Ingo Stutzle on Greaber's Debt

The last few years of crisis politics were a prime example of how on the one hand profits are privatized,
while on the other hand losses are socialized. The deep crisis of capitalism has left in its wake a
sovereign debt crisis. The answer of the political class has been fiscal consolidation. Finance capitals
claims on returns are guaranteed and collected by the state. The invisible hand of the market is joined
by the visible fist of the state. truggles over state finances will be central battlefields in the next few
years.
That is no doubt the reason why the publication of !avid "raebers book Debt: The First 5,000 Years
was greeted with euphoria, even by the bourgeois press. #n the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Sonntagszeitung, Frank chirrmacher wrote that "raeber $opens the readers eyes to whats going on
right now,% and furthermore, $"raebers text is a revelation, since one is no longer forced to react to the
system itself within the system of apparent economic rationality.% Der Spiegel opines& $his book on the
nature of debt and its economic and moral basis is already regarded as an anti'capitalist standard work
of the new social movements which have emerged during the world economic crisis.% This is in
reference to the (ccupy protests. )ven the chief economist of the !eutsche *ank group reviewed
"rabers book positively in the monthly economic policy journal Wirtschaftsienst +,-./0.1 with
regard to the 2uestion of the future of central banking. ince 3ay ./0., the book has been available in
a "erman edition.
4romises *ecome !ebts
!avid "raeber, anthropologist and anarchist, is a 4rofessor at "oldsmiths 5ollege of the 6niversity of
7ondon. 6ntil .//8, he taught )thnology at the ivy league university 9ale. For political reasons, his
contract was not renewed : "raeber is a political activist. ince the protests against the ;orld
)conomic Forum in <ew 9ork 5ity in .//., he has been an important figure. The role that he has
played in the (ccupy movement underscores this& not only has he participated, but he has published
books on the movement.
"raebers point of departure is the 2uestion as to why in capitalism the human appreciation of morality
and justice is reduced to an economic 2uantity and the language of a business transaction : debt. The
moral'economic double meaning of the word $debt% in many languages is striking. =ow have moral
obligations and promises between people become an economic debt, and what does that mean for
society>
For "raeber, debts constitute a promise : which is to say, a moral obligation : which also existed
before capitalism and independent of money. 3oney makes the mutual promise between people into
something impersonal and transferable& debt. =uman cooperation, community, and possible forms of
renegotiating promises are thus disturbed, existing relations of power and domination become
cemented.
#n this way, money makes it possible to $turn morality into a matter of impersonal arithmetic% with
which promises can be balanced against each other. ? settlement by means of debt cancellation,
renegotiation, or non'commodified exchange relationships +gift giving or donation1, as was still
prevalent in pre'capitalist societies, is thus no longer possible.
"raeber thus concentrates upon a classical 2uestion of political economy, with which the book also
begins& what is money> #n the first part, "raeber correctly criticizes the theoretical mainstream of
economics. )conomics textbooks always begin with barter, an exchange of products without the
mediation of money. )conomists usually proceed from unhistorical models in which people pursue
their $natural dispositions%, among others their drive to barter and exchange.
The State Invents Money
"raeber opposes all this with a historical argument. =e proceeds from the assumption that credit and
therefore the relationship between creditor and debtor historically precedes money. $The standard
account of monetary history is precisely backwards%, namely the se2uence from exchange to the
discovery of money to the developed credit system. "raeber further hones his argument& money is not
only a thing, but a means of making things commensurable. *ut exactly what is measured or
compared> "raebers simple answer is& debt. 3oney and credit +that is to say, promises to pay1 are for
him de facto the same.
"raeber reconstructs the genesis of money from promises through various historical phases. From the
time of early urban civilizations +)gypt, 3esopotamia, 5hina1 around @/// to A// *.5., through the
3iddle ?ges +B//'0,C/ ?.!.1 to the $?ge of "reat 5apitalist )mpires% from 0,C/ +to 0D801.
#n "raebers account, the state is responsible for the emergence of money, which was introduced in
order to pay soldiers. The state thus at the same time also establishes the $currency% in which it collects
taxes and generalizes the use of money. imultaneously, markets arise alongside barracks and mass war
production, and in turn money plays an increasingly important role in these markets. ?ccording to
"raeber, state force, money-credit, and the dominance of markets are tightly interwoven.
"raebers account exhibits a rather vague understanding of capitalism, and in accordance with the
anarchist tradition assigns a dominant role to the state. ?t the same time, this role is subordinated to the
economy of obligation. The same is the case for other characteristics of capitalism. 3onetary
phenomena have existed long before factories and wage labor. =owever, one searches in vain in
"raebers work for an exact determination of what capitalism is. (ne characteristic he offers is endless
growth and the production of $an endlessly expanding volume of material goods%. ?lso central is the
states promotion of an $economy of interest%E the history of capitalism is the history of $the gradual
transformation of moral networks by the intrusion of the impersonal : and often vindictive : power of
the state.% ?gainst this background, its no wonder that "raeber concludes that markets and money will
continue to exist after capitalism.
#ts not difficult to recognize that "raebers understanding of capitalism is not oriented toward 3arxs.
=owever, whoever struggles against capitalist relations should nonetheless have an idea of what it is he
or she is against. #n the future, this must be a concern within the radical left. #t is at this point that a
criti2ue of "raebers book should be applied.
Relations Without Classes
#n principle, "raeber proceeds from the starting point of a socioeconomic relationship that generates
interest : the relationship between creditor and debtorE but class relations, the relation between wage
labor and capital, and the form of production are not at the center of his focus. Thus, numerous
relationships that characterize capitalism become indistinct in "raebers account.
Farious actors engage in credit relationships. !ebtors can be states, wage laborers, or businesses : for
different reasons. The state, because it does not collect enough revenue from taxes or because it
nationalizes bank lossesE wage laborers, because they dont earn enoughE businesses, in order to make
as much profit as possible. The perspective of credit, however, causes them to all look the sameE the
reason for the credit relationship that arises appears irrelevant.
This blurring of social relations is also apparent in the categories of money, credit, and capital, which in
"raebers conception are indistinguishable from one another. ?ccording to 3arx, on the other hand,
they are forms that mediate 2uite distinct relations. 3oney completes a promise to pay, it is therefore
itself the $general e2uivalent.% 3oney is accepted and used by all, whether wage laborer or capitalist. #t
mediates commodity exchange. 7abor'power is also compensated in the form of money.
#f money is supposed to be credit, as "raeber thinks, that raises the 2uestion as to what $real% act of
monetary payment it supposedly refers. 5apital is valorized value. ;hen money is spent as capital, it
always presupposes a class relation. 3oney is spent with the goal of making a profit. ?t the same time,
this relation presupposes the existence of people who, free of both means of production and of personal
ties of dependency, have nothing to sell but their labor'power. ;hen capital takes the form of a
property claim such as a stock, bond, or another security, 3arx refers to it as $fictitious capital%. For
"raeber, its again merely credit. ince he ascribes no relevance to these distinctions, all cats are grey
to him.
Cancel All Debt
The same is true for his historical observations. "raeber does not recognize what money and credit
mean in pre'capitalist societies, what distinguishes them from each other. =e works with
trans'historical phenomena, without raising 2uestions as to their historical'social form. This is a trait he
shares with the economic mainstream that he otherwise criticizes. "raeber writes that systems of credit
and accounting are as old as civilization itself. =e admits that he finds it difficult to distinguish between
gift'giving and creditE but this is only a problem if one discusses these forms of social intercourse
independent of their respective dominant forms of production, when one does not clarify exactly what
is characteristic of capitalism, what makes it capitalistic and thus what distinguishes it from other social
formations.
=istorically speaking, a social obligation is not the same thing as credit, and even credit is not the same
thing as credit. This observation can be found in 3arxs work& $There was borrowing and lending in
earlier situations as well, and usury is even the oldest of the antediluvian forms of capital. *ut
borrowing and lending no more constitute creit than working constitutes inustrial labour or free
!age labour.% +"runrisse, Ghttp&--www.marxists.org-archive-marx-works-0AC8-grundrisse-ch0/.htm1
;hat does 3arx mean by that> 6nder pre'capitalist relations, in which production was conducted to
meet needs, credit was a means of impoverishment. #n contrast, under capitalism, credit is a means of
augmenting money : of profit maximization. imilarly, industrial labor +or factories in the case of
"raeberHs book1 cannot be simply identified with capitalist profit logic.
?lthough it is often asserted that a historical approach is able to show that something existed before
capitalism, and that one can learn from history, the differences between capitalist and pre'capitalist
societies are often obliterated +and not just in "raeberHs book1 if one does not first clarify what is
specific about capitalism, in order to use that as the starting point for delving into history : and not the
other way around.
0
?ccording to "raeber, every revolution begins with debt that society can no longer repay. $5ancel the
debts and redistribute the land.% This sentence by the historian of anti2uity 3oses Finley is the only
revolutionary program, recurring throughout the centuries. ?nd most revolutions were preceded by
+excessive1 debt. =owever, before we can think about revolution, we should agree first on what exactly
is supposed to be revolutionized. !ebt cancellation is indeed a correct demand, but only when the
social relations that constantly bring about indebtedness are abolished as well. #t seems difficult to
reach an agreement with "raeber on exactly what those social relations are.
ADDENDUM
Iust one more preliminary note, since the battle lines of J3arxistK vs. J?narchistK were all too 2uickly
drawn. 3any points of my criti2ue of the conceptual and theoretical approach of !ebt also apply to the
historical work of 3arxists. #n their case, the forces of production or class struggle are the
trans'historical constants. For that reason, they are also JahistoricalK, despite their historical
self'conception. 3ore on that shortly.
For these reasons, and in the hope for better understanding, # have re2uested that the addendum also be
translated. o #d like to here say Jmany thanksK.
The debate around my criti2ue of "raebers book led inevitably away from the book itself to an under'
standing of how the theoretical and methodological preconditions look. ? different understanding of
3arx will also be evident, for example on the basis of the references in the "rundrisse to history and
conceptual presentation and analysis. 3arx argues in the so'called Jchapter on methodK& the population
is an abstraction, although it appears to be something concrete, if one does not speak of the classes of
which it is comprised. =owever, these classes are also an Jempty phraseK +3arx1 if one does not name
the elements upon which they are based. ?gainst this background, 3arx even asserts that JlaborK is a
modern category, because it expresses indifference against a particular type of labor. To put it more
pointedly& one cannot say that JlaborK occurred in pre'capitalist societies, this is inexact or incorrect.
Lather, carpentry, forging, etc. occurred.
JThis example of labour shows strikingly how even the most abstract categories, despite their
validityMprecisely because of their abstractnessMfor all epochs, are nevertheless, in the specific cha'
racter of this abstraction, themselves likewise a product of historic relations, and possess their full vali'
dity only for and within these relations.K +3arx, "rundrisse, 0/C1
Terms like population, class, or even money and credit, are therefore only concretely determined if they
have been theoretically penetrated as expressions of multiple determinations and relationships. Thats
important to 3arx because otherwise the historical specificity of capitalist relations is projected onto
the past, and only the relations of modern capitalism are perceived there. Thus ?dam mith perceives
the human Jpropensity to truck, barter, and exchangeK everywhere in history +or 3arxists always per'
ceive the development of the forces of production and class struggle1. *ut exchange is not a basic
human needE rather, it is a form of social intercourse which is the expression and result of the reign of
the capitalist mode of production.
3arx generalizes this methodological approach in that he points out that Jbourgeois economy thus
supplies the key to the ancient, etc.K, and that Jone can understand tribute, tithe, etc., if one is ac2uain'
ted with ground rent. *ut one must not identify them.K ?gainst this background, it makes sense to say
that money is not simply money, but rather that it has specific historical and social preconditions. That
is not scholasticism, of which "raeber accuses me, but rather the attempt to anchor the writing of
history in terms of social theory.
3y criticism that "raebers approach is JahistoricalK should be understood in this context. (f course
!ebt is a historical book. #t is ahistorical in the sense that it proclaims a social relationship +promise1 in
its abstraction to be a transhistorical phenomenon, its historically distinct guises are only described, not
analyzed. ? break only seems to occur with money. ;ith money, promises become transferable and
impersonal.
<ow to deal with two points in which the difference might be made clearer with the help of the histori'
cal material.
"raeber concentrates upon a classical 2uestion of political economy& what is money> =e sharply critici'
zes the mainstream and in the first part of the book he critically picks apart economic theory : justifia'
bly so. 3ainstream economics usually proceeds from the assumption of unhistorical and fictional
societies in which people pursue their natural inclinations, among which is their Jpropensity to truck,
barter, and exchange.K "raeber correctly criticizes that economics textbooks always begin with barter,
a simple exchange of products without money.. #n his argument, "raeber discusses mith, 3enger,
Ievons, Neynes, Nnapp, amuelson, ?ristotle, and ?glietta, among others.
The person that "raeber doesnt criticize or discuss at the beginning is 3arx, even though the latter
also begins with commodity exchange : or so one would think. ?nd it is exactly here that "raebers
fundamental problem becomes apparent. =e amasses a lot of historical and anthropological material,
but does not penetrate it theoretically and conceptually. To do so re2uires a theory of the capitalist
mode of production, criteria for what characterizes capitalism : an analysis and criti2ue of social form.
#t is precisely such an analysis and criti2ue that 3arx formulates in 5apital, where at the beginning, by
means of a conceptual construction of a relationship between commodities, that commodities can first
be related to one another as values by means of money.@ #t is money that allows a universally valid,
social relationship between different acts of commodity'producing labor. #t is money that constitutes
the total labor of society within the context of a society of independent private producers. 3arx conti'
nues this analysis not only to trace the constitutive relationship between commodity and money, but
also in order to arrive at further categories +among others, capital, interest, etc.1.
This systematic approach makes it possible for 3arx to distinguish between the relationship of econo'
mic categories within the framework of the capitalist mode of production on the one hand and in
history on the other., 3arx emphasizes a number of times that the historical se2uence +or appearance1
of categories does not coincide with their relationship to one another within capitalism. This analysis
and criti2ue of categories makes it possible to reconstruct the historical process of the constitution of
capitalism and to point out differences between social formations. This can be more exactly demonstra'
ted by means of a few points.
The 3arket and the )mergence of 5apitalism
The historian )llen 3eiksins ;ood +0DDD1 demonstrates +with reference to the so'called *renner
debate on the historical emergence of capitalism1 that the logic of capitalism developed in the )nglish
countryside, as an economic imperative emerged from the mere possibility of the market. )ven before
the final expropriation of the direct producers, as described by 3arx in 5apital, the increase in the pro'
ductivity of labor +and therefore of competitiveness1 became for the producers as well as for landlords
more important than forms of Jpolitical exploitationK, meaning the extraction of surplus labor by
means of direct force.C )conomic forms, such as competition, increasingly came to dominate the
non'economic ones and initiated a dynamic of growth that ultimately displaced many small producers
and thus freed up producers. This was consummated against the background of the specific conditions
in )ngland.
(ther authors have shown in turn that it was first the pressure of economic competition from )ngland
that imposed the capitalist logic upon other countries.B <either mass production for states waging war,
nor expanding trade +in the #talian city'states or later =olland1 were decisive for the imposition of the
capitalist mode of production.8 This is also the case for pre'industrial mass production, meaning the
material'organizational side of work organization, which "raeber already identifies with capital. 3ore
on that in a moment.
The State and War
"raeber does not tell any any false or nonsensical stories. That can be seen in the example of the role of
money in connection with the emergence of armies of mercenaries. Lather, the historical material pre'
sented by "raeber raises the 2uestion of how history should be examined, and what conclusions can be
drawn from the examples.A 3arx also asserts the connection between money and mercenary armies
cited by "raeber. =is friend Friedrich )ngels wrote the entry for the word J?rmyK in 0AC8 for the The
<ew ?merican 5yclopOdia, and sent 3arx a copy. ?fter reading it, 3arx wrote to )ngels +eptember
.Dth, 0AC81&
JP the history of the army demonstrates the rightness of our views as to the connection between the
productive forces and social relations. ?ltogether, the army is of importance in economic development.
).g. it was in the army of ?nti2uity that the salaire QwagesR was first fully developed. 7ikewise the
peculium castrense in Lome, the first legal form according recognition to the movable property of
others than fathers of families. 7ikewise the guild system in the corporation of the fabri. =ere too the
first use of machinery on a large scale. )ven the special value of metals and their use as money would
seem to have been based originally QPR on their significance in war. ?gain, the division of labour wit'
hin a branch was first put into practice by armies. ?ll this, moreover, a very striking epitome of the
whole history of civil societies. #f you ever have the time, you might work the thing out from that point
of view.K +3)5; ,/, 0AB1D
o even before ;erner ombart +0D0@1 and "raeber, these historical facts were known to 3arx. *ut
what do they mean theoretically and analytically and for the 2uestion +concerning social domination1 of
the capitalist mode of production>
?lthough the military and mercenaries brought forth many elements of the later bourgeois society,
these elements are not a sufficient reason for the fact that the capitalist mode of production could
impose itself as the dominant mode of production. <or do they, as individual phenomena +or in total1
constitute elements of capitalism.0/
3arx explicated this idea in a letter to (tjetschestwennyje apiski, in which he points out that the for'
merly free peasants of Lome +4lebeans1 were confronted with +after the expropriation of their means of
production and subsistence1 a newly emerged landed property and large money fortunes. JThus it
appears that the paradigmatic situation has been created which in ;estern )urope led to the historical
constitution of the specific relations of wage'labor and capitalK +;olf .//B& 08.1.00 ?nd yet, the
JLoman proletarians became, not wage labourers but a mob of do'nothingsK and the capitalist mode of
production was unable to impose itself.0. The reason was not the state of the productive forces, but
rather the different historical milieus +environments1, which despite similarities led to completely dis'
tinct developments +ibid.1.
? further example would be the ?thens of the Cth 5entury Q*5R, where Thetes managed to avoid com'
plete wage'dependency Jthrough the democratic imposition of their public assistance with daily allo'
wances and work assignmentsK. (r 5hina, where the bureaucracy prevented a situation where landless
peasants confronted exploitative capitals +7orenz 0D88& B8f. u. 8/ff.1
?gainst this background, it can be established that it is not sufficient to assert that certain phenomena
+such as money, industrial production, credit, etc.1 already existed JearlierK. ;hat is decisive is rather
how their relationship to one another is constituted, whether this relationship is generated by the capita'
list mode of production, and which specific form these phenomena have accordingly assumed. That is
ultimately the preconditon for a situation in which profit +as the immediate aim of production1 imposes
a dynamic and relations that can be described as capitalist. 4recisely if one wishes to learn from history
whether and how there can be a life after capitalism, the 2uestion of how one regards the pre'history of
capitalism is not at all irrelevant.
The Worker Free in a Double Sense
"raeber emphasizes particularly that the worker free in a double sense only plays a dominant role in
3arxs Jas ifK theory : as opposed to reality. (f course reality is different, since 3arxs object in 5api'
tal is not empirical reality anymore than it is the )nglish capitalism of the 0Dth 5entury. 3ichael =ein'
rich writes&
J;hat 3arx depicts in 5apital are the capitalistic aspects of capitalism, that is, that what differentia'
tes this mode of production from all pre'capitalist modes of production. (ne of these is that exploita'
tion can be brought off without a direct relationship of force having to exist between those who exploit
and those who are exploited. Force can confine itself to the Sforce without a subjectT +cf. =eide "ers'
tenberger .//81 of the bourgeois state, which forces bourgeoisie as well as proletariat to obey the same
rules& every person is free and e2ual, property is secured, the usual form of association is the contract,
and a failure to observe it is threatened with sanctions. Lelations of exploitation between une2ual par'
ties and exploitation of the non'free exist in all pre'capitalist modes of production. *ut the fact that
there is no necessary contradiction between personal freedom and juridical e2uality on the one hand
and exploitation on the other is principally new. *ut historical capitalism does not coincide with this
ideal average, and is rather an agglomeration of capitalistic and non'capitalistic elements. *ut in order
to analyze these connections, rather than merely describe them, one must have a concept of that which
is Scapitalistic.TK0@
For 3arx, wage'labor is the generalization of slavery in the form of the compulsion to labor :
wage'labor. This is a depersonalized compulsion, which at the same time generates a specific
appearance of freedom, but not in the sense of JideologyK as "raeber writes. The contrast between free
and unfree labor misses the point of 3arxs intention of working out the form of exploitation, and is
itself the result of the imposition of wage'labor as the hegemonic form of exploitation. 5linical ;as'
teman also points this out in a review of "raebers !ebt in the magazine 3ute&
J"raeber illustrates the Ssecret scandalT Qthe existence of unfree laborR revelation with references to
4eter 7inebaughs The 7ondon =anged, but 7inebaughs great book is all about the way capital Sorga'
nised aroundT formally free labour draws in and feeds on extraneous social practices, with or without
full assimilation into the SfreeT wage system. The idea that the organisation of capital reaches only as
far as its formal perfection curiously mirrors the most factory'centric workerism. The scandal of
capitals perpetual unwaged component is much like that of ?pples failure to build physical computers
in an enlarged 4alo ?lto garage, or a mafia boss who declines to shoot people personally.K0,
#n her book =egel, =aiti, and 6niversal =istory, usan *uck'3orss takes up this 2uestion and agrees
with 7inebaugh-Ledeker +The 3any'=eaded =ydra1 and !avid *rion !avis +The 4roblem of lavery
in the ?ge of Levolution1. The act of distancing from unfree labor was constitutive for the etablishment
of wage'labor and amounted to a defeat for the workersT movement.
5riticizing 3arx for neglecting JunfreeK labor misses the point. #n 5apital, he demonstrates how
fluidly and changeable the various forms of exploitaiton shade into one another& the enslavement of
children, the use of patriarchal violence for womens labor, etc.
;age labor manages to give forced labor a hegemonic form : which is demonstrated in the case of the
slave uprisings +above all in =aiti1, and which caused )ngland, in its drive for hegemony, to become a
JchampionK for the formal abolition of slavery, for economic reasons among others.
;ith the imposition of the capitalist mode of production and wage'labor, slavery also undergos a meta'
morphosis.0C #t obtains a new role from the domination of the capitalist mode of production. The domi'
nance of the capitalist mode of production leads to a new pattern of legitimation +accompanied by a
change in the nature of racism1 and political and economic reproduction of unfree labor. This is again
demonstrated early on in aint !omingue +present'day =aiti1 , where more than @-,ths of foodstuffs
were not cultivated by the slaves themselves, but imported as commodities from France. #n classical
anti2uity, slaves still provided for their own reproduction. The assertion that unfree labor remains
dominant blinds one to the new configuration of social relations of domination and exploitation.
Good Old Money
3oney is also not always JmoneyK in all societies, and does not always assume a constitutive role for
society or the societal division of labor to the same extent. The historian Iac2ues 7e "off demonstrates
this in an exemplary way with regard to the 3iddle ?ges. The Uminence grise of 3edieval research
emphasizes that until the 3iddle ?ges, there was no Jno unified termK for money. 9et exactly that is
what "raeber suggests. =e thus projects a modern conception of money into the past, and thus flattens
out differences and distinctions.
J3oney was a reality with which the society of the 3iddle ?ges increasingly had to reckon, and
which began to take on the forms uni2ue to it in modernity, but the people the of the 3iddle ?ges,
including the merchants, clerics, and theologists, never had a clear, unified conception of what we
understand today by this term.K
*ut if money as a social reality and as a unified concept cannot be JappliedK to pre'capitalist societies,
the same must be valid for credit, which is "raebers most important concept. ?nd it is against this
background that "raebers central thesis begins to crumble, namely, the idea that credit preceeds
money.
Borrowing, Lending, and redit
"raebers thesis that credit relations are prior to money also contradicts the economic historian discus'
sed by "raeber, Narl 4olanyi. 3oney can first become a means of payment, meaning a promise of pay'
ment +credit1, when it is generally accepted as a means of exchange +0A@1. 3oney must be able to con'
clude a promise to pay. ? Jstatus'free moneyK is re2uired for this. ;hat does that mean> (nly when
JmoneyK does not follow the logic and structure of a society predicated upon personal relationships of
domination and dependency can we speak of money in the modern sense, which expresses a specific
social 2uality.0B
This is where 4olanyi meets 3arx. ? 2uantification +through money1 has to have an underlying com'
mon 2uality. This common, that is to say, unified social 2uality first exists only with the dominance of
the capitalist mode of production. #t is commodity production that first e2uates all human labor, and
only in commodity production do they count as socially e2ual : money mediates this e2ualization and
is at the same time its objective expression. #n turn, the precondition for this is the Jlabor free in a dou'
ble senseK of wage'labor, which is subsumed to the command of capital.08
This is also why credit in pre'capitalist societies cannot simply be e2uated with capitalist credit.0A
?ccording to 4olanyi, in pre'capitalist societies Jobligations are as a rule, specific, and their fulfillment
is a 2ualitative affair, thus lacking an essential of payment : its 2uantitative character.K
4olanyi continues&
J#nfringement of sacral and social obligations, whether toward god, tribe, kin, totem, village,
age'group, caste, or guild, is repaired not through payment but by action of the right 2uality. ;ooing,
marrying, avoiding, dancing, singing, dressing, feasting, lamenting, lacerating, or even killing oneself
may occur in discharge of an obligation, but they are not for that reason payments.K
o a social obligation is not credit, and even credit is not credit. 3arx also worked this out in the
"rundrisse& JThere was borrowing and lending in earlier situations as well, and usury is even the oldest
of the antediluvian forms of capital. *ut borrowing and lending no more constitute credit than working
constitutes industrial labour or free wage labour.K ;hat does 3arx mean by this> Iust as manufacturing
or industrially organized labor, or the division of labor, does not establish or assume free wage'labor
and thus the capitalist logic and form of production, borrowing and lending also do not e2ual credit.0D
<ow ;hat>
"raebers book has hit like a bomb : especially in "ermany. ?ccording to "raeber, the
)nglish'language original sold B/,/// copies between Iuly ./00 and 3ay ./0.. The "erman transla'
tion already sold @/,/// copies in its first week and has had its seventh printing already. #n ./0. alone,
four books by "raeber were translated into "erman.
The "erman press is beside itself../ The only person to beat up on "raebers book so far has been Lai'
ner =ank in the Frankfurter ?llgemeine onntagszeitung of 3ay 0@th, ./0...0 <obody has yet defea'
ted ?dam mith, according to =ank. This confident tone shows one thing above all& the bourgeois class
in its self'confidence informed by neoclassical economics, does not see itself as being called into 2ues'
tion. ?fter all, 3arx was not the last to criticize miths theory and premises... =anks review is cute
primarily because it does not leave out a single clichU of bourgeois phrase'mongering& humans are cha'
racterized by a natural tendency to truck, barter, and exchange, they are selfish, and money was develo'
ped as a means of simplifying barter..@
?fter "raebers book was not only repeatedly discussed in the F?V, but an excerpt was even printed,
Frank had to leave an odor mark& he accuses "raeber of a Jhatred for creditorsKE he attacks the left
anthropologist, but his actual target is the radical left in "reece around ?lexis Tsipras. "raeber suppo'
sedly instrumentalizes his Jsources ideologically +in the service of a worldview1 and not in a scholarly
mannerK according to =ank..,
#n the leftist weekly Freitag, teffen Fogel sees things differently& "raebers book Jis the enlightening
as well as engaged book of a political thinker as well as the painstakingly documented work of a scho'
lar who takes the historical birds'eye view, in order to shed light upon urgent contemporary pro'
blems.K (h, how opinions concerning JscholarshipK can diverge.
?lso in Freitag, Florian chmid even sees Jthe front condemning all radical leftist positionsK slowly
crumbling. ;hoever reads an article by "raebers JteacherK 3ichael =udson +also published in the
F?V1 nonetheless has a suspicion of what this debate actually expresses : a conflict concerning how
capitalism should and can be re'regulated : an effect that "raeber surely did not intend. That has less to
do with the fact that bourgeois forces are becoming anti'capitalist or have suddenly discovered an affi'
nity with communist ideas. Lather, they are engaging in a process of discussion among themselves, as a
bourgeois class, concerning how capitalism can have a future..C This conflict has been conducted
openly in the pages of the F?V itself for months : in the economic section and the lifestyle section. The
left has nothing to gain from this conflict if it does not itself seek a critical engagement with critics of
capitalism like "raeber who have been elevated by bourgeois forces to pop'star status. The left has to
come to an understanding of where things are going and what a contemporary criti2ue of capitalism
should look like. The lifestyle section of the F?V wont perform this task for us.
That does not mean "raebers book should be put aside. Wuite the opposite. #t means critically appro'
priating "raeber for a left debate concerning debt and capitalism. ;hen the bourgeoisie discusses
"raebers book, it has different 2uestions than the left, which wants to abolish bourgeois rule. =owe'
ver, a critical appropriation also means arguing with and about "raebers book, concerning what JruleK
means and what the rule of the capitalist mode of production means. #t is precisely the specificity of
capitalist rule and its forms that makes resistance and enlightenment so difficult. 6nderstanding this
domination is a precondition for criticizing it, and this is not accomplished by references to the long
history of the human community.
7iterature
' *randon, 4epijn +./001& 3arxism and the S!utch 3iracleT& The !utch Lepublic and the
Transition'!ebate, in& =istorical 3aterialism, 0D.Ig., =.@, 0/B:0,B.
: 5omninel, "eorg 5. +0DA81& Lethinking the French Levolution. 3arxism and the Levisionist 5hal'
lenge, 7ondon'<ew 9ork 0DD/
: "erstenberger, =eide +.//81& #mpersonal 4ower. =istory and Theory of the *ourgeois tate, 7eiden
: "raeber, !avid +./001& !ebt. The First C/// 9ears, <ew 9ork
: =einrich, 3ichael +0DDD1& !ie ;issenschaft vom ;ert. !ie 3arxsche Nritik der politischen Xkono'
mie zwischen wissenschaftlicher Levolution und klassischer Tradition, 3Ynster
: =einsohn, "unnar- teiger, (tto +.//B1& )igentumsZkonomik, 3arburg
: 7e "off, Iac2ues +./0/1& "eld im 3ittelalter, tuttgart ./00
: 7orenz, Lichard +0D88& !ie traditionale chinesische "esellschaft& )ine #nterpretation sowjetischer
Forschungsergebnisse, in& ders. +=g.1, 6mw[lzung einer "esellschaft& Vur ozialgeschichte der chine'
sischen Levolution +0D00:0D,D1, Frankfurt-3, 00:D@.
: 4olanyi, Narl +0DBA1& 4rimitive, ?rchaic, and 3odern )conomics, *oston
: Leichelt, =elmut +.//A1& <eue 3arx'7ektYre. Vur Nritik sozialwissenschaftlicher 7ogik, =amburg
: ombart, ;erner +0D0@1& Nrieg und Napitalismus +tudien zur )ntwicklungsgeschichte des modernen
Napitalismus, *d..1, 3Ynchen'7eipzig
: iegelberg, Iens +0DD,1& Napitalismus und Nrieg. )ine Theorie des Nrieges in der ;eltgesellschaft,
Nriege und militante Nonflikte, <r.C, 3Ynster'=amburg
: tYtzle, #ngo +./001& The order of knowledge& the state as a knoeledge apparatus, in& "allas,
?lexander- *retthauer, 7ars- Nannankulam, Iohn- tYtzle, #ngo +)ds.1& Leading 4oulantzas, 08/:0AC,
7ondon.
: Teschke, *enno +.//@1& The 3yth of 0B,A& 5lass, "eopolitics, and the 3aking of 3odern #nternatio'
nal Lelations, 7ondon
: Fan der 7inden, 3arcel +0DD81& 3arx and )ngels, !utch 3arxism and the S3odel 5apitalist <ation
of the eventeenth 5enturyT, in& cience \ ociety, B0.Ig., =.., 0B0:0D@.
: ;olf, Frieder (tto +.//,1& The Jlimits of dialectical presentationK as a key category of 3arxs theo'
retical self'reflection, 5apitalism <ature ocialism, 0C&@, 8D:AC.
: ;olf, Frieder (tto +.//B1& 3arx Nonzept der S"renzen der dialektischen !arstellungT, in& =off, Ian-
4etrioli, ?lexis, et al. +=g.1& !as Napital neu lesen. *eitr[ge zur radikalen 4hilosophie, 3Ynster,
0CD:0AA.
: ;ood, )llen 3eiksins +0DDD1& The origin of capitalism. ? longer view, 7ondon : <ew 9ork, .//.
: ;ood, )llen 3eiksins- ;ood, <eal +0D8A1& 5lass #deology and ?ncient 4olitical Theory. ocrates,
4lato, and ?ristotle in ocial 5ontext, (xford
;hoever has not read my ak review should read it first. # do not explicitly deal here with some
points that are already addressed there.
(n this, see =einsohn-teiger +.//B1, who mock similar things in classical and neo'classical econo'
mics and attempt to deny their status as theories. Leichelt +.//A, p. .8C1 has formulated an accurate cri'
ti2ue of their approach.
That only has to do with class relations to the extent that 3arx assumes that the commodity form is
dominant, has become generalized, as soon as labor'power circulates as a commodity. For that reason,
my position is not that Jform and meaning of capitalist money emerges from this relationK, meaning
that Jcapitalism is based on the relation of production between free wage laborer and the owner of
capitalK, as "raeber incorrectly summarizes my position. (n the debate concerning 3arxs theory as a
monetary theory of value, see 3ichael =einrich, ?n #ntroduction to the Three Folumes of Narl 3arxs
5apital +3onthly Leview 4ress, ./0.1 and the same authors The cience of Falue +*rill-=istorical
3aterialism, forthcoming1.
3arx also does not analyze JcapitalismK as such. =e analyzes the capitalist mode of production +at
its ideal average1 and its domination. That is something different from an Jas'if theoryK that "raeber
ascribes to 3arx.
#n )mpire of 5apital, 3eiksins';ood shows that direct force, extra'economic power, was constitu'
tive for the #talian city'states as well as for the !utch republic. The !utch republic plays a certain
exceptional role, as *randon +./001 has recently emphasized +also see van der 7inden 0DD81. (ne can'
not however speak of a dominance of capitalist logic with regard to the !utch republic. This argument
is directed +making reference to Lobert *renner1 primarily against the arguments of world'systems
theory.
Thus 5omninel +0DA81 and "erstenberger +.//81 demonstrate that the French Levolution cannot be
understood as the imposition of the capitalist mode of production, and certainly not explained by its
logic.
The same applies to the role of the state +and the constitution of the modern tax'based state1, which
proceeded in very different ways, as historical research has shown.
For that reason, there is a lot to be gained from reading "raebers book, provided one keeps 3arxs
criti2ue of political economy in mind.
3arx was writing the "rundrisse at the same time he wrote this letter.
The form and content of SwarT also changes, as shown by Teschke +.//@1, "erstenberger +0DD/1, and
iegelberg +0DD,1.
;olfs essay has only been published in abridged from in )nglish.
This is the background against which 3arx formulates the thesis that workers Jmust first be forced
to work within the conditions posited by capital. The propertyless are more inclined to become vag'
abonds and robbers and beggars than workers. The last becomes normal only in the developed mode of
capitals production.K +"rundrisse1
"erstenbergers book has been published in )nglish as part of =istorical 3aterialism book series.
The funny thing about this review is that on the one hand it asserts that JTo denounce a non'3arxist
author for neglect of 3arxist categories would be vanity worthy of tenure trackK, but at the same time
it does exactly that. For example& J?part from caricaturing all talk of capitalist production as dumb
base'superstructure dualism, he propounds here a shockingly simplistic theory of history, in which
chronological e2uals ontological priority. #f the financial apparatus appears earlier than other pheno'
mena associated with ScapitalismT, it must contain the latters essence. *y this logic the truth of capita'
lism might e2ually be sought in feudal agriculture, absolute monarchy or the first ?tlantic slave'raids,
as the books own examples show.K
? summary of the debate can be found in the third volume of ;allersteins The 3odern
;orld'ystem.
That is why one must speak of a historical determination of the abstraction. =owever, 3arx did not
examine this, nor did he engage with this more concretely.
"raeber constantly refers to the character of impersonal domination. =owever, to "raeber this is
neither characteristic of capitalist society, nor does he establish why domination takes on an impersonal
character. ?fter he insists upon the importance of unfree labor to capitalism, it is unclear to me which
role impersonal power thus plays.
The same is true of state debt, which # have explicated elsewhere.
J=ere it should be recalled that for 3arx, SindustryT means nothing other than the systematic appli'
cation of scientific knowledge as technology to the production process, and not, for example, a specific
materially delimitable field of human productionK +;olf .//B, p. 0A,1
Further reviews can be found in die tageszeitung, !ie Veit, !ie ;elt, *erliner Veitung, Tagesspiegel,
!eutschlandLadio Nultur #, !eutschlandLadio Nultur ##, ttt of the public television station ?L!. 7ef'
tist criti2ues are rare up until now. #n Iungle ;orld, the book was already presented in February. Non'
kret, which offers the book as a subscription premium, was surprisingly also enthusiastic. ?lso see the
reply to Lainer =ank on the Nrisenblog and wobblies.de
The Frankfurter ?llgemeine Veitung +F?V1 and its sunday edition the F? is one of the biggest and
most influential conservative daily newspapers in "ermany and plays a very influential role.
ee my essay on Neynes.
(nce again 3arx, since the formulation is so nice& Jthey then persistently regard barter as a form
well adapted to commodity exchange, suffering merely from certain technical inconveniences, to over'
come which money has been cunningly devisedK.
Frank chirrmacher had already reviewed the )nglish edition in ./00. Lainer =ank followed, then
;erner 4lumpe, and Frank 7Ybberding commented upon "raebers appearance on the talkshow hosted
by 3aybrit #llner.
The field of knowledge of political economy is among the central entities of social self'reflection&
J#n political economy, bourgeois society obtains a view of itselfK +=einrich, The cience of Falue1