500 pages about how we should forgive everyone's debt...

500 pages about how we should forgive everyone's debt. Not a single word about how we might go about doing that in a fair way

Other urls found in this thread:


Easy. Just forgive it. Nationalize the financial institutions and throw all the major lenders in jail where they belong. That justice centuries in the making.

With revolutionary terror

The vast majority of debt is held by the 1% who's wealth is so vast that if they never earned another penny their great great grandchildren would never have to work in their lives. It's debt that's doing nothing but going straight to the top and leaving everyone else poorer. Just wipe it, everyone who isn't a millionaire would breathe a sigh of relief and live an extra 5 years from lack of stress, and the debt holders wouldn't even feel it. They're greed for ever increasing 0's on their net worth is a fucking mental disease on par with alcoholism or gambling.

There are no people who are dirt poor but own large amounts of debt. All people who own debt are rich. Fuck em.

…an economic/anthropological/historical study of debt as it has emerged in the world economy. Just like Kapital was an economic/anthropological/historical study of capitalism.

Neither suggest very many "fair ways" to deal with the problem, because that isn't the point of the book.

Although, Graeber is pretty fucking clear in his advocacy of gift economies i.e. abolition of value form i.e. communism.

No, he hasn't written down a step by step manual for debt cancellation, but then, he has also been heavily involved in global campaigning for debt cancellation among other things, so perhaps have a look into his work there.

Start by jailing the entire executive work force of every medium to large bank in america and then work your way from there.

Read Graeber's book for my senior thesis and met him at Occupy. To be honest, the one thing which killed it for me was his crypto-neo-Kantianism; i.e. his entire work is an attack on historical materialism, doesn't account for class, and argues that "debt" has always existed with the only thing changing through time is our *perception* of it. Very PoMo.

But yeah he is just another erev rav dummy similar to Bookchin. Klal Yisrael doesn't need him.

only he describes how debt is fundamental in cementing class relations over 5000 years
so he argues that debt has almost always existed, which it has, and that our relation to debt and therefore our perceptions of debt has changed… which they have. One simple example being that most peoples debts are to a bank now, rather than their neighbours. Given that he describes in detail, as a historical process how debt has developed and changed, it is pretty innocuous that he also describes how our perception of it has changed, actually.

yeh okay Jordan Peterson I'm sure you've actually read post modernist texts also

A distinguished academic but I'm sure you know better.

Heinrich makes a similar critique in his abridgement of Capital - that his work is quite anti-materialist because it's just another simplistic "quip" to explain history. It's no better than someone writing "Nutritional Diets: The First 5000 Years", because it dislodge debt from the mode of production

He comes over as a bit of a charlatan tbh

Yep sure hes shit

Debt has not always existed, and claiming all that changes is perception of it is idealist garbage.

read the book fam. It really has. And the perception part of it is important, as a very many cultures have considered life a debt they owe to the creator or whatever. Just because there is a material function of a condition, does not mean the cultural condition just not also exist, and at no point does he place one over the other, and Marx himself knew both fed into each other.

its a good thing that isn't what he does, thats just what butthurt shoehorners would like you to think, in fact, in an extremely materialist way, he describes how these "primordial debts" to our gods, tribe, neighbours, family, which used to be conceptual, have developed, due to the changes in material conditions such as the expansion in size of communities, into codified material debts, and the effect that has had on economy and class, in a global context


What is it with these retards on here today?

When I read the book, the argument that I understood was that debt emerged with division of labour in primitive societies, and it was only a means of making sure that everyone contributes to society. It was not of course calculated in terms of money.

The amount of class analysis was sufficient. Maybe my appetite is broken from reading few books lacking any class analysis at all so it makes me grateful for at least any.

Yeah basically this.
But the primordial debt is more like eternal gratitude to creator or mother than monetary debt in its strict sense.


You guys are fucking retarded honestly.

no proof
no reason as to why

I hate Graeber for being an anarchist and shilling the Kurds but that's about it. His theory is a materialist theory, materialism isn't Marxism though. You can't denigrate him for not talking about something he has no business talking about in the first place.

Nah, the lenders and the system that produced the conditions necessitating debt weren't fair to begin with. Fuck them, hit em where it hurts.

No one ever writes about the "how" part because it involves saying things that will get you put on the no-fly list.

Are you sure you aren't already on a list, user?