I remember you mentioned earlier that you don't think Graeber actually understands what capitalism is. Is his explanation on Louis Proyect's blog ignorant? (This is a question to everyone in general, not you specifically.) Should he focus more on property relations between people?
"In response to the question about what is capitalism, I must say
that, rather like Marx actually, I’m not too keen on the word. I do
use it I have to admit, it’s hard not to, but I tend to prefer to
talk about capital, which can be defined roughly as productive
wealth deployed so as to accumulate more wealth through the
exploitation, direct or indirect, or labor power, realized through
surplus value. It is hardly the only form of value realization that
occurs in any society, or “social formation” if you prefer. (I’ve
written about other forms extensively in my book on value theory
but don’t really want to go into it here.) Sure the world system of
today is dominated by capitalist relations of production but it’s
never the only form. But for me this is different from the issue of
the variety of labor arrangements that capitalist relations of
production might entail. And yes, you could make a circular
definition and say that capitalist relations are by definition free
labor but I’m not sure what is gained by doing this.
"I personally don’t think it’s helpful to make a strict distinction
between slaves who are only kept alive and wage laborers who are
compensated, since that would mean a lot of slaves aren’t slaves,
since often slaves were rented out and received half their wages as
a stipend – in fact, this was the primary form of wage labor in the
ancient world! But that’s another conversation."
— http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/david-graeber-on-capitalism-and-unfree-labor/
All the best,
Tj