On Sun, 15 Jan 2012, Doug Henwood wrote:
> 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.
If Graeber actually denies that then I agree he's wrong. But there's nothing wrong with him emphasizing similarities that have generally been missed, is here? Or with suggesting that because all economists have gotten a particular stage of history (the emergence of money) entirely wrong, it has a crucial bearing on their abstractions? Marx made the exact same argument in re the transition from feudalism -- that if you just made up a Robinson Crusoe story, you left out important things that a study of real history would teach you are essential. And that's exactly what all economists (including Marx) have done with the emergence of money -- accepted a just so story.
If you follow Marx's own reasoning, it should matter.
Michael