Denis,
You lay out a very clear-headed analysis of the situation to which I would like to offer one particular insight. As you point out, much of our direction as a culture and civilization is increasingly decided by the interests of capital, so the primary focus of concern would logically be the nature of this financial medium and how it came to be in control of humanity.
The popular version is that it developed out of barter, but there is a crucial initial step being overlooked. Originally this device of notational value was a contract. Such as tokens for grain in the community stocks, back in ancient Sumer, up to gold certificates issued by the Rothschilds in eighteenth century Europe. These then became traded around as commodities in their own right. The next step became futures, as in IOU something I don't yet have, such as next years grain, gold, etc., then all the other notational representations of value, from insurance to stock, etc.
What gets confused in this process is the underlaying nature of this notational value as a contract. A promise to be fulfilled. When it becomes treated in isolation as a commodity in its own right, this inherent connection to the social network becomes disconnected. What nationally issued money is, is a promise of value from the larger community. So logically, its value is fundamentally based on the health and strength of that community. Yet when we treat it as simply some form of commodity, we think the value is inherent to the possession of this device and so assume that more will always be better. Then you have this situation where pretty much everyone wants more of these notes and they are viewed as personal property, to the point where the underlaying economy turns from producing actual needs, to simply producing these notes.
My argument is that we have to go back to understanding this currency as a contract, not a commodity. If people understood they are simply promises from the community, then there would be much more value put into a strong community and healthy environment and not have it being drained out of these essential sources in order to store as notes in a bank. Not only would this serve to make society and the environment healthier, but would serve to stabilize the financial system as well.
Yes, there are a fair number of people who benefit from this system and are doing everything to maintain it, but their efforts seem destined to only make the eventual crash all that much greater. Then as new systems of exchange are being created, is when a broad based education effort needs to be made, to make people understand these are forms of public trust. They are like roads and other utilities. Even like air and water; Circulation systems which only function by being freely circulated, not hoarded and drained out of the larger system. If there was the common assumption they are simply contracts between a community and its members, there wouldn't be much sense of need beyond what was necessary, because one would assume some leeway in an emergency. On the other hand, if someone was caught hoarding them unnecessarily, the tendency of the community would be to discount or ignore the promises made to this member, since they obviously did not have the good or trust of the group in mind. We own our houses, car, businesses etc, but not the roads connecting them and no one calls this socialism, or communism. Fundamentally money is just such a system of circulation, like blood in the body. What if the heart, or the head, or the muscles insisted on holding onto blood, rather than having it flow freely through? Not good.
Regards,
John Merryman