The answers are very complex. In the book, Graeber shows that debt is as much a cultural/social norm as any other abstract, social construct we've invented throughout history. What debt meant in early Buddhist Nepal or Sumeria or aboriginal Australia, and what it means in modern western economies is completely tied in with governmental/religious/familial etc. structures that existed in the given time. He goes into great detail about many forms which debt has taken and - where it's known - gives some relevant context to help understand it.
One thing he does point out, however, is that in recent decades, much of our debt has seemed to shift from a more useful tool for robust modern economies - as it was used in early 20th century for Keynesian stimulus and the likes - to more of a tool for subjugation, through new forms of debt peonage - e.g. with student debt in the USA or financial aid packages to former colonies - very similar to what we've seen in earlier times.
I think it's a fantastic book, offering a very compelling narrative of how our social systems have evolved around these notions of debt since civilisation began. Also, if anyone wants to dig into the book right away, there are free versions of the book online[0], including an audiobook[1]. Since Graeber is an anarchist, I'm sure he doesn't mind if not everyone is paying for it ;)
One of those examples of debt as a social construct is in my opinion the following, which shows that even in Western economies there can be a different meaning for this concept.
In English language there's a clear separation between debt and guilt. Debt is used for money, guilt for (e.g.) the legal system when talking about criminal activities. Those are 2 different words with 2 different meanings.
But in Dutch language we don't have different words for debt and guilt. Both concepts are essentially translated to the Dutch word for guilt ("schuld") which has a much more negative connotation than debt when talking about money. The same is true for the German language for example. And this might impact policies when dealing with debt, see: https://www.ft.com/content/a2c51e14-1ded-11e0-badd-00144feab...
> and ask her to contemplate
the justice of insisting that the lenders be repaid, not by the dictator,
or even by his cronies, but by literally taking food from the mouths of
hungry children.
I'm still willing to give this book a chance, but it's not a good look when the third page already contains an emotionally manipulative and gross misuse of "literally".
I mean, this predatory lending did lead to a lot of starvation. That is not controversial. He may be using exaggerated narrative (and that part is only the introduction, setting the scene) but he is quite clear in the text about what the known or suspected facts are and what we might deduce from them.
I forgive the author for mixing some emotion into it -- he's trying to write a book about debt that will appeal to a general audience. Like the sibling said, it's still quite rigorous in its citations.
One thing he does point out, however, is that in recent decades, much of our debt has seemed to shift from a more useful tool for robust modern economies - as it was used in early 20th century for Keynesian stimulus and the likes - to more of a tool for subjugation, through new forms of debt peonage - e.g. with student debt in the USA or financial aid packages to former colonies - very similar to what we've seen in earlier times.
I think it's a fantastic book, offering a very compelling narrative of how our social systems have evolved around these notions of debt since civilisation began. Also, if anyone wants to dig into the book right away, there are free versions of the book online[0], including an audiobook[1]. Since Graeber is an anarchist, I'm sure he doesn't mind if not everyone is paying for it ;)
[0] https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf [1] http://www.unwelcomeguests.net/Debt,_The_First_5000_Years