Debt: The First 5,000 Years

paperback, 544 pages

Published Nov. 27, 2012 by Melville House.

ISBN:: 978-1-61219-129-4

(1 review)

The author shows that before there was money, there was debt. For 5,000 years humans have lived in societies divided into debtors and creditors. For 5,000 years debt and debt forgiveness have been at the center of political debates, laws and religions. The words “guilt,” “sin,” and “redemption” come from ancient debates about debt. These terms and the ideas of debt shape our most basic ideas of right and wrong. source

7 editions

Jessica reviewed Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber

None

1 star

I didn't finish this book, so I will refrain from rating it. I decided to put this book down because he makes huge claims and backs them up with anecdotes... if he backs them up at all.

For example, what if Graeber told you that the pursuit of "Mythic Communism" (an egalitarian, stateless, classless society, AKA communism) has "done enormous damage to humanity"? What damage? Don't worry about it. Trust me, bro. Just throw the idea in the trash!

My other issue with Graeber's work is his blatant refusal to engage seriously with Marxist theories, intentionally redefining them and then using them in facile ways. Communism is the principle of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability," Graeber says. The means of production is unimportant to whether something is communist, Graeber says. Capitalism is based on communism. Redistribution of wealth is not based on communism... …

I didn't finish this book, so I will refrain from rating it. I decided to put this book down because he makes huge claims and backs them up with anecdotes... if he backs them up at all.

For example, what if Graeber told you that the pursuit of "Mythic Communism" (an egalitarian, stateless, classless society, AKA communism) has "done enormous damage to humanity"? What damage? Don't worry about it. Trust me, bro. Just throw the idea in the trash!

My other issue with Graeber's work is his blatant refusal to engage seriously with Marxist theories, intentionally redefining them and then using them in facile ways. Communism is the principle of "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability," Graeber says. The means of production is unimportant to whether something is communist, Graeber says. Capitalism is based on communism. Redistribution of wealth is not based on communism... it is based on violence and war! (Graeber says.)

Using a term that typically means one thing to mean another thing, with clarification that the definition has been changed within the specific context, is sometimes necessary to keep things concise. This isn't what Graeber does.

Does Graeber think that his audience is stupid?