babyfinland posted:
Graeber's been making the alternative media circuit (Democracy Now, Russia Today, etc) and all the interviews are pretty much the same. He briefly outlines his theory and then its relevance to the current credit crisis. The best one of them I think is the Against the Grain one or the Russia Today one that's called Great Minds or something like that.

it has a lot of relevance though because it's something that normally gets more or less censored. apparently he knew Michael Hudson even before he published the book and Hudson is always talking about how discussion of debt gets suppressed:

http://www.paecon.net/PAEReview/issue57/Hudson57.pdf

In a 1934 article Keynes noted that anyone who did not accept the idea that economies adjusted automatically to any external disturbance – in particular to debt problems – was labeled a crank. He placed himself in their ranks, and his General Theory acknowledged the writings of the Swiss-German economist Silvio Gesell as representative of this approach. On the other hand, he noted: “The strength of the self-adjusting school depends on its having behind it almost the whole body of organised economic thinking and doctrine of the last hundred years. This is a formidable power. . . . It has vast prestige and a more far-reaching influence than is obvious. For it lies behind the education and the habitual modes of thought, not only of economists, but of bankers and businessmen and civil servants and politicians of all parties.”

as Graeber stresses, we're used to seeing all of this as normal because it has become institutionalized. the efforts of Thomas Aquinas to reconcile Christianity and commerce are useful here:

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1967&chapter=124163&layout=html&Itemid=27

Article IV.—Is any one bound to restore what he has not taken away?

R. Whatever causes loss to another may be considered to take away from him so much as the loss amounts to; for according to the Philosopher, loss means some one having less than he ought to have. And therefore a man is bound to restore the amount of loss that he has caused. But there are two ways of suffering loss. One way is by a person being deprived of what he actually had; and such loss must always be made good by paying back an equal amount. Thus if one pulls down another man’s house, he is bound to restitution to the extent of the value of the house. Another way of causing loss to a neighbour is by hindering him from attaining what he was in the way of having. Such loss need not be made good by the payment of an equal amount, because the potential having of a thing is less than the actual having; and he who is in the way of attaining has the thing only virtually or potentially; and therefore, if restitution were so made to him as that he should have the thing in act and present reality, he would have that which was taken away restored to him, not simply, but with advantages, which is not necessary to perfect restitution. But he who took it away is bound to make some restitution according to the condition of persons and affairs.

§ 1. He who has sown seed in his land has not yet got the harvest actually, but only virtually; and in like manner he who has money has not yet got gain actually, but only virtually; and both the one and the other acquisition may in many ways be hindered.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1967&chapter=124193&layout=html&Itemid=27

Article II.—Is it lawful to ask a consideration of another kind in return for a loan of money?

R. According to the Philosopher, everything counts for money that has a money price. And therefore whoever by agreement, tacit or express, takes for a loan of money anything else that has a money price, he sins against justice as if he had taken money. But if he takes a consideration of this nature, not as exacting it, nor on any bond, tacit or express, but as a gratuitous gift, he does not sin: because even before he had lent the money he might lawfully have taken a gratuitous gift, and his condition is not made the worse for his having lent it. But as for compensation in the shape of things that have no money price, as the good-will and love of the borrower, that he may lawfully exact.

§ 1. The lender may stipulate with the borrower without sin for compensation for his loss in being deprived of anything that he ought to have: for this is not to sell the use of the money, but to avoid loss; and it may be that the receiver of the loan escapes a greater loss than the giver incurs: in that case the receiver of the loan compensates the other’s loss with profit to himself. But the lender cannot stipulate for compensation for his loss in respect of his not gaining upon the money; because he ought not to sell what he has not yet got and may in many ways be hindered from getting.

§ 2. Return for a good deed done you, may be made in two ways: in one way as the discharge of a debt of justice, to which you may be bound by formal stipulation; and this debt is fixed according to the amount of the benefit received. And therefore he who has received a loan of money, or of any other like thing, the use of which is the consumption of it, is not bound to return more than the amount of the loan received: hence it is against justice if he is bound by stipulation to return more. The obligation to return a good deed done you, may exist in another way as a debt of friendship, wherein the affection with which it has been conferred is more to be considered than the amount of benefit done. Such a debt cannot be reduced to a civil contract, as that brings in an element of constraint, which renders the return no longer spontaneous.

§ 5. Whoever lends money, transfers the dominion of the money to the borrower. The latter therefore holds it at his own risk, and is bound to restore the sum in its entirety: wherefore the lender ought not to exact any more. But he who entrusts his money to a merchant or manufacturer in the way of partnership, does not transfer the dominion of the money to him, but it remains his: so that at his risk it is that the merchant trades with it, or the manufacturer works upon it: and therefore at that rate he may lawfully demand a share of the profits thence arising as from his own property.

this specifically:

"But the lender cannot stipulate for compensation for his loss in respect of his not gaining upon the money; because he ought not to sell what he has not yet got and may in many ways be hindered from getting."

the debt is contracted before the surplus value that will go towards paying it back is generated. suffice it to say, the rate of profit stands little chance against the interest, which need not be produced by anything and simply emerges from thin air. moving up to the aggregate level, what the lender gains in interest can also be lent back out again and grow at a purely geometric rate. hence capitalism is driven to a significant extent by debt as well as material expansion.

Marx's work on this was incomplete and somewhat ambiguous, leading some Marxists to paradoxically rationalize what is in fact quasi-autonomous from the material relations. yes it is an essential feature of capitalism, but not that one. this would also be a significant consideration in calculating the rate of exploitation as well

elektrenai posted:

gyrofry posted:
this guy was just interviewed on against the grain/kpfa haven't listened to it yet though:

http://www.kpfa.org/archive/id/73955

the actual interview is great but unfortunately like 75% of this is a Pacifica pledge drive

Hey ElEKETRANAI, its your old friend from the past NIKI FISHSTIXXX