Gustav Osberg's Reviews > Debt: The First 5,000 Years
Debt: The First 5,000 Years
by
by

Gustav Osberg's review
bookshelves: political-economy, history, anthropology-and-ethnography
Sep 07, 2021
bookshelves: political-economy, history, anthropology-and-ethnography
One of the great powers of anthropology lies in its potential to denaturalise and remystify taken-for-granted elementary aspects of daily life. Debt is certainly one of these omnipresent elements, especially in times where real wages have stagnated while productivity and inflation continues soaring.
Despite this, debt, as a disputed concept, is not new; in fact, it's older than money. In the chapter I enjoyed the most titled 'the myth of barter', Graeber shows how the conventional barter-money-debt historical process actually happened in reverse. The conventional 'Economics 101' textbook example of Ragnar trading 5 kg of potatoes for a pair of shoes doesn't hold up if you think about it (what if nobody wants to trade shoes for Ragnar’s potatoes...?).
One of the greatest successes of economics as a discipline, ideology and sphere has been its imposed division between itself and the rest of society's entangled spheres and relations. Through this fractured view, the barter-money-debt story makes sense, but Graeber, much like Karl Polanyi illustrates how the exchange was mediated and embedded within social relations. If Ragnar needed shoes, he could receive a pair as a 'gift' by a neighbour to be 'repaid' at some later stage, or, better yet, he could simply be given a pair by the community.
This is the essence of what Graeber terms the 'human economy', where money is used to mediate social relations. Your chances of acquiring the goods you sought after were largely dependent on your reputation and trustworthiness (this is why money was often reserved for strangers or untrusty people). At one point during the Middle Ages, these locally embedded social credit systems were forcefully outlawed and destroyed to be subsequently replaced by coinage and later financial debts. However, the morality attached to credit and debt was seemingly transferred to these new forms of financial debt, which still haunts our language and imaginaries to this day.
Again, Karl Polanyi and his work The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time echo in the theories Graeber composes: the disembedding of social relations to impose the market through a political process (not as an organic, 'natural.' process).
Debt, as an ideological concept, is interesting since, as Graeber notes, it's based on an assumption of equality (and not intrinsic inferiority such as the caste system and some forms of slavery). But apart from local social credit systems mentioned above, it's a disembedded morality that reduces qualities to quantities. The book starts with an anecdote and assumption that 'surely one has to pay one's debts', but if there is anything the book shows is the dialectical nature of the history surrounding the concept; from popular exoduses from cities to counter-philosophical movements of the Axial Age, all eventually integrated into its development.
Alf Hornborg, another anthropologist who theorises money, treats money as an artefact that organises society and its functioning and thus dictates possibilities for action. It does, however, not have agency in itself (assuming it does is a clear case of fetishism); that power is reserved to us humans.
Despite this, debt, as a disputed concept, is not new; in fact, it's older than money. In the chapter I enjoyed the most titled 'the myth of barter', Graeber shows how the conventional barter-money-debt historical process actually happened in reverse. The conventional 'Economics 101' textbook example of Ragnar trading 5 kg of potatoes for a pair of shoes doesn't hold up if you think about it (what if nobody wants to trade shoes for Ragnar’s potatoes...?).
One of the greatest successes of economics as a discipline, ideology and sphere has been its imposed division between itself and the rest of society's entangled spheres and relations. Through this fractured view, the barter-money-debt story makes sense, but Graeber, much like Karl Polanyi illustrates how the exchange was mediated and embedded within social relations. If Ragnar needed shoes, he could receive a pair as a 'gift' by a neighbour to be 'repaid' at some later stage, or, better yet, he could simply be given a pair by the community.
This is the essence of what Graeber terms the 'human economy', where money is used to mediate social relations. Your chances of acquiring the goods you sought after were largely dependent on your reputation and trustworthiness (this is why money was often reserved for strangers or untrusty people). At one point during the Middle Ages, these locally embedded social credit systems were forcefully outlawed and destroyed to be subsequently replaced by coinage and later financial debts. However, the morality attached to credit and debt was seemingly transferred to these new forms of financial debt, which still haunts our language and imaginaries to this day.
Again, Karl Polanyi and his work The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time echo in the theories Graeber composes: the disembedding of social relations to impose the market through a political process (not as an organic, 'natural.' process).
Debt, as an ideological concept, is interesting since, as Graeber notes, it's based on an assumption of equality (and not intrinsic inferiority such as the caste system and some forms of slavery). But apart from local social credit systems mentioned above, it's a disembedded morality that reduces qualities to quantities. The book starts with an anecdote and assumption that 'surely one has to pay one's debts', but if there is anything the book shows is the dialectical nature of the history surrounding the concept; from popular exoduses from cities to counter-philosophical movements of the Axial Age, all eventually integrated into its development.
Alf Hornborg, another anthropologist who theorises money, treats money as an artefact that organises society and its functioning and thus dictates possibilities for action. It does, however, not have agency in itself (assuming it does is a clear case of fetishism); that power is reserved to us humans.
Sign into Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ to see if any of your friends have read
Debt.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
January 21, 2019
– Shelved as:
to-read
January 21, 2019
– Shelved
January 21, 2019
– Shelved as:
political-economy
January 21, 2019
– Shelved as:
history
Started Reading
August 29, 2021
–
Finished Reading
September 7, 2021
– Shelved as:
anthropology-and-ethnography
Comments Showing 1-22 of 22 (22 new)
date
newest »

message 1:
by
Camilla
(new)
Sep 08, 2021 11:04AM

reply
|
flag


While this provides a deep anthropological/philosophical view on what money is/is not, my memory tells me it is missing some more concrete modern analysis of money:
(1) "state money" (state theory of money/Modern Monetary Theory), private credit money (endogenous money), "commodity money"
(2) domestic currency vs. international currency

Still, I'd spent several times sitting on a bench trying to figure out what money actually is - beyond what modern econ textbooks tell us.
The theoretical approach didn't get me very far - but looking at exchange practices of the Nambikwara tribe in Brazil and others, plus the Chartalist view elucidated in the book, allows me to rethink it all in a fruitful manner.

(1) MMT's "state theory of money": Chartalist belongs in this school.
(2) US socdem policy proposals from an MMT perspective (which obviously are very specific political application of MMT, not just domestic currency but international currency i.e. dollar imperialism).
We should be careful to distinguish this.

Specifically, I was exposed to my conception of MMT through this public lecture by former Sanders advisor Stephanie Kelton:
That's what I was on the fence about. State theory of money is a completely cogent historical view yes - though frankly I have to learn more about it still. :)
Sorry for taking over your comment section Gustav :)

Michael Hudson (MMT proponent + expert on dollar imperialism) deserves a listen:

Kevin has a good point in that Graeber approaches money from a very anthropological and historical perspective, emphasising how money influences and is influenced by social relations, what role it serves in society, and how all this affects our imagination and language. Less focus is given on what money is today in its highly digitalized form, and this is where authors such as Michael Hudson does great work (he is still on my list, but Kevin has done a good job of promoting him :)).
But it sounds like this is the right book for you in your current phase of searching, Don!
Kevin, in regards to a scaled revival of local social trust economies (an embedded economy), the question is, how do we envision the scaling? Are our imaginations still tied to the nation-state construction? This is something I've been pondering recently as I've been engaging with more anarchist literature; how can communities that rest on principles such as autonomy and local democracy coupled with self-sufficiency be 'scaled'?
Perhaps it is easier to start with what should be scaled down: global commodity chain for sure (we're only scratching the surface when we talk about the environmental impacts of planes and cars, the shipping industry is a whole different league). Self-sufficiency would not create one local economy but a pluralism of economies where the focus is equally on repair and recycling as on production, all on a local scale. With this, the natural consequence would be a decreased need for scaling since production and decision-making are much more localised (this is, of course, only one vision and scenario, however). What do you think?

Ideally, there will be space for various experiments that can be scaled up once we see the results, but time (esp. Earth Systems)/space (esp. imperialism) is so limited.
That's why I found Varoufakis' "Another Now" so compelling, because he still assumed certain market mechanisms (while abolishing others, esp. labor market + stock market) and other mechanism designs/game theory (ex. "self-revelation mechanism design") for certain non-local relations. Ideally these will erode as social trust is built, but that's a long-term project.
As for imperialism, the global south scholars I follow tend to support the need for the nation-state in order to first de-link from imperialist finance/commodity chain and build self-sufficiency. Imperialism's divide-and-rule (esp. in the realm of crude culture) is devastating, which is why I found Vijay's "The Darker Nations" historical concept of "internationalist nationalism" so inspiring!

I really want to engage with the De-growth movement. My institute is a stronghold of the Green Growth mindset, but I figure I have to contend with both views.
My preliminary conclusion to this minor economic existential crisis was that Green Growth has some footing in developing economies, where a rise in living standards is still desirable. Meanwhile, in developed economies, we really do have more than 'enough' and can start scaling down / adopt de-growth full on.
Gustav raises an excellent point there w/ the global supply chain. I would, however, add, that local knowledge accumulation (ex. vaccine production) that has little to no cost attached to distribution could be disseminated globally still. The challenge then is to de-globalise material production whilst creating greater information flow and interconnectedness of knowledge networks.
Thanks for all the recs. I'm learning a lot here. :)

I really want to engage with the De-growth movement. My institute is a stronghold of the Green Growth mindset, but I figure I have to con..."
Great point. Information is indeed mobile. In addition, the "disseminated globally" is often blocked artificially by corporate intellectual property (ex. WTO's TRIPS) = imperialism! Ex. it's well-known India's excellent pharma production capability to re-engineer medicine and provide it to other global south nations at cost-of-production generics pricing. And those big on zero marginal cost technology will rave about 3-D printing etc.

Don, I think the most approachable introduction to Degrowth is Less is More: How Degrowth Will Save the World, it's quite an enjoyable read (and, maybe after that, Jackson's classic Prosperity Without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet), then I have plenty of articles critiquing the oxymoron of green growth and myth of decoupling; some examples:
Brand, U. (2012). Green economy–the next oxymoron? No lessons learned from failures of implementing sustainable development. GAIA-Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(1), 28-32.
Hickel, J., & Kallis, G. (2020). Is green growth possible?. New political economy, 25(4), 469-486.
Wanner, T. (2015). The new ‘passive revolution of the green economy and growth discourse: Maintaining the ‘sustainable development of neoliberal capitalism. New Political Economy, 20(1), 21-41.
However, degrowth as a concept can easily be misunderstood, and both of you raise very important points in relation to this; mainly, what sectors need to grow (e.g. the health sector in Tanzania) and what can be scaled down or made more accessible (e.g. big pharma and unjust intellectual properties). But much boils down to the question of what the engine of the economy should be; GDP or wellbeing? (Contrary to what many economists would believe, the two are far from synonymous, just take austerity as an example; what gets prioritised in times of crisis, continued growth/profit or wellbeing?).

But feel free to also suggest counterarguments in favour of green growth, I'm sure that many uses is it in a fashion which could even overlap with degrowth rationales! :)

And helpful resources on "degrowth" vs. green growth, as always it's messy using just words to capture so much and there are a lot of confusion/contradictions to unpack.

Speaking of articles, Kevin, have you engaged any with Brett Christophers? I just discovered him. He writes a lot about financialisation; e.g., (but also check out some of his more recent work)

Speaking of articles, Kevin, have you engaged any with Brett Chris..."
Ah, I had his "New Enclosures" book shelved, but alas since I focus on books more than articles I'm chronically behind, I'm such a slooooow reader. Have you read any novel arguments by him? Otherwise, Hudson is repetitive enough for me lol. Also, there's such imbalance against Global South voices, so I always feel guilty if I keep going to the next Stephanie Kelton or Grace Blakeley etc etc even though I want to keep an eye on those who reach the western public.

Speaking of articles, Kevin, have you engaged any w..."
Aren't we all behind? ;) a curse that came along with the internet, along with the paradox of choice etc.
Articles can be nice for just a quicker read (I usually just read the intro, discussion and conclusions). I just came across him this week; apparently, he sits in Uppsala here in Sweden. Hudson is still prioritized and probably enough yes, I just saw his name and works and thought of our discussion on the veins to South America book. But you are definitely right, more South voices are needed (as always)

...I thought Varoufakis did a good job spelling out financialization in "Another Now" regarding how utility bills payments were turned into CDOs and sold on financial markets, and how this can be shorted. After GameStop/WallStreetBets, I got in a discussion about this, and I posted a summary as the last post in my review for reference: /review/show...

...I thought Varoufakis did a good job spe..."
Your summary skills are, as always, spot on! Much still goes over my head, so I'll try and spend some time with Hudson (via the clips you've recommended) this weekend, and then return to your comment on Another Now. Will try to also dedicate some time to Christophers so I can hand you a summary, and you can complement my knowledge on the topic :)
Now going back to my reading of Debt, money is really a 'Socrateian hole' (the more you learn the less you know etc.) and a conceptual pandora's box. I think this is what makes my degrowth vision so appealing to me; why can't we just grow carrots and be happy?

Regarding the "Socrateian hole" of money, for sure, if you're taking a deep anthropological dive then it does seem endless, or perhaps circular. Indeed, Varoufakis has a fun lecture on this:
Given that fiscal conservatism still rots a part of my brain, imagining post-money is out of the question unless I take it step-by-step, and I find these steps much more compelling.
(1) Public banking, where money is directly spent into social services (the revived Commons, going by Hickel's framing)/individual accounts (ex. Varoufakis' basic rights central banking + social dividend), cutting out private banks/bondholder class, will do much to euthanize the rentier while still taking advantage of money's social mobilization at scale in crucial Commons institutions).
(2) With such Commons expanded, the baseline need for an individual to accumulate money for themselves/future generations diminishes. Of course this will be further paired with other degrowth necessities like cutting down advertising/wasteful industries, reducing work, local social trust relations/production, etc. Regarding money, there can also be disincentives against accumulating beyond a certain point (which is less needed given strong Commons services anyways), for example negative interest rates etc. But as you can see, I find these steps much more tangible with huge benefits than trying to imagine post-money, and we'll see where we go once these take form.