> "Graeber does not recognize what money and credit mean in pre-capitalist
> societies, what distinguishes them from each other. He works with
> trans-historical phenomena, without raising questions as to their
> historical-social form. This is a trait he shares with the economic
> mainstream that he otherwise criticizes. Graeber writes that systems of credit and accounting are as old as civilization itself. He admits
> that he finds it difficult to distinguish between gift-giving and
> credit; but this is only a problem if one discusses these forms of
> social intercourse independent from their respective dominant forms of
> production, when one does not clarify exactly what is characteristic of
> capitalism, what makes it capitalistic and thus what distinguishes it
> from other social formations."
>
> Full: http://communism.blogsport.eu/2012/06/12/debt-and-punishment-a-critical-review-of-david-graebers-debt/
Funny: "the ivory league university Yale."
Good review, with a good conclusion: "Debt cancellation is indeed a correct demand, but only when the social relations that constantly bring about indebtedness are abolished as well. It seems difficult to reach an agreement with Graeber on exactly what those social relations are."
His - I won't call it a failure because he doesn't even seem interested in trying to make the case - lack of interest in investigating capitalism as a social system with some unique characteristics really seems to come from the anarchist obsession with the state above all else. So much of the Occupy movement is - was? - about space and state but has a lot of trouble talking about production and property.
Doug
^^^^^^^
CB: As an anthropologist, Graeber should be especially conscious of the differences in superficially similar institutions in different societies.
The original Occupy Wall Street, in shifting the protest target from the traditional Washington DC to Wall Street did focus on Capital rather than the State in my opinion. Also, the 99% vs 1% is very much a class struggle focus. So, the core or originating protest is , for me a "dogmatic" Marxist (giggles) , substantially Marxist focused especially for Americans. It is a big step forward in the direction of Marxist consciousness for Americans, who are typically more anarchist/libertarian in their protests, i.e. anti-government.
The Ron Paul followers who were around have faded (from Occupy Detroit, at least). Further, the anti-government protest themes have usually been focused on the relationship between Capital and the State as in the efforts to reverse _Citizens United_. This is significantly
Marxist, as the Marxist approach is , of course, not to ignore the role of the State in capitalism, but to focus on the capitalist ruling class' dominance of the state ( See _The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State_ and _The State and Revolution_ for examples).