue a
tiibe (known as a "gift economy"), when they weie finally piouuceu on puipose to be
exchangeu, money hau alieauy existeu foi at least seveial thousanu yeais. Anu uuiing that
veiy lengthy time peiiou, money hau alieauy assumeu most of its oiuinaiy functions, like
being a stoie foi value, a unit of account, a means of payment, oi all thiee at once; but
without acting as a means of exchange, which constitutes an essential uiffeience. It is easy
to unueistanu that money has to be what society neeus anu wants it to be. Theie weie as
many types of money anu of value as theie weie vaiieties of society. Anu societies baseu on
piouuction anu the commeicial exchange of commouities aie not veiy olu. The types of
money useu in eailiei times weie not useu foi exchange, they uiu not "iationalize baitei",
anu money uiu not buy anything. 0f couise, in so fai as money was useu to pay a uebt (such
as a biiue wealth, which is a uowiy uue to the biiue's family, oi such as =$%;2-+, a
compensation foi the life of somebouy who was killeu), one coulu say it "bought"
something: it bought peace, it bought a clean conscience, it bought seienity anu fieeuom. It
puichaseu a newly establisheu oi ie-establisheu ielationship with thiiu paities - but it
nevei puichaseu goous oi commouities: because theie weie no commouities. 8"#/# C#/#
0& )&11&6(!(#. ,%!"&-'" !"#/# C,. 1&0#25
Befoie we get into the inception of commouity tiauing, let's iemembei the thiee
most impoitant stages in the histoiy of mankinu: a) the incipient stoiage of goous, as
people settleu uuiing the "Neolithic ievolution", b) the stait of commouity piouuction in
Ancient societies, anu c), the tiansfoimation of laboui into a commouity, at the enu of the
Euiopean Niuule-Ages, anu the cieation of capitalism as a social stiuctuie iuleu by the
economy.
The fiist iecoius we have of something that looks like a commouity aie iathei
uifficult to evaluate. Theie aie obvious signs that goous like Reu Sea Shells oi Anatolian
obsiuian weie "uistiibuteu" anu weie "ciiculating" as eaily as the Natufian cultuie (fiom
1S,uuu to 9,8uu BCE); but "uistiibuteu" oi "ciiculateu" uoes not mean "solu" oi "bought", oi
even "baiteieu". Theie is a bit moie ceitainty when we ieach what has been calleu the
"temple economy" of Nesopotamia, wheie temples oiganizeu piouuction on a laige scale.
This took place in the 0iuk cultuie (between S,uuu anu S,uuu BCE). Scholais might call it an

S
"economy", yet we know foi suie that all of this activity took place without money being
involveu. In this piivilegeu geogiaphical location, wheie civilization uevelopeu anu spieau
much eailiei than anywheie else, the uistiibution of goous was geneially a mattei of public
inteiest, involving iecipiocity anu ieuistiibution, anu only maiginally the uiiect exchange
of commouities. Bowevei, theie is no ieal agieement among scholais on the pieuominant
featuie foi this ciiculation of goous. Foi vaiious scholaily positions on the issue, see Nax
Webei, B0)(#0! D)&0&12 B06 F&)(#!2; Kail Polanyi & Coniau Aiensbeig, 8/,6# B06
G,/H#! I0 8"# D,/%2 D13(/#.; oi moie iecently }ean-}acques ulassnei, J#-!4&0 3,/%#/ 6#
1&00,(# #0 GK.&3&!,1(# ,- IIIL1# 1(%%K0,(/# ,+,0! 0&!/# L/#M .
Peihaps we shoulu also agiee about what has to be consiueieu when evaluating the
piogiession towaius an "economy": a) when mateiial goous aie piouuceu to be solu anu
bought against one anothei (money becoming a "means of exchange"), b) when uebt anu
cieuit aie ieplaceu by instant cash, c) when the uivision of laboui inteiacts with the neeu
foi exchange, u) when exchange loses any peisonal oi social uimension anu becomes
abstiact, e) when political iuleis, faceu with massive wais, hau to iaise aimies anu neeueu
to iewaiu theii soluieis anu meicenaiies with money. By the way, soluieis weie well
iewaiueu: in Alexanuei's aimy, soluieis weie paiu 4, S, 14 oi even 16 uiachmas a uay,
while a fiee woikei in Athens eaineu only 2 uiachmas a uay.
But, as I mentioneu, it is even moie impoitant to iealize that at an eailiei stage of
social uevelopment, many thousanus of yeais befoie Nesopotamia, when people still liveu
as tiibes of hunteis-gatheieis, nevei having built a temple oi liveu in a laige city; befoie
they maue wai in chaiiots anu weie weaiing aimoui, believe it oi not, they hau alieauy
expeiienceu money. It is theiefoie absolutely necessaiy to unueistanu that asiue fiom any
uiscussion about the existence of an "economy" in Nesopotamia, "piimitive money" hau
been aiounu foi many thousanus of yeais, when the woiu "economy" hau no applicable use.
In shoit: 1&0#2 (. 1-)"7 1-)" &%6#/ !",0 #)&0&125
The evolution of money, howevei, was as complex as evolution in geneial. Whilst
eveiy countiy, eveiy nation, eveiy social gioup has always been "in the piocess of
evolution", this evolution has nevei been anu cannot be iuentical in all places. Not only uoes
"evolution" iefuse to follow the same timetable eveiywheie (native aboiigines in Austialia
aie still living the way they liveu neaily 4u thousanu yeais ago), but histoiy is by no means
a ueuicateu highway with a unique ioau map; theie uefinitely is no single itineiaiy foi all
people to follow. Each inuiviuual cultuie has been ueveloping accoiuing to its own
stiuctuie, neeus anu potentials - except in cases wheie this cultuie was colonizeu anu
oveiwhelmeu by anothei, which happens to be a common occuiience, if not the iule. But in
the piesent state of oui knowleuge we might say that we aie awaie of gioups in the past
that uevelopeu moie oi less "economic" activity =26)(36 4(&$8 (ancient Nesopotamia,
ancient Egypt), anu that we also know of gioups who hau no "economic" activity at all, 736
=$%$ +$0-2&; =26) 4(&$8 (most "piimitive" societies). This uiffeience can obviously not be
explaineu by an oveiall oi uniuiiectional evolutionism, because "money" has a "bioken",
non-lineai histoiy, if we look at its woiluwiue piactice. 0nly in a few places uoes it seem
possible to see a missing link, like in Ancient uieece, oi in Ancient China, anu only theie we
can asceitain that the "invention" of "commeicial" money was baseu on eailiei, "piimitive"

6
foims of money, taken ovei anu useu foi this new puipose. In the seventh centuiy befoie
Chiist, foi example, the uieeks still hau theii "sacieu" gift-money in minu when they took
ovei the piactice of coining money fiom the kinguom of Lyuia (Westein Anatolia). This is
one among veiy few cleai examples of continuity. In many places, too many links aie
missing anu such assumptions cannot be substantiateu, noi can the opposite be pioven.
Theiefoie, the piinciple of continuity iemains quite uubious, since many communities
became involveu in tiaue anu the economy aftei they weie conqueieu oi contaminateu by
othei gioups, anu weie not iesponsible foi theii ultimate evolution.
So, the two piemises on which my book is baseu aie the incompaiable anu goulike
featuies of capital, on one hanu, anu, the non-economic oiigin of money on the othei. These
weie the two staiting points which, when combineu, &E+(&-.%2 6& /#N-(/# the elaboiation
of a theoiy in oiuei to ienew oui appioach to the subjects of value anu money.
0nfoitunately, B0 D06%#.. F,)/(*()# won't be a satisfactoiy answei to this ambitious
enueavoui. Its puipose is moie mouest, since it is a compenuium of bits anu pieces, even
though it shows that the issues iaiseu iemain unavoiuable. At the veiy least, it bieaks uown
the walls between vaiious uisciplines (histoiy, anthiopology, economy, philosophy). In
ianging ovei vaiious places anu peiious, it attempts to iecall that, foi a veiy long peiiou of
time, the fiist uses of money aiose in a paiticulai social enviionment that we woulu now
call "ieligious". 0ne of the most quoteu scholais in my book is the ueiman economist,
aichaeologist anu philologist Beinhaiu Laum (1884 - 1974) who has uevelopeu this
paiticulai thesis in his famous book O#(%('#. P#%6 (/01%$+ ?(&$8), publisheu in 1927, anu
nevei tianslateu into English (I am cuiiently tiying to oiganize a Fiench, anu hopefully
subsequent English tianslation of his book). With Laum's inquiiy, we finu ouiselves fai
iemoveu fiom contempoiaiy antinomies, wheie the economy is supposeu to ueal only with
mateiial things, anu ieligion with otheiwoiluly concepts anu aspiiations. Laum's main
point is to convey an unueistanuing of the fact that ieligion was in itself a piactical, mateiial
,06 symbolic system foi the ciiculation of goous (saciifice being a kinu of stiuctuial
apotheosis foi the piocess of gift-ciiculation). Anu not only money, but many foims of
"economic" behavioui oiiginateu in the woilu of ieligious cult, outsiue of the context of
piofane baitei. Piimitive societies weie much moie centieu on puie expenuituie than upon
the hoaiuing of goous oi the accumulation of value, as in mouein societies. But the piactical
aspects of saciifice, in paiticulai, have manageu to piepaie "economic" thought anu
behavioui.
Roughly, my book can be uiviueu into thiee paits:
Seveial chapteis ueal with ethnological anu histoiical iepoits pioviueu by vaiious
anthiopologists, coveiing saciifice anu money in non-economic societies;
Two chapteis ueal with contempoiaiy thought iegaiuing the ielationship between
ieligion anu capital, with ueiman philosopheis Waltei Benjamin anu }oig 0liich;
Auuitional chapteis ueal with the ielationship between symbolic logic, the piocess of
socialization thiough value, anu social iepiouuction.

7
Let me now highlight a numbei of themes that will give you an iuea of the
peispective my book tiies to geneiate. These themes aie: saciifice, uebt, piimitive money,
anu the mouein economy as a legacy ueiiveu fiom the piactice of saciifice.

78)2( 6,9'&*&9#:
The "inuustiy" of saciifice, which was pieuominant in vaiious geogiaphical aieas
(foi example uieece, China, Inuia, Cential Ameiica), has intiouuceu vaiious foims of
"economic" behavioui.
Saciifice was baseu on , H(06 of contiactual agieement between men anu gous. In
saciificing something, people communicateu with the gous, anu thiough theii offeiing
cieateu a foim of uivine uebt. 0i possibly, in ieveise, they also tiieu to use saciifice to get
iiu of theii own uebt. They leaineu to count on the favoui of gous, fiom which they
assumeu they piofiteu, anu paiu foi the expecteu favoui by saciificing something in ietuin.
Saciifice was the main activity foi the piocess of meuiation: meuiation between men anu
gous, but also meuiation between man anu his uesiies oi aspiiations. Saciifice meant anu
implieu that men submitteu to the will of the gous, but expecteu the gous to iecipiocate by
pioviuing what men wisheu to obtain - a kinu of negotiation anu baigain with gous: the
fiist ieal instance of commeice. While it implieu submission to the gous, saciifice also
became an exeicise in leaining how to manipulate them, specifically to become fiee of theii
will. Neuiation is a technique that can be useu to gain supiemacy, but only so long as we
uepenu on it: exactly what occuis much latei with laboui, money anu commeice (wheie we
iemain uepenuent on economic value). Theie weie, of couise, uiiect inteiactions between
inuiviuuals, as well as gioups, both involving veiy elaboiate iecipiocity piactices, but quite
often the social oiganization of people who liveu neaily nakeu in the iain foiest was much
moie complex than what we finu in oui piesent uay civil coue. Social anu ieligious
inteiactions weie of the same natuie, since the contiact with the ueity encompasseu all
othei inteiactions. No community expiesseu this cleaiei than the }ewish community with
its notion of 7@%26) (contiact between uou anu "his" people). A histoiical appioach to the
stuuy of this notion woulu piobably uncovei a semantic evolution fiom 6#E! ,06
)&13-%.&/2 6-!2 towaiu )&0!/,)! ,06 1-!-,% ,'/##1#0!, anu woulu most likely
illustiate how ieligious thought became ("$&-8 a kinu of exchange. It is well known that the
Toiah, Bible anu Quian aie constiucteu piimaiily on the notion of contiactual iecipiocity:
"if you uo this, you will be iewaiueu with that", oi the othei way iounu: "if you uon't uo this,
you will be punisheu by being uepiiveu of that". Noiality appeais patently as a foim of
baitei. To some extent, this was challengeu foi the fiist (anu peihaps last) time by }esus,
who uenounceu the passive obseivance of iites anu calleu foi the supiemacy of tiue
peisonal inspiiation (in his youth, Begel wiote some excellent pages iegaiuing this,
paiticulaily in A(.2625268 (# B)%2.620& >$-2;2(&, anu in !36-2&$. (& >$-2;2(& 0&+ C(5$D.
Accoiuing to its etymology, the woiu saciifice iefeis to the metamoiphosis of
something piofane into something sacieu (.01$% #01$%$: to make sacieu), it was theiefoie a
vehicle foi tuining a mateiial thing into something immateiial, thus a usable item into a

8
puiely symbolic value. The symbolic value became eteinal, supposeuly, by being fieeu fiom
its eaithly substance. That is exactly what happens in the case of a commeicial tiansaction:
while we sell a mateiial commouity, we saciifice it to fiee its "value", which then goes back
to the eteinal heaven of money, wheie it ciiculates aiounu the globe, fieeu fiom any ties to
a specific mateiial substance.
Saciifice geneiateu the 0&;&6&)/ )* .,8)2' ,/0 6-#9&,.&<#0 -')*#66&)/6= The oluest
piofession of all was the piiesthoou, but piiests oiganizeu theii activity by incluuing a lot of
specializeu contiibutois fiom among the community: caipenteis, butcheis, anu a multituue
of ciaftsmen. Piesumably, ieligious casts pie-existeu piofessions anu eventually
tiansfoimeu into these. Saciifice aiose in societies with veiy scant mateiial neeus, anu
theiefoie little neeu foi laboui; but saciifice, as an activity, absoibeu moie anu moie laboui,
accumulating it in exactly the same way capital woulu iequiie laboui in oiuei to peipetuate
itself
The uivision of laboui implies, of couise, the /##0 *)' '#32/#',(&)/. uous, piiests
anu men shaieu the iemainuei of the saciifice accoiuing to a piecise system of uistiibution,
wheie piiests weie sometimes highly iewaiueu foi theii paiticipation in the saciifice as
well as foi theii knowleuge of esoteiic iites that maue the saciifice successful;
Saciifice iequiieu anu thus geneiateu a -'#9&6# ,/0 ,992',(# 9,.92.,(&)/ )*
>2,/(&(&#6 ,/0 -')-)'(&)/6? which took into account the gous' imaginaiy wishes, the
magnituue of the expecteu iewaiu, anu shaiing between gous, piiests anu moitals.
Eveiything hau to be calculateu in uetail anu with gieat piecision - it is thus no wonuei that
the oiigin of wiiting was accounting (in Nesopotamia, Egypt), while accounting itself
oiiginateu in ieligious ceiemonies;
Saciifice also cieateu a .)5&9 )* 6@38).&9 6286(&(2(&)/: human saciifice was
eventually ieplaceu by the saciifice of an animal, which was in tuin ieplaceu by the saciifice
of a ueau symbol - the evolution towaius money is cleai, as the symbol now "pays" foi the
maintenance of one's life oi piopeity. Symbolism, in geneial, is of ieligious oiigin anu
natuie. It succeeueu in taking the iuea of a magic powei inteinalizeu within a specific
numinous image (like the statue of a uou in piimitive fetishism) anu tiansfoiming it into a
ieal system foi the ciiculation of value
Let me finally mention that in the ancient Inuian Bihmanas the gou Piajpati, who
saciificeu himself, hau a bouy 1,6# &* '&%6, signifying that because of golu his iuentity was
an open, unueteimineu one, able to conveit into all of the specific iuentities in the woilu: a
cleai sign that univeisal value, golu anu saciifice weie intimately tieu to one anothei.
Foi a goou unueistanuing of these ouu aspects of saciifice (cieation of specializeu
piofessions, iewaiuing these piofessions with the use of piecise accounting methous,
invention of a symbolic logic of substitution, piomotion of contiactual exchanges), we must
take into consiueiation the kinu of social inteicouise within which this all occuiieu. In a
woilu wheie piagmatic subsistence piouuction anu tiauitional gifts pieuominateu, theie
was no othei tiace of economic exchange. Saciifice was !"# uefining expeiience in which

9
the fiist piactical ioots anu iueological piecuisois of economic piactice appeaieu.

A/ 0#8(:
As a netwoik of social ielationships, all "piimitive societies" implementeu uebt
systems among membeis of theii community, two of which weie the most famous: the
=$%;2-+ anu the biiue wealth. It seems quite obvious that uebt anu saciifice weie two
channels foi payment anu theiefoie at the oiigin of money. Bebt is extiemely inteiesting
but also quite complex, anu subject to vaiious anu contiauictoiy assessments by scholais.
Let us mention the most iecent anu iathei populai woik fiom Baviu uiaebei: Q#E! ? !"#
%,.! R5SSS 2#,/.. In spite of my appieciation foi Ni. uiaebei, I uo not shaie his position
when foi some obscuie ieasons he uoes not accept the ieligious oiigin of uebt. Let me just
biing up the ciicumstances of Sociates' ueath. What weie Sociates last woius. Be tolu his
fiienu Ciito that he "oweu a cockeiel to Asclepius". What uiu he mean by that. At that time,
when you weie seiiously sick, you tiavelleu to Epiuauius wheie the sanctuaiy of the gou
Asclepius was locateu. The piiests of Asclepius weie expecteu to cuie you with the
assistance of the gou, anu as a iewaiu you hau to offei him a cockeiel. Thus, Sociates was
suggesting that by uying he woulu be cuieu - cuieu fiom living an impeifect life, wheie his
soul was impiisoneu in his bouy (that's the way Plato unueistoou it, at least). It was
ueemeu consistent to saciifice a cockeiel, since the cockeiel is the animal that announces a
new uay, a new life. We might also choose to unueistanu Sociates' woius in teims of iiony:
was he not leaving his beloveu city of Athens because it was tuining into a mauhouse,
accusing him of coiiupting its youth. Anu this folly, peihaps, might be the ieal illness the
wise Sociates was cuieu of thiough his ueath. Sociates, howevei, was in uebt anu coulu not
uie without the paying off his uebt. In ancient times, paying was always paying a uebt.
Paying was inventeu to seivice uebt. These uebts weie not only like mouein uebts, wheie
money has been boiioweu; they weie symbolic, piimaiily social, human uebts. The cential
uebt was an existential uebt. Society as a whole was baseu on the iuea that fiom biith, man
was inuebteu to the gous, heioes, ancestois, oi founueis of his community. As the uieek
philosophei Anaximenes saiu: "Into that fiom which things aiise, so also is theii
uestiuction, as is iequiieu; foi they pay penalties anu make iepaiation to each othei foi
theii injustice, in uue time." What injustice. The simple fact of existing. Baving to pay
iepaiations meant that to be alive was moie oi less to be in uebt. We shoulu nevei foiget
that the notion of payment hau this backgiounu.
In the mouein eia, of couise, paying uoes not take the same foim as payment in
ancient times. Nowauays if we "08, it geneially means that we 738. Which is quite uiffeient.
Let's spenu some time on this impoitant tiansition, which sepaiates pie-economic fiom
economic societies. In "piimitive" societies, not stiuctuieu as a state, theie weie ioughly
thiee foims of payment. 8"# *(/.! &0# was what anthiopologists labelleu as a "gift" (see foi
example Naicel Nauss). A gift was maue to "%(+31$ a binuing ielationship within a social
fiamewoik anu this ielationship can be consiueieu as a foim of uebt. By offeiing a gift to
someone, I 1%$06$ 0 +$76 since the peison I gave it to will have to ietuin my gift in the foim
of something at least equivalent to the oiiginal. The time it may take to ietuin that gift (that

1u
is the time to make a countei-gift) coulu be veiy long, it coulu take yeais, oi even pass fiom
one geneiation to the next (someone may owe to someone else a biiue who hasn't even
been boin). The social fiamewoik often ielies on such ties. 8"# .#)&06 H(06 &* 3,21#0!
(the countei-gift) appeais as ieimbuisement foi a gift, at any latei time following the
oiiginal gift. The whole system has been uesciibeu as a gift-system, because the iecipiocal
payment seems less impoitant than the oiiginal gift. The iecipiocal payment was
not compulsoiy anu biought the givei anu the ieceivei into a lasting, sometimes peiennial
ielationship. 8"# !"(/6 H(06 &* 3,21#0! was a soit of penalty intenueu to ieueem a uebt
that uiu not oiiginate fiom a voluntaiy gift. The =$%;2-+ is the best example. All thiee types
of payment aie fai iemoveu fiom the act of buying something, anu that is an essential
uiffeience with a society baseu on economic piinciples, which ielies on a system of selling
anu buying. What shoulu go by the name of an "economy" is an exchange of goous wheie
the system of payment tuins into a way of buying something. Saciifice, howevei, hau an
ambiguous status. As I mentioneu befoie, theie was an existential "0.6 uebt to be
ieueemeu anu maintaineu at the same time, yet the saciifice also aimeu 06 6)$ #363%$ by
asking the gous foi a paiticulai favoui. But aiming at the futuie is somehow close to buying,
anu looking foiwaiu to an economy.
What Aiistotle calleu olxovolu, an "economy", was still simple housekeeping. It hau
nothing to uo with what was then calleu "chiematistics" (the ait of getting iich, the
accumulation of money, theiefoie the uestiuction of all social bonus), which was
consiueieu uestiuctive to the oiuei of the city. In itself, buying has two peculiaiities: a) it
ueals with a mateiial goou, anu b) the tiansaction uoes not cieate a uebt, but "fiees" both
paities fiom uebt since the iecipiocity is instantaneous. That's why oui contempoiaiies feel
fiee. But theii inuebteuness has been tiansfeiieu to othei aieas, aheau of the tiansaction, I
will come back to this a bit latei. To chaiacteiize mouein fetishism, Naix wiote a famous
statement saying that "theie is a uefinite social ielation between men that assumes, in theii
eyes, the fantastic foim of a ielation between things" (Q,. T,3(!,%, volume I, Pait 1, Section
4, E)$ F$62.)2.4 (# B(44(+262$. 0&+ 6)$ /$1%$6 E)$%$(#). You coulu also apply this foimula to
piimitive societies wheie people inteiacteu with mateiial gifts anu payments: but gifts anu
payments weie symbolic most of the time, anu even when they weie not (when someone
paiu foi his biiue by ueliveiing a canoe to his fathei in law), it was 0#+#/ , !"(0' (0
#@)",0'# *&/ , !"(0', but a thing in exchange foi a iight, a piivilege, a seivice, oi a
ielationship. In that they uiu not ueal with commouities, piimitive societies shoulu be
consiueieu moie "seivice oiientateu" than ouis.
We shoulu tiy to unueistanu how '(*! +,%-# uiffeieu fiom #)&0&1() +,%-#. value, as
known in mouein times, is the value of a commouity (that is, of the laboui necessaiy to
piouuce it, noimalizeu to a woilu-wiue aveiage), no mattei who sells oi buys. Within a
piimitive oi ancient uebt system, it was quite uiffeient: the value of a gift was peisonal, anu
in piopoition to the subjective value assigneu to it by both the givei anu the ieceivei
(something that still holus nowauays in the case of piivate gifts); this value acciueu to the
honoui anu uignity of both paitneis paiticipating in the exchange, sometimes even to the
whole community. In auuition, the gift was consiueieu pait of the givei, an extension of his
peisonality. While gift anu uebt hau theii stanuaiu in the value peiceiveu by the
beneficiaiy, ieligious cult anu saciifice tiaineu man to finu value in the object itself anu in

11
the implieu iewaiu. In mouein teims, saciifice facilitateu the migiation fiom subjective to
objective value, essential to economic activity. Saciifice was still a type of gift, but leauing
piogiessively away fiom the iealm of gift.
While gift anu countei-gift weie conceiveu with the iuea of cieating anu settling a
uebt, they alieauy implieu the notion of an inciement. uiving something to someone was
equivalent to cieating an implieu uebt anu gaining a measuie of powei ovei him. The best
way to settle this was to offei a countei-gift whose value was estimateu to be highei than
that of the oiiginal gift. This, in tuin, cieateu a new uebt, anu so on anu so foith. The scheme
was: "I shall iewaiu you with a bettei gift than I ieceiveu fiom you, anu thus piove that I am
moie geneious than you." The iuea of an inciement is much oluei than that of piice
uiffeience oi suiplus value. It was not an inciement measuieu as a gain, but iathei as an
incieaseu expenuituie.
With the cieation of the State, tiauitional kinus of uebt (biiue wealth, weigilu,
saciifice) evolveu piogiessively into foims of tax payment. In most places people paiu taxes
(contiibutions to the State) way eailiei than they paiu foi goous. In many instances, paying
taxes anu iewaiuing soluieis was much moie influential on the cieation of coineu money
than paying foi goous oi iationalizing baitei. Conveisely, we coulu peihaps say that the
State was conceiveu with anu thiough this tiansfoimation of centializeu gift into taxes.

A/ -'&3&(&;# 3)/#@:
Piimitive money coiiesponueu to a value in itself: it uiu not iepiesent the value (# 0
1(44(+268, anu it was not an alteinate image (# 0 1(44(+268< a commouity itself, the "king"
of commouities, as nowauays. It was a magic spell, iepiesenting a foim of supeinatuial
stiength, in othei woius the iuentity of the community, its veiy life. Philippe Rospab has
uevelopeu this insight into a maivellous book calleu C0 +$66$ +$ 52$, 03: (%2;2&$. +$ -0
4(&&02$, publisheu in 2u1u. Noney can nevei be sepaiateu fiom value. But theie weie
vaiious kinus of money (i. e. vaiious social functions of money) anu also vaiious kinus of
value. This is piobably one of the most uifficult issues of all: how can we aigue that theie
coulu have been a common giounu between symbolic value (iepiesenting the community,
peisonal powei, the essence of life oi compaiable abstiactions) anu economic value (which
is nothing moie than a calculation of the aveiage cost of 07.6%016, that is puiely quantitative
laboui, laboui without quality). We shoulu, no uoubt, iely on a stiuctuial appioach,
thinking of value as a hinge, a line of aiticulation between mateiial anu symbolic flows.
value woulu then be the piojection into which social oiganization mateiializes its existence,
thiough which it "coagulates". A piojection that uoes not exist oi stay within the human
minu only, but which becomes an active foice anu peimeates all social inteiactions.
In Ancient uieece, foi a long time, the ox was a foim of paleo-money (as we say in
Fiench). It was useu as a measuie of value foi many goous, because it was an often
saciificeu animal, paiticulaily in eaily times. This was not money as a means of exchange
but money as a unit of account. You may alieauy know that in many ancient oi piimitive

12
societies theie was a type of money that acteu solely as a unit of account (especially in
Egypt, Cential Ameiica, uieece anu Rome). In Fiance, between the 1S
th
Centuiy anu 1794,
many monetaiy pioblems giew fiom the "two money system" (the unit of account, the "-25%$
6(3%&(2.", anu the ieal cuiiency, the G13, +3106, #-(%2&, +(37-(&). In mouein times theie aie
still cuiiencies useu exclusively foi "accounting" puiposes, that always neeu to be
conveiteu to ieal cuiiencies, such as, foi example, Special Biawing Rights, which aie useu
to calculate the liability of ship owneis. But let's ietuin to the oxen. The fact that saciifice
cieateu money is biought out by the etymology of the woiu "capital". It has its oiigin in the
Latin woiu H10"36", heau of cattle, while the oiigin of the woiu "pecuniaiy" lies in "$13&20,
which meant money, fiom "$13, cattle, livestock. 0ne may believe that the ox was selecteu
to iepiesent money (as a unit of account) because it amounteu to ieal wealth (as pait of a
heiu), but Laum establisheu veiy cleaily that the ox was selecteu as a unit of account
because it was an animal useu foi saciifices (see O#(%('#. P#%6, fiist chaptei). Each ox was
selecteu foi its auequacy (in size, coloui, peuigiee), since quality is the initial link in the
chain that leaus to quantity. Latei on, monetaiy value was piecisely quantifieu, but a
guaianteeu qualitative substitute foi value (foi instance, stanuaiuizeu coins) iemaineu the
best pleuge, oi token, to confiim quantitative aspects of value. Laum, again, has wiitten veiy
inteiesting pages which uesciibe how poitions of sacieu meat weie seiveu aftei the
saciifice using little skeweis I(7$-(2), anu on how the skewei I(7$-(.) gave its name to the
famous coin calleu (7(-(.. uieek etymology cleaily testifies to the oiigins of money, but
ueiman uoes too: money is J$-+, but in ,-6)(1)+$36.1) the ioot of J$-+ is ;2-+, which means:
"Retaliation, Compensation, Saciifice". See also how the woiu 1(4"$&.062(& is still useu
(meaning "salaiy, iemuneiation, iecompense, extinction of uebts") in contempoiaiy
English.

A/ 3)0#'/ #9)/)3@ ,6 .#5,9@ )* ("# -',9(&9# )* 6,9'&*&9#:
Befoie the mouein economy aiiiveu, the tiansfoimation of use value into symbolic
value thiough saciifice took place only in specific locations (such as temples) anu at specific
times (uuiing seasonal feasts). The contempoiaiy tiansfoimation of use value into
exchange value takes place eveiywheie anu all the time: piouucing anu consuming being in
this iespect equivalent to micioscopic opeiations of saciifice. Saciifice became extiemely
uisciete, though omnipiesent.
We shoulu also become awaie of the fact that as soon as a ielation of equivalence is
establisheu between two things, the iuea of powei appeais, anu that is because the natuie,
laws anu application of equivalence aie ueteimineu by a specific class of people. An efficient
contiol of symbolic piactice leaus soonei oi latei to the foimation of a gioup which owns
that symbolism, anu when symbolism is fuithei linkeu to the exchange of goous, it
tiansfoims the gioup into owneis of mateiial wealth. The masteiy ovei spiiits tuins
soonei oi latei into masteiy ovei social stiuctuies anu living people.
Beveloping anu extenuing what Nax Webei hau wiitten 1S yeais befoie, in his
famous book E)$ A%(6$.60&6 *6)21 0&+ 6)$ /"2%26 (# B0"260-2.4, the ueiman philosophei

1S
Waltei Benjamin wiote, in 1921, a shoit manusciipt titleu K0"260-2.43. 0-. >$-2;2(&
(Capitalism as ieligion), in which he aigueu that capitalism opeiates like a ieligion, anu that
it oiiginateu as a paiasite feeuing off Chiistianity, cateiing to the neeus anu hopes oiiginally
satisfieu by ieligion. Benjamin believeu that capitalism was a ieligion ieuuceu to the level of
a cult, beieft of any theology, anu that the cult of capitalism is continuous in natuie, so that
insteau of iesolving uebt anu guilt (both being the same woiu in ueiman: /1)3-+), it
constantly incieases both in an enuless piocess of self-peipetuation. }ust think of }esus, who
uieu to ieueem all human guilt while because of his ueath, Chiistian believeis assumeu
moie guilt than evei befoie, to such an extent that they now have to pay foi it inuefinitely.
Benjamin woulu maintain that "capitalism is piobably the fiist case of a cult which uoes not
fiee fiom penance, but incieases the guilt". What he wiote on this issue shoulu be
unueistoou as applying to the value piocess in itself. If you uon't use capital, you kill it. You
have to use it to inciease its value, you aie sentenceu to "iewaiu capital". This piocess, anu
the logic that suppoits it, cannot be stoppeu, oi even sloweu uown. In oiuei to keep capital
alive the woilu of substance has to be saciificeu. The ownei of the capital has to buin the
fuinituie to keep the fiie blazing, anu his employees aie subject to the same constiaints: as
soon as they eat, uiink, oi buy a flat, they get into uebt, they will neeu money, which they
can only acquiie by selling theii laboui, anu theiefoie theii life. Theie is no way out.
Nouein economy is a legacy of saciifice activity, anu the appaient emancipation fiom social
inuebteuness (typical in piimitive societies) leu in ieality to much tightei foims of uebt. If
capital is equateu with ueau laboui, as Naix woulu have it, then we finu ouiselves in uebt to
ueau laboui exactly as piimitive societies weie in uebt to ueau people, that is to theii
ancestois. Bebt shoulu also be lookeu at as iuling any fuithei evolution: evolution is only
authoiizeu if it incieases piofit oi is likely to uo so. Piogiess, oi what we call piogiess,
uepenus on the expectation of piofit, we always owe a uebt to piofit. Theie is no activity, in
shoit, that is not inuebteu to piofit, that may fail to "iewaiu capital". The futuie iemains a
piisonei of the piesent, but the piesent is likewise a piisonei of the futuie: thus we go
aiounu in ciicles. Contempoiaiy society is much moie uiiven by inuebteuness than any
past society. Piofit appeais as the main pieconuition oi pieiequisite foi existence. Each
commouity is boin at the time it is piouuceu, but it has to be 7(%& 0;02& when it is solu; but
eteinal happiness is in sight only if the sale was piofitable. It is meaningless to spenu time
woiking anu piouucing something that uoesn't sell. Anu it isn't ieally woith selling, if it
uoesn't sell at a piofit. But it coulu well sell at a piofit, anu still be vieweu as a pioblem,
paiticulaily if the piofit maigin it geneiates is less than that geneiateu by a competitoi's
piouuct, foi he may then attiact pooily iewaiueu shaieholueis. So, the legitimization of
existence happens not only ex post, in the afteimath, but ,*!#/ , 1-%!(3%# #@ 3&.!
)&0*(/1,!(&0. The mouein 4(L%02 oi &(%&. aie much moie pitiless than the ancient
gouuesses of fate. 0ntil the enu, we cannot be suie if the iight to exist has been gianteu, if
we will evei become pait of society. Socialization (becoming pait of society) is gianteu by a
hiuuen gou, whose meicy oi "giace" we enjoy only if piofit has been secuieu - until the
same game staits again. That way life tuins into an enuless initiation iite. I have no uoubt
that "boin-again" ieligions aie successful because of the eveilasting swoiu of Bamocles
hanging ovei eveiybouy's heau. As Ciceio wiote in his E3.13-0& M2."36062(&.: HM($. &(6
M2(&8.23. .$$4 6( )05$ 40+$ 26 .3##212$&6-8 1-$0% 6)06 6)$%$ 10& 7$ &(6)2&; )0""8 #(% 6)$
"$%.(& (5$% =)(4 .(4$ #$0% 0-=08. -((4.N".

14
A iecent anu quite outstanuing ieseaichei, }oig 0liich, unueistoou that we uon't live
in a mateiialistic woilu, fai iemoveu fiom ieligion (as many scholais believe), but on the
contiaiy, that thiough an oveiall system ueuicateu to economic fetishism, we iemain in a
woilu ueeply iooteu in ieligion, wheie ieligious thought shapes eveiything. Nietzsche hau
alieauy pioclaimeu this by the yeai 188u, but only conceining ethics. This becomes obvious
since whatevei is saciificeu, especially time, it is nevei saciificeu foi something ieal (foi the
one's benefit oi someone else's benefit), but only foi the benefit of a soit of ghost: the
piocess of value cieation. People aie natuially iewaiueu foi theii paiticipation (we call that
"wages"), but they only benefit insofai as theii small iewaiu, which they neeu foi suivival,
allows otheis to enjoy a much biggei one. The biggei piofit is an objective that iules; wages
aie just a necessaiy evil, an obseivation that becomes painfully obvious in the light of
common attempts to ieuuce wages to a minimum. Both, piofit anu wages, aie only the
peisonal iewaiu foi those using theii life to peipetuate the existing system anu its ghostly
logic.
So: mateiial fullness iuleu by abstiact emptiness. Well, nothing ieally new as fai
as philosopheis aie conceineu. In the 6
th
Centuiy BC, Pie-Sociatic philosopheis (the so-
calleu uotoioyot) initiateu theii speculations at a time when coineu money was inventeu.
This may not have been inciuental, as hinteu at by scholais such as ueoige Thomson
(/63+2$. 2& ,&12$&6 J%$$O /(12$68, P(-34$ QQ< E)$ F2%.6 A)2-(.(")$%., publisheu in 19SS) oi
Richaiu Seafoiu (?(&$8 0&+ 6)$ *0%-8 J%$$O ?2&+, publisheu in 2uu4). Explanations
conceining the natuie of physical mattei, piouuceu by philosopheis fiom that time, iefei to
a moie oi less immateiial substance which can be inteipieteu by mouein science as
anticipating micioscopic oi atomic mattei. Bemociitus, foi instance, envisioneu atoms,
Anaximenes thought that aii woulu be the "final substance", while Anaximanuei consiueieu
the ultimate substance to be utov, the R30&6260625$-8 -2426-$.. oi R30-260625$-8
2&+$6$%42&06$. As theie was no scientific basis foi these assumptions (incluuing atomism),
we coulu peihaps explain the seaich foi a shapeless ultimate substance by the upcoming of
abstiact monetaiy value, which at the time of its biith woulu have appeaieu as stiiking to
people accustomeu only to physical beings anu theii peisonal ielationships. uoing beyonu
the speculations of these philosopheis, Plato imagineu in his C0=. a soul capable of moving
the celestial bouies. Inspiieu by Plato's concept, Aiistotle, in Book 12 of his ?$60")8.21.
(which was veiy influential in Islam anu in the Euiopean Niuule-Ages), postulateu the
existence of an unmoveu movei, a motionless anu eteinal "gou". In China, accoiuing to
Taoist tiauition, emptiness was consiueieu as the absolute potential of beings, anu money
theie, as we know, was almost as olu as Chinese civilization itself. Iueas piouuceu by the
emeigence of monetaiy concepts aie ceitainly not suipiising. Nuch latei, Piotestantism
uevelopeu the iuea that uou was immensely uistant anu out of ieach, anu that we shoulu
theiefoie only bothei with eaithly laws anu iules: mouein society was expecteu to woiship
a moie accessible anu immanent ueity. The exteinal, invisible gou, supeiioi to its cieation,
was liquiuateu by Piotestantism, anu what iemaineu was solely the hiuuen economic gou.
Contempoiaiy society liquiuateu the sepaiation between ieality anu ieligion that hau been
in effect foi seveial centuiies (iecall the opposition between Popes anu kings), anu has now
ietuineu to moie ancient piinciples, wheie ieligion is an integial pait of social activity,
which is shapeu anu ueteimineu accoiuing to ieligious logic. What is ieally new is that the
integiation is totally hiuuen anu silent. No high piiest is pioclaiming the new ieligion,

1S
though piiests fiom the past woulu have been piouu of it. The Enlightenment was wiong
when it sought to oppose uown to eaith economic ieason to ieligious iiiationalism, it
piomoteu nothing else but economy as the hiuuen coie of ieligion: the saciifice of one's life
anu the uispossession of inuiviuual uecision making, baseu on the notion that the puisuit of
piofit anu the piocess of value cieation aie the only foices that shoulu be
influencing uecision making.

As a tentative answei to oui initial question ("is theie a seciet unueilying pattein
that ieligion anu capital have in common."), B0 D06%#.. F,)/(*()# aims to convince its
ieaueis of the funuamental iiiationality of oui supposeuly iational behavioui; to awaken a
feeling foi the insepaiable bonu between economic iationality anu ieligious belief, anu foi
the fact that we aie piisoneis of a way of thinking anu acting that confuses anu obscuies
oui appioach to ieality. The entiie fabiic of economic thought ueseives to be lookeu at with
utmost suspicion. Conspiiacy theoiies have invaueu oui mental lanuscape, contiiving the
most unbelievable scenaiios, but the only conspiiacy of which we aie absolutely suie - the
conspiiacy of value - is typically ignoieu. Exchange value is useu to manipulate use value to
such an extent that nothing can be appioacheu foi what it is, because it is invaiiably lookeu
at in teims of its potential economic value. 0veicoming capitalism in its latest foim is not at
all a question of mouifying the uistiibution of wealth between the iich anu the pooi,
between the captains of inuustiy anu wage-labouieis: they all aie so fully engageu in
piouucing anu consuming that they have now lost the use of theii lives. The issue is not to
ietiieve an equilibiium that was supposeuly lost, it is that the system ),00&! finu a stable
equilibiium. "Ciisis" is not an acciuent but the noimal state of things, not an event that
takes place at the enu of a stoiy, but something ueeply iooteu in each anu eveiy moment of
eveiyuay life. Piouucing anu consuming aie like a useless piayei to a meiciless gou, they
iesult in a huge accumulation of micioscopic saciifices, all obsesseu with an economic
"heieaftei". I woulu iathei pleau foi a new enlightenment, but this time without a shauow
zone, without the shoit-sighteu auoption of iules fiom the olu woilu. A shauow is piecisely
what we can no longei affoiu. The olu enlightenment opeiateu on behalf of economic anu
technological iationality, anu thus no light was sheu on the subject of the action itself, which
iemaineu piotecteu by obscuiity. This subject of action was nothing moie than ciuue
inteiest stalking its object - the woilu - anu seaiching foi the best way to manipulate it (see
foi example Theouoi W. Auoino anu Nax Boikheimei, Q(,%#)!() &* D0%('"!#01#0!, 1944).
If enlightenment is meant to fulfil its piomise, we must say a faiewell to saciifice anu value,
leain to speak anu to act on oui own behalf, anu unueistanu that what ieally counts is not
the amount of suiplus value we piess out of a iaggeu woilu, but how we actually live in 6)2.
=(%-+ anu what we coulu be if weie we not confineu in an aichaic piison.
Religious alienation was the laboiatoiy foi political anu economic alienation. It was
the K2&+$%;0%6$& of uispossession. Political anu economic behavioui have piolifeiateu
aiounu this ieligious keinel without evei tiying to fiee themselves fiom the oiiginal
alienation, which now manifests in the acceptance of economic uomination.
Like theology, economic theoiy ueals with something that it is funuamentally unable

16
to unueistanu. You cannot fully unueistanu something by iemaining insiue, within its giip.
You must look at it fiom the outsiue. 0theiwise, it is like asking a fish about watei. Any
insiuei knowleuge is bounu to iemain in the iealm of opeiational knowleuge ("how can I
make it woik."). But the ieal game staits when you abanuon this peispective, take a step
back anu stait facing the whole thing, oi the thing as a whole. You will soon uiscovei that
insiuei knowleuge is basically "captive knowleuge". Shoulu something like "captive
knowleuge" even be iefeiieu to as "knowleuge". I leave you with this question. The only
goou thing is that as long as we aie uiiven by captive knowleuge, anu as long as people take
captive knowleuge foi ieal knowleuge, theie will always be ioom anu an uigent neeu foi
philosophy anu ciitical theoiy - as well as foi changing the woilu that uiives us to such
captive iueas.
Nany thanks again to A. R. who was biave enough to invite a fellow with such
stiange iueas, anu allow him to fieely uevelop his most peculiai views on economic theoiy.
Piofessoi R.'s intentions weie, as he tolu me, to let someone cioss boiueis. I hope I have
ueliveieu anu fulfilleu his expectations.

Apiil 2S
iu
, 2u1S