Hud955
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I’m working from memory here and haven’t had time to check this out but as far as I recall Marx is not proposing a theory of the origins of money in Capital; he is only proposing a theory of the origins of the Value form of money. His principal analysis only relates therefore to the development of money within capitalism, since only with the capitalist market does the Value form emerge. Marx’s adoption of theories by earlier economists into his framework analysis has therefore very little consequence for his larger argument, whether or not those theories are correct. None of his argument seems to be contradicted by anything I’ve read so far in Debt – though I’m only 1/3 the way through it. Graeber discusses in great detail the various ways that goods change hands within any ‘moral economy’ – namely: ‘communism’, ‘exchange’ and ‘hierarchy’ to use his terminology, though he does this ahistorically and without distinguishing between very different kinds of relationship. He says, for example, “we are all… Feudal lords when dealing with small children”. His purpose is to show that these are both examples of what he calls ‘hierarchical’ (as opposed to ‘exchange’ or ‘communist’) relationships; as a result, he seems unconcerned that we wouldn’t normally expect small children to labour three days a week in the fields to keep us fed. His conceptual apparatus is so baggy that it allows him to make sometimes bizarre claims like this. Maybe he goes on to dig down later in the book but so far I’m unconvinced that it really explains very much.And so far, he has nothing to say about how these ‘moral economies’ come into existence or about the kind of relationships formed to carry out social production within them. It is as though he regards these kinds of relationship as peripheral and as having no bearing on specific methods of distribution. (At one point, he seems to dismiss the whole notion of ‘relationships of production’ – though he does it rather magisterially and without offering any real argument.)All this seems to highlight that Marx was absolutely right to focus on historical systems of production (not distribution) as the material drivers and determiners of any economy. I’m really enjoying Debt: there’s a lot of really interesting and enlightening stuff in it, but so far it is presented within a resolutely idealist framework and as a result it fails to provide a solid foundation for its arguments. I need to finish it and read it again more closely, but so far I can’t really see where it is going and it is leaving me with lots of yes buts…My big disappointment is his habit, alreadly mentioned, of brushing aside opposing (usually socialist) ideas in a few short sentences without offering either argument or evidence to back his claims. In a work which is otherwise so full of argument and evidence that looks very suspicious, and at crucial points pushes his arguments into the realm of personal opinion. I’m hoping to find something more meaty as I continue reading.
