[lbo-talk] the Grundrisse and credit

[nathan tankus]

"Michael Pollak wrote: "The part of this that is really true is that
in ancient times, debts had nothing to do with intermediation. They
were owed directly by the workers to the aristocrats or the state. So
when debts were forgiven, the aristocrats took a hit, but the effect
on the real economy was all good, and immediate. It was literally a
no-brainer. All you needed was power."

I'm not sure of your time reference, but if I followed this, you are
quite wrong. The debtors were almost ALWAYS Aristocrats. That's why
Plato thought the state ought not to enforce debt collection: he
favored aristocrats over money-lenders.

Carrol

^^^^ CB: This makes a lot of sense, because the masses didn't have
money. There was no mass currency, no ? "

NT: woah, a lot of misinformation going on here. First, what Michael
says is undeniably true about ancient sumer at least. Second, we
should be more precise in our terminology. most entities and people
are debtors and creditors to somebody. Third, coinage didn't develop
until the 6th or 7th century, but that is precisely the type of
neoclassical blinders that Graeber wrote his book to combat. Fourth,
there were certainly rich debtors (a phenomenon Graeber discusses in
detail) but it doesn't follow that they are the only debtors. I
suggest reading this piece by hudson, which covers some ancient greek
history: http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/12/02/debt-slavery-%E2%80%93-why-it-destroyed-rome-why-it-will-destroy-us-unless-it%E2%80%99s-stopped/

-- 
-Nathan Tankus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------