[lbo-talk] Graeber's latest...

123hop at comcast.net 123hop at comcast.net
Thu May 10 19:28:06 PDT 2012


Doug writes:

"I don't think that Graeber has any sense of what capitalism is. The world of production barely appears in what I've read of his work. It all gets projected onto "debt," which he understands in a very transhistorical way. There's no sense of how debt functions under capitalism - or under the name "credit," serves to expand the system beyond the bounds of current income (which is not what it does in precapitalist formations)."

I think he understands this.

"Sure capitalism depends on noncapitalist relations, but the tendency is to bring more and more of those under market relations - not least domestic relations. Ursula Huws has a nice argument about how capitalism has derived a lot of kick out of marketizing what was once done in the home - e.g., food."

Of course, capitalism seeks to expand its domain. But I don't actually think it can turn all human activity into commodities because, if it could, there would be mass suicides. Capitalism depends deeply on the fantasy/possibility of non-mediated relations....of being loved for yourself, of being unexchangable. This possibility does not grow out of capitalism, it must ever be external to it.

"He seems to think that all the "communist" things we do in daily life - which really underestimates how much monetary relations and thought pervade daily life - can be expanded to defeat the thing somehow."

My sense is that he thinks we should all be more conscious of how much of the way we interact with one another and want to interact with one another is opposed to capitalist logic and the logic of self interest. And, of course, the radical ruptures of the current crisis helps to make people aware that they are already running/making the world. The euphoria of workers taking over factories and workplaces is all about that discovery. Why is that not OK?

"So instead of public schools, as he once suggested to me, we could have parents and teachers take them over and run them as cooperatives. Which the state wouldn't tolerate, and which many parents would want no part of since they're otherwise kind of busy."

What's wrong with parents/teachers running schools? Why would the intolerance of the state matter? Doesn't, the whole "charter" movement make this possible? And why do parents necessarily need to be that busy?

"This all comes back to the lack of a theory of how capitalism really works, other than to deploy the word on occasion, and a reluctance to embrace any non-spontaneous forms of organization. I mean, really, how is this supposed to loosen the grip of ExxonMobil? It's just sentimental wishes."

While he recognizes the power of capital, I think he's more reluctant to talk about "capitalism" as a totalizing system. And, maybe now, as it becomes more evident how it is failing the vast majority of people, not to mention making human life on earth impossible, it is not as totalizing a system as it was perceived to be fifty years ago.

You can call him sentimental, but clearly he is aware and connected to a dimension of human consciousness that neither you nor I suspected possible a year ago. I think it's short-sighted to call him a fool.

Joanna



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list