On Jan 14, 2012, at 8:02 PM, Michael Pollak wrote:
> a) Graeber's way of using the word "credit" to simply refer to all debts is the normal way of using the word. It's Marx's use that's idiosyncratic. Marx is creating a new word use, and using it for precisely the opposite purpose, namely to focus on what is different between capitalism and all preceding systems rather than to focus on what is same. It's not that one POV is right and one is wrong. They are simply looking at different things.
Since we live under capitalist society, and credit has become more important than it was in the 19th century, it's pretty important to focus on what's different about capitalist credit. Just saying that people made loans in pre- or non-capitalist societies is important, and it's always good to be reminded that things we think are new aren't all that new, but sometimes there is something new under the sun too.
> b) This passage also shows in passing where Marx (and just about every other economist) is wrong and Graeber is right:
>
>> (Money itself is a form for suspending the unevenness of the times required in different branches of production, to the extent that this obstructs exchange.)
>
> I read that as a parenthetical refer by Marx to an age of barter that precedes the use of money. Which, as Graeber shows definitely, never existed.
No. Credit is a way of providing funds to entities that might not have them now but could well have them in the future. Loans to companies to fund working capital or major investments, to consumers to buy houses and cars, etc.