-
like exogamic marriage, always already interclan, it was about giving gifts to the inlaws, gifts that at some point after capitalism included commodities, like beads from liverpool. on moral primitivism' and intellectual bankruptcy see the bruce lee meme:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWfOACOe3Fg …
"Giving gifts." Akin to anthropology books titled "The Children of X." As if they were just innocent kids dancing around Christmas trees and we should be more like them. "Gift" is lazy translation of thousands of unique indigenous words describing usually obligatory transfers.
-
-
FYI
@davidgraeber is also critical of the gift theory. My general takeaway from his book is that money, like debt, originated as a material and quantifiable formalization of trust relationships. So not really sure how it’s different from your view at a high level. -
Good to hear. Our disagreements are likely 1) how seriously we take small definitional distinctions, (2) role of evolution, 3) moral & political lessons we draw, 4) he doesn't know what my theories actually are & is attacking strawmen (I'm no big expert on his theories either).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
kings and diplomats gifted each other things all the time. Essai sur le don is better translated as prestations, ref. Jane Guyer's new preface to Mauss. Graebers concerns are the moral-political consq. of such a formula when imperial capitalist money intrudes, since ~1500>eternal
-
That's still a very different kind of transfer from kids giving each other gifts. Descriptions should use language that makes clear such distinctions. And kings and diplomats themselves are very far removed from the neolithic and forager cultures involved in the origins of money.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.