@ALB: You’re right on all
@ALB: You’re right on all counts. I remember that Marx said that (and Graeber says that barter does indeed take place between communities rather than in them, though not in the way imagined by economists), and of course Graeber does not imply that the emergence of money as a commodity had nothing to do with exchange (of course it did, what else?!). What I’m saying is that I don’t think Graeber and Marx’s accounts compete or need compete. Marx’s account takes its place within Graeber’s broader account.And anyway, as I pointed out before, they’re doing different things. Marx is saying, OK, let’s accept that the political economists are basically right, and that their utopia is to be implemented. What are the consequences of such a view? Graeber is saying, let’s not accept that the political economists are right: let’s look at their assumptions (accepted by Marx, not because he accepted them, but for the sake of his argument) and ask whether those assumptions are based on science or myth (answer: myth, with political consequences).I may be wrong, I’ll email Graeber and ask him. He’s normally generous at replying to emails.Cheers