Debt: The first 5000 years.

[camouflage]

Has anyone else read this book by David Graeber yet? Very interesting book and lots I didn't know, the myth of barter and the role of early states in creating money not the least. Learned a lot about the (I would say) Islamic origins of much of classical economics and the ideas of Adam Smith and I liked the distinction he makes between capitalism and the market. He talks alot about the economic arrangements of ancient civilisations and non western cultures and the use of credit long before the invention of money, and for that matter the coin and the origins of property as a legal concept in the slave driven economy of Ancient Rome. He talks about the war-slavery-debt complex incapsulated by the coin and the fascinating emergence and use of paper money in China. Definitely changed the way I consider some things about money, capitalism and debt but with the same overall opinion about money being created out of 'thin air' (like inches, state constitutions and zero). At one point he describes the origins of capitalism not as the rise of the market, but rather the conquest of systems of credit by systems of interest. Fascinating stuff.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...toHwBw&usg=AFQjCNH-fg3ZOSBhQuOZI_tG-mo6zbIE_Q

 

[phildwyer]

Probably the most important work of Marxist theory since the Second World War.

Establishes that the real enemy is usury.

Only real problem is his neglect of the traditional critiques of usury, presumably on the grounds that they are theological in nature. But he identifies the enemy very acutely.

 

[xenon]

yep, I read this recently and learned loads. I'm a bit of a magpie when it comes to non fiction, so wasn't really approaching this from any kind of theoretical grounding. Read about 1/3 of Wealth of Nations and some pop economics books.

Some things that stood out. The completely incideious dehumanising dynamics that debt relationships give rise to. The mith of premoney barter economies and the explanation of state authorities creating markets. Also it bolstered my inate suspicion that economics beyond the simple supply and demand, is so much smoke and mirrors. Fractional reserve banking etc.. But then there's a whole system and industry behind telling you that, this is simply nyevety and ignorance. Leave it to the experts.

 

[butchersapron]

At one point he describes the origins of capitalism not as the rise of the market, but rather the conquest of systems of credit by systems of interest. Fascinating stuff.

And what is the force behind those systems of interest? According to Graeber?

 

[butchersapron]

Probably the most important work of Marxist theory since the Second World War.

Establishes that the real enemy is usury.

Only real problem is his neglect of the traditional critiques of usury, presumably on the grounds that they are theological in nature. But he identifies the enemy very acutely.

Not bad for a book that a) rejects marxism and b) doesn't seek to establish any such thing.

 

[camouflage]

Probably the most important work of Marxist theory since the Second World War.

Establishes that the real enemy is usury.

Only real problem is his neglect of the traditional critiques of usury, presumably on the grounds that they are theological in nature. But he identifies the enemy very acutely.

I don't think Graeber is a Marxist, though he seemed in my opinion to say that Marx's work takes the premise of capitalism, and then says "thus", taking capitalism to its own logical conclusion. I got the impression that Graeber thinks that Marx did not actually accept the premise.

I think he had a lot of interesting things to say about religion and debt, but if by 'traditional critiques of usury' you mean some sort of fairae-dancing debate of the calibre of whether something called 'god' likes it when people eat sausage or not then frankly... whatever.

 

[phildwyer]

Not bad for a book that a) rejects marxism and b) doesn't seek to establish any such thing.

(a) post-Marxist then. Marxian. (b) I didn't say it did.

 

[articul8]

"rejects marxism" in what sense?

 

[butchersapron]

Tell me before we start this - have you read the book?

It rejects Marx's theory on the origins of money and the labour theory of value.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Has anyone else read this book by David Graeber yet? Very interesting book and lots I didn't know, the myth of barter and the role of early states in creating money not the least.

I'm reading it at the moment and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. The theory that the origin of money/markets lies in the need for states to support a standing army is a pretty plausible sounding one on the surface. I'd be interested to hear what a Marxist informed response to this theory would be though.

Say a king wishes to support a standing army of fifty thousand men. Under ancient or medieval conditions, feeding such a force was an enormous problem—unless they were on the march, one would need to employ almost as many men and animals just to locate, acquire, and transport the necessary provisions. On the other hand, if one simply hands out coins to the soldiers and then demands that every family in the kingdom was obliged to pay one of those coins back to you, one would, in one blow, turn one's entire national economy into a vast machine for the provisioning of soldiers, since now every family, in order to get their hands on the coins, must find some way to contribute to the general effort to provide soldiers with things they want. Markets are brought into existence as a side effect.

 

[camouflage]

I'm reading it at the moment and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. The theory that the origin of money/markets lies in the need for states to support a standing army is a pretty plausible sounding one on the surface. I'd be interested to hear what a Marxist informed response to this theory would be though.

I can't help wondering if that's one of the reasons the Sovjets failed, maybe I'm being silly though as I don't know anything about how they maintained their military.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm reading it at the moment and I have to say I'm pretty impressed. The theory that the origin of money/markets lies in the need for states to support a standing army is a pretty plausible sounding one on the surface. I'd be interested to hear what a Marxist informed response to this theory would be though.

This is an excellent piece: No Interest But the Interest of Breathing

 

[camouflage]

"rejects marxism" in what sense?

iirc it was all that CMC stuff.

Commodities are the opposite of money, how can commodities exist if money does not, how can there be a time when commodities were traded without their necessary counterpart. The idea that there was a time when commodity was traded for commodity, which is a way I am describing barter here, is a nonsense because commodities are defined by money. Before money there were no commodities, only social relationships.

This is my understanding of what some of Debt5k describes much earlier in the book then by the time he talks about Marx.

 

[dilberto]

Would it be fair to say that Marxists and traditional conservatives share the same distrust of usury because it is the agent of both capitalist development and social change?

The result of any cumulative process of change being to institutionally favour one social group over another.

 

[sihhi]

Would it be fair to say that Marxists and traditional conservatives share the same distrust of usury because it is the agent of both capitalist development and social change?

The result of any cumulative process of change being to institutionally favour one social group over another.

No, they don't share the same distrust.

 

[dilberto]

No, they don't share the same distrust.

A distrust then?

 

[silverfish]

I'm reading this now, being a completely uneducated politically/economically I'm finding it hugely depressing, I've not got to the bit where a solution is presented.....Is there one?

 

[butchersapron]

A distrust then?

This is a meaningless question.

 

[dilberto]

Would it be fair to say that Marxists and traditional conservatives share a distrust of usury because it is the agent of both capitalist development and social change?

The result of any cumulative process of change being to institutionally favour one social group over another.[Edit]

 

[camouflage]

Well anyway... at one point Graber says in the book that the Chinese state has always been pro-market but anti-capitalist. I wonder if the China of today represents a return to the norm, with no contradiction in terms of a 'communist' government that seems very pro-market. Not sure if they can be said to be anti-capitalist right now though. However it's definitely a return to norm for the gold and silver to be flowing back to China again, along with T-Bills as they are now the mainstay of international trade (as gold and silver was in the past).

It's quite interesting actually, the story of how China seemed to be the world sink-hole for precious metals since even Roman times, with production in volume going the other way (as now). That's why the Brits fought the Opium Wars after-all, to pull silver in the other direction, and also because they were cunts. Anyway China is once more the default workshop of the world and once more the international medium of exchange ends up piling up over there, except you can't make pretty sculptures and so on out of T-Bills.