Money and dialectic are secondary codifications that double a medium’s options

Evidence

Marx spoke of money as “the universal whore,” a medium of exchange which negates the content of goods or services by substituting for them an impersonal standard. Money permits the exchange of anything for anything, regardless of whether the goods involved share any substantive qualities in common with one another. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 65 (#expands, via linked claim)

I do not accept the main framework of their analyses. Neither power nor language is on a par with money or other disembedding mechanisms. Power and the use of language are intrinsic features of social action on a very general level, not specific social forms. — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 66 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Power and language are not disembedding mechanisms like money — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 66; Money functions as an equivalent-certainty that reduces the need for information; Money is an impersonal standard that negates the content of goods — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 65

Related

• Money is an impersonal standard that negates the content of goods (similarity 0.89)
• Power and language are not disembedding mechanisms like money (similarity 0.86)
• Money erases qualitative distinctions by reducing everything to quantity (similarity 0.81)
• Money as arbitrary fiction can only represent real social labour (similarity 0.79)

Broader Connections

• Money is an impersonal standard that negates the content of goods #expands (0.75) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 65
• Money functions as an equivalent-certainty that reduces the need for information #expands (0.70)
• Power and language are not disembedding mechanisms like money #corroborates (0.65) — Anthony Giddens, The Consequences of Modernity, 66