Detalhes bibliográficos
| Ano de defesa: |
2023 |
| Autor(a) principal: |
Pirola, Émerson dos Santos Pirola
 |
| Orientador(a): |
Madarasz, Norman Roland
|
| Banca de defesa: |
Não Informado pela instituição |
| Tipo de documento: |
Tese
|
| Tipo de acesso: |
Acesso aberto |
| Idioma: |
por |
| Instituição de defesa: |
Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul
|
| Programa de Pós-Graduação: |
Programa de Pós-Graduação em Filosofia
|
| Departamento: |
Escola de Humanidades
|
| País: |
Brasil
|
| Palavras-chave em Português: |
|
| Palavras-chave em Inglês: |
|
| Área do conhecimento CNPq: |
|
| Link de acesso: |
https://tede2.pucrs.br/tede2/handle/tede/11009
|
Resumo: |
In this dissertation, we propose a reproblematisation of money that removes it from the natural given position in which it is often placed. Against the dogmatic image of money, which conceives it as a commodity, thing, or simple medium of exchange, we assert that it is a form of debt, instituted fiduciarily, relationally, and socially, being traversed by processes of subjectivation and libidinal investments, as well as active and reactive forces, powers, and potencies. This reconstruction of the problematic nature of money is carried out through the work of Deleuze & Guattari, framing them within a Marxist-Spinozist and accelerationist genealogy, as well as aligning them with neo-chartalism. We primarily draw on the monetary theory or philosophy of money produced by them, which is explained and explored throughout our text. To do so, we traverse the role of money and debt in the “universal history of contingency”: the territorial, despotic, and capitalist machines, as well as the role played by the war machine and the apparatus of State/capture within it. In the territorial machine, we encounter finite debts and what we call counter-money, while in the despotic machine (in the archaic State), also referred to as the tributary formation, we find money properly speaking, the unit of account imposed by the State through taxation, which will be transformed in the context of capitalism, where money becomes essentially decoded and decoding. Money, to the extent that it is time, becomes in modernity the very transcendental field in which subjectivation takes place. However, money is unequally distributed among the rich and the poor, creditors and debtors, capitalists and proletarians, majorities and minorities. These antagonisms are determined by the duality of money, a fundamental contribution of Deleuze & Guattari's theory of money: in capitalism, there is a flow of money referred to as finance money, which has the power to define possibilities and the future through control over others’ labor and desire, while there is another monetary flow, subordinate to the first, which is that of money as a medium of payment, a medium of exchange, a commodity. The money in the first flow is potent, while that of the second is impotent. This duality of money overdetermines the theory of surplus value and the exploitation and extraction of value, whether in Fordist wages or in the mass indebtedness of neoliberalism. However, we propose a reinstitutionalization of money and the monetary relationship that is communizing, a money of the common capable of reversing infinite debt to capital into infinite credit towards the common |
