I am chuckling…theorist? How is that different from, well, person who tries to understand and communicate abut things he or she considers important?
The problem with money, in fact even theorist, is using words that have more than one meaning and often even trying to intentionally manipulate the multiple meanings. As an example, if someone says a market is a place to have transactions…then any economy has markets. It is, however, a strange use, since you don’t need to have the word market for this, why not, well, transaction. Yet this is the meaning, more or less, that gets tons of people to think markets are unavoidable. If one uses the word market, however, to refer to an institution in which actors seeking to buy cheap and sell dear for personal advance by that behavior determine transactions…then markets are not inevitable and parecon has no markets.
People who want everyone to believe that competitive allocation is the only possibility will use the word in the first way to get folks hooked on markets being inevitable, and will then draw on the second meaning to have everyone who ratified markets meaning transactions be counted as ratifying competitive allocation…
Money is similar. Used to refer to coins and bills, or even just written records, that have all the attributes of money in current societies, it is one thing. It doesn’t talk, it swears. Used to refer to having income and budgets/prices, only, it is another thing.
Did Graeber have anything more to say about parecon?