Kim Gentes

In the last four years I have read many thousands of pages of materials in researching an understanding of economics, history and culture. In that time I have read little that was as well-written and insightful as David Graeber's "Debt: the First 5,000 Years".

What initially holds Graeber's work above others is his contrarianism related to the foundations of Adam Smith's capitalism, especially the historical telling of barter as the nascent form of exchange that led eventually to our current modern version of free market capitalism. The author makes the point that debt, rather than barter and money, was the foundational language and system of exchange and has remained so for 5,000 years.  The book claims that Smith's story related to the origins of markets, as found within "The Wealth of Nations", is a contrived fiction in which barter is used as the seed explanation for how currency/money/economy developed.

The grander plot of the book is that reciprocation can expose itself in two primary ways - owing a favor, or owing a debt. As he says poignantly-

the difference between owing someone a favor, and owing someone a debt, is that the amount of a debt can be precisely calculated.1

The book starts off with a modern day controversy about global (specifically, third world) debt. The question is raised about whether paying back debt is a moral question. From this launching point, the author traces back, through his anthropological background, five millennia of understanding human societies and how their systems of debt have become the framework for our understanding and conversations about virtually every aspect of life, especially (and including) morality. Graeber states-

If one looks at the history of debt, then, what one discovers first of all is profound moral confusion. Its most obvious manifestation is that most everywhere, one finds that the majority of human beings hold simultaneously that (1) paying back money one has borrowed is a simple matter of morality, and (2) anyone in the habit of lending money is evil.2

Part of the reason that morality and debt are so closely and importantly linked for the author is that he goes to great lengths to connect the idea that the moral failure surrounding debt is not with the debtor (as current culture suggests) but the with creditor. Graeber makes this important distinction not purely on the present circumstance (in which one person places themselves in debt to another as part of an exchange), but uses historical and anthropological examples (and theory) to expose the fact that for thousands of years debt has been enforced by the most heinous means- from debt peonage, slavery, prostitution, imprisonment, war, violence and more. At the root of the human ability to harm and debase one another over a debt is the fact that debts devalue not just the items exchange, but the very people themselves.

From this perspective, the crucial factor, and a topic that will be explored at length in these pages, is money’s capacity to turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic—and by doing so, to justify things that would otherwise seem outrageous or obscene...3

...The way violence, or the threat of violence, turns human relations into mathematics will crop up again and again over the course of this book.4

The book develops a long and complicated understanding of various ages of exchange in which society went from credit based exchange to coin/currency exchange and back and forth for various reasons. Graeber's work is compelling if not confusing. While he is obviously a brilliant researcher and thinker, he languishes several times in the book to keep himself on task to his earlier promises. Many points that look to be big items drift off aimlessly into side issues and what seems like favorite quotes from the authors research work rather than essential points to the thesis. One of Graeber's important points about exchange/market systems is that they are integrated tightly with government constructs of debt and war.

modern money is based on government debt, and that governments borrow money in order to finance wars.5

All of this actually does matter in his final thinking, but he mars the straight lines of thought by randomly attacking capitalist thinkers like Milton Friedman and Adam Smith because he doesn't like that they said things built on utopian models (though he admits that what they said ended up being true and actually working in the real world).  Graeber is right in one sense- it matters why society thinks the way they do, and how ideas that changed history came into being. But while he is proving his points he meanders unsuccessfully through some issues by pretending that his ability to invert the predicate logic of a phrase (i.e. "what does society owe us?" into "What do we owe society") is appropriately addressing the real issue.  But in the end, his book is much better than the faults he makes in crafting his narrative- because he asks some great questions.

The biggest of these is about the nature of exchange and the nature of value. At the core failure of humanity in relationship to debt is a devaluing not of goods, but of the human person itself. Graeber is at his best when he challenges us to recognize that our history and our current practices have run rampant not because we use one economic system or another (capitalism or such), but because we allow the exchange system to carry us too far -- we allow it to exchange human life for goods. In essence, our systems of debt exchange place a value on human life as a way of equating what can be paid back when the currency is not. This happens in slavery, debt peonage, debtors prisons, and even wage labor.  It is ultimately a very compelling point, since he basis it on solid history and plenty of modern examples.

Some may decry this book as anti-capitalist, but I think Graeber is reaching for a higher ideal than that. I think he is looking for valuing human life right on forward to the present. That we provide protection for wage laborers, abolish debt peonage systems (that still exist in some countries today), even human slavery and worse.  He is also advocating the questioning of some systems that were built on these premise and have become unchallenged (such as new NGO loan systems, World Bank and the IMF), leaving whole nations in essentially debt servitude to multi-national corporations and countries such as the US.

Though he says these things, Graeber is not a raving anti-capitalist. His book is well worth reading. It sparks of brilliance in places and requires serious thought.  The corruption of the value of human life has been enmeshed into the exchange of the marketplace, and for Graeber this must be untangled if we are to make better decisions for the future. For this, he deserves huge praise and an honest reading of the material. 

Amazon Book Link: http://amzn.to/WZkw0w

Review by Kim Gentes

1. Graeber, David (2011-07-12). Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Kindle Location 8120). Random House Inc Clients. Kindle Edition. 

2. Ibid., Kindle Locations 202-204

3. Ibid., Kindle Locations 310-312

4. Ibid., Kindle Locations 320-321

5. Ibid., Kindle Locations 7694-7695