You’re right, he’s not really
You’re right, he’s not really a Marxist I suppose. I meant he’s a “sort of” Marxist in the only way it is sensible to be, ie, he is influenced by Marx, but makes his own mind up, based on the evidence.You’ll have to follow my blog and find out when I do, but I’m not sure you’re right that he has a “quite different” theory of money. At one point, if I remember rightly, when I read (most of) the book before, he says something like “So is money a commodity or debt? The answer, of course, is both.” Marx’s account of money (in Capital) is abstract, and based on the speculations of the political economists. Graeber acknowledges the genius of this. But then, he says, you have to ask: are these speculations reasonable, do they have any basis in history or anthropology? His answer is, No.Relatedly, what do you make of this, specifically the claim that money did not exist in the Soviet Union?http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004736Cheers