David Graeber - Debt, the first 5,000 Years

[Anonymous No.17732902]

Alright lit, just finished it, tell me what to think.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17732921]

A classic
I wonder how much overlap there is with Michael Hudson’s And Forgive Them Their Debts

[smoker !HOZlQYR1MY No.17732927]

>>17732902
I haven't finished it, but the anthropological stuff really blew my mind. What other cultures historically did was always so fascinating. Graeber is based, and if you liked that but want something a little lighter, I suggest his book Bullshit Jobs, that was a romp.

[Anonymous No.17732952]

>>17732902
Interesting that the book comes up in Third Positionist economics reading lists. I can see the take. Graeber essentially argues that virtually all traditional societies are based around 'primitive communism' - basic kindness, holding the elevator door, etc - and a metaphysical hierarchy - centralization around a sovereign and army, etc. It's kinda interesting that he basically just wants to leave out hiearchy, even tho he spends the whole book detailing how it's essential for the formation of any society.

I read this absolutist GA sperg's review and he made a good point; Graeber consistently notes how economic relations between debtors and creditors consistently led to revolutions. Mass revolutions from whole nations becoming debtors is older than barter, the 'free market, and absolutely every liberal precept. It's just a given the majorities and large swathes of populations won't accept debt slavery,

---however, this is not the case for slavery, caste systems and other forms of hierarchical society with Graeber opposes. What this shows is Graeber is caught in the liberal prism as well. Particularly in regard to his dissmisal of the Axial age societies who - in building the framework for the medieval period - led to the abolition of slavery (which Graeber obviously hates).

[Anonymous No.17732959]

>>17732902
Decent review here http://gablog.cdh.ucla.edu/2017/07/debts-and-deferences/

[Anonymous No.17732964]

>>17732902
All usurers need to be put to the sword.

[Anonymous No.17733008]

>>17732964
Based

[Anonymous No.17733140]

>>17732964
king

It's one of the best point Graeber makes actually; religious traditions have often birthed out of a rejection of material debt slavery as immoral. The Hindus associated Debt with Yama (death), Christianity birthed out of a hatred for the commercial center of Rome, and before Rome there was of course Babylon in which patriarchal systems were formalized by farmers engaging in a moral (as well as geographical) exodus from the decadence of the empire.

[Anonymous No.17733156]

>>17732902
Read Mauss instead.

[Anonymous No.17733211]

>>17732964
nuke Switzerland, London, Frankfurt, and NYC, and Panama.

[Anonymous No.17733220]

>>17733211
>he thinks usury is constricted to geographical locations
Anon, the defining aspect of usury is that it's perpetrated by parasitic globalists.

[Anonymous No.17733251]

>>17733140

But as Maurizio Lazzarato pointed out in his own books on debt, Christians replace worldly (and, in principle, finite) debt with the infinite debt of original sin, which Jesus paid off on our behalf so we have to do what he says. The point being that they're all bastards running different flavors of the same scam: you have to pay me back for the rest of your life/okay you don't have to give me money but you do have to join the church and subscribe to the bake sale newsletter OR ELSE, see, n'yeah, see....

[Anonymous No.17733312]

>>17733156
which book

[Anonymous No.17733333]

>>17732964
>>17733211 (checked)
dangerously based

[Anonymous No.17733341]

>>17733251
Yeah Graeber makes the same point in (I think) the primordial debt chapter. Don't really agree. It's the same with nationalism; nationalism or communitarianism or whatever has an essential implication that each individual is entirely indebted to their community and people. As Heidegger says you can't 'de-world' yourself. We're all 'thrown' into the world, whether we like it or not. Even if our parents are assholes, we're still indebted to them for creating us to a certain extent. And certainly any coherent society we're meant to have has to be have the concept of people owing each other compassion and decency.

[Anonymous No.17733364]

>Implying cavemen filial obligations are the same thing as modern debt

[Anonymous No.17733381]

>>17733312
The Gift: the form and reason for exchange in archaic societies


It's a core part of any freshman anthropology class and not long or difficult. It's really cheap used, in most libraries, and are PDFs online.


Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value is the Chad Graeber work that gets even more autistic than whatever part of Debt made you call bullshit

[Anonymous No.17733421]

>>17733333
Quints confirmed.

[Anonymous No.17733423]

>>17733251
Sure, but Jesus Christ actually died on the cross for our sins. That's the main difference.

[Anonymous No.17733458]

>>17733423
Yeah our indebtedness to Christ our Lord and Savior ≠ the usurious jews he was kicking out the temple

[Anonymous No.17733487]

I feel I'm being unfair of Graeber in not giving his books a chance, but I can't help but feel that he was a poser.

From his Occupy stint, calling himself an anarchist and endorsing Corbyn - he feels like someone who'd be writing op-eds for Jacobin.

[Anonymous No.17733501]

>>17733423

See, this is how they get you. You have to buy in, to participate, no matter the scam. It's how all cons work. Once you've accepted the program, it's too late. gotta build that credit score so you can buy a house. gotta get to heaven.

[Anonymous No.17733568]

>>17733220
>Anon, the defining aspect of usury is that it's perpetrated by parasitic globalists.
Parasitic globalists indeed. Does (((Graeber))) mention his tribes role in this eternal coin clipping scam?

[Anonymous No.17733582]

>>17732902
>tell me what to think.
thats what the book was supposed to do homie

[Anonymous No.17733586]

>>17732964
Fucking based

[Anonymous No.17733604]

is he an anarchist? What are his thoughts on China?

[Anonymous No.17733621]

>>17733568
Of course not, the left is an eternal diversion tactic. Blame everything on capitalism but don't mention who is behind capitalism.

[Anonymous No.17733664]

>>17733621
a critique of capitalism from marx isn't even about individuals or even firms. It's a critique of Capital itself and the way it moves as a process/symbol in society. Individuals or races are irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.17733695]

>>17733664
See?
>Blame everything on capitalism but don't mention who is behind capitalism.
Funny thing is Marx did name the jew, though.

[Anonymous No.17733799]

>>17733695
because it does not matter who is behind it b/c no one is. capital acts as it's own entity

[Anonymous No.17733962]

>>17733341

Happy to hear that the same point is made in the other book, although it is a straightforward one. However, your disagreement seems to be unfounded and confused. What's to disagree with? The notion of debt appears in social interactions, and then makes its way into religion and finally into conventional economic systems. Although I correctly put a polemical anti-religious spin on the idea (if it's this detail which is found disagreeable, clarification is wanting), its geneaology in the various spheres is uncontroversal.

You then turn to the naive idea (even today rejected on some level by normies themselves) that one "owes" one's family/tribe/nation, possibly suggesting same as a counter-example, but the idea seems instead to be just another example of feelings of debt in social interaction. Oddly, the appeal to Heideggerean thrown-ness serves to further undermine this sentiment. Whatever life-affirming content might be associated with thrown-ness is overwhelmed by the objective trouble with being born.

The last two sentences are the most troublesome. One is indebted to one's family/tribe/nation to the extent that they provide for you and make life enjoyable-but this too must pass. However one is clearly NOT indebted to one's parents for the arbitrary act of rutting and creating you as-such. Quite the opposite, this is plainly an inconvenience (Cioran's original French usage). Although pic related is a meme image, its very familiarity serves to quickly communicate the same idea.

There is some truth in your last sentence, but I take issue with its construction. Yes, society requires that subjects regulalry experience positive emotions in some sense, but you can easily have a meaner "coherent" (stable) society where these needs are frustrated or perverted, but only to a degree. The human capacity for adaptation (to a point) is in play here.

[Anonymous No.17733985]

>>17733799
It does matter, you cannot address the problem if you don't take out the root. You are clearly not well read on the history of the emergence of capitalism and the figures/institutions that propagated it. You may want to look up the history of usury.

[Anonymous No.17734927]

>>17732902
You read a book that /lit/ rarely talks about. You get to choose what /lit/ thinks of it now.

[Anonymous No.17735966]

>>17733568
Actually he does, but he says it was the nobles who were the real usurers and they used Jews as a cover kek

[Anonymous No.17736347]

>>17733962
Bro both Cioran and Heidegger were fascists who supported Hitler

[Anonymous No.17736698]

>>17733962
You simultaneously refer to debt as if it was wholly socially constructed and as if it was pegged to some absolute, objective hedonic value. I feel these two points undermine each other, since debt can be socially construed as something beyond hedonic calculus.