Here's something from an interview with Graebner - from a blog by Yves Smith called 'Naked Capitalism'.
Interest-bearing loans, in turn, probably originated in deals between the administrators and merchants who carried, say, the woollen goods produced in temple factories (which in the very earliest period were at least partly charitable enterprises, homes for orphans, refugees or disabled people for instance) and traded them to faraway lands for metal, timber, or lapis lazuli. The first markets form on the fringes of these complexes and appear to operate largely on credit, using the temples’ units of account. But this gave the merchants and temple administrators and other well-off types the opportunity to make consumer loans to farmers, and then, if say the harvest was bad, everybody would start falling into debt-traps. This was the great social evil of antiquity – families would have to start pawning off their flocks, fields and before long, their wives and children would be taken off into debt peonage. Often people would start abandoning the cities entirely, joining semi-nomadic bands, threatening to come back in force and overturn the existing order entirely. Rulers would regularly conclude the only way to prevent complete social breakdown was to declare a clean slate or ‘washing of the tablets,’ they’d cancel all consumer debt and just start over. In fact, the first recorded word for ‘freedom’ in any human language is the Sumerian amargi, a word for debt-freedom, and by extension freedom more generally, which literally means ‘return to mother,’ since when they declared a clean slate, all the debt peons would get to go home. I've missed you Vam - I doubt we really disagree. You must know more of the practicalities above than me, old friend. I have no wish to live without authority as some of the anarchists claim - this ends up in the kind of dreadful tyranny in idiots without give and take. To question authority in its own terms often leaves us bound to its contradictions, perhaps as in Fermat's Last Theorem approached without understanding modular and elliptic equations can be bridged. On Aug 27, 6:50 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > Nietzsche argued (in front of the bourgeois) that bourgeois morality > was all based on the ability to use violence to recover debt. I take > it his play was ironic, much as Kierkegaard on Xtianity. To abandon > morality and ethics in order to do the best we can in practical > circumstances is a move from generality to particularism and 'low and > behold' the matter is somewhat ironic as we discover morality and > ethics in the particular. We might, for instance, be generally > against abortion, but leave this generality aside in considering a > rape victim wanting one - indeed we should go further and wonder what > role morality and ethics play in the decision that we have any 'right' > to be considering a decision many of us think the woman concerned > should be able to make and expect only our support in it - that is > help with her distress. > > In German philosophy after Hegel, there was much attempt to 'free > thought' from Geist and what we might call 'socially approved > epistemic authority' (which we might corrupt to 'moralising') - one > can draw the line through Fichte, Feuerbach, Nietzsche and on to > Stirner - the problem always being how there could ever be an > association of individuals free of morals and ethics - the answer > usually being that some subjective awareness-analysis could replace > social authority. This is not exactly new to those of us with some > notion of self-discipline, and notions of govern-mentality or the > creation of 'docile bodies' worry on just hoe 'subjective' we can be > in this sense. > > The question is probably about how we can get into meaningful review > of what is deeply and potentially wrongly held. A good example would > be that most of us think debt should be repaid. We can hold this view > with great certainty and even think it immoral not to repay. Yet what > is human history on this? I can point to a recent book that > demonstrates history is full of corrections or Jubilee on debt - even > that the first word we know for freedom means 'freedom from debt' and > that many religious words come from the word debt as sin - in the > sense of freedom from it. The very notion of our definition of debt > is historically wrong and de-politicised when it should not be. We > can abandon what we have come to think is moral and ethical about debt > and perhaps recover something 'more moral' in understanding history. > The book is readable at Amazon - Debt by David Graeber - at least in > its essentials. Much as we might abandon moral and ethics, we could > abandon 'money' - though we no doubt come round to a better > formulation in new practice. There is always some kind of 'return' - > but where are we without trying our best in thinking things through - > left with global poverty and indenture? Hardly much 'morality' in > that. > > On Aug 26, 3:15 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hahahah yes Rigsy I find I can't disagree with you here at all. Makes > > a change huh! > > > On Aug 26, 2:40 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Yes, Lee. A sense of fairness and right/wrong seems to kick in > > > naturally in very young children- even more remarkable when you think > > > what they are up against re adults and their siblings, but then the > > > "teaching" begins "in earnest" via family, education, religion, > > > society. Most often, humans adapt to standards and expectations > > > because they assume it's safer and easier- they can work out the > > > conflicts with a therapist later on. :-) > > > > On Aug 26, 4:49 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Obvioulsy I have to strongly disagree with that. Anybody who thinks > > > > that morality comes from religion is not thinking straight. > > > > > My own morality was there long before I even heard of deity, and the > > > > same is true for all of us. Yes yes of course religious faith may > > > > colour or change ones morality, but then what does not? Culture does, > > > > the epoch we live in does, nationality does, even age. > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:52 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > A guy called Max Stirner wrote an odd book with the intent to outline > > > > > what being free of religion might mean. Rigsby's professor seems > > > > > unaware of how old his ground is in more recent debate than the > > > > > Greeks. My own view is that religion more or less cripples morality, > > > > > both intellectually and in its practical horrors. The weakness > > > > > involved in believing or pretending to believe twaddle hardly shows > > > > > moral character. Ethics are what lawyers have - rules to protect > > > > > themselves at the expense of others. The best we can hope for is some > > > > > kind of fair-play. Our society is grossly immoral because so many > > > > > people cling to religious means to suppose others immoral on grounds > > > > > like active homosexuality and most varieties of fornication. We might > > > > > think of ridding ourselves of morality and ethics and get on with > > > > > doing our best in difficult situations that need decision. > > > > > > On Aug 25, 5:08 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Please correct me if i'm wrong, Lee; i'd be obliged. > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:38 pm, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Heh heh that too is my understanding but the other way around! > > > > > > > > To dictionary.com! > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 2:03 pm, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Not sure i agree or fully understand your distinctions, Lee; > > > > > > > > you're > > > > > > > > certainly right that "ethics" and "morality" are not "opposing > > > > > > > > labels > > > > > > > > of the same thing", though. > > > > > > > > > To be brief, in my opinion, a thought or action is "ethical" or > > > > > > > > otherwise if it meets my standard of conduct; a thought or > > > > > > > > action is > > > > > > > > "moral" if it meets a predetermined and prescribed (by > > > > > > > > ordination, > > > > > > > > coordination, or cognition) system of "human" values. It is this > > > > > > > > latter category of behavioural conditioning that Marks > > > > > > > > "deconstructs" > > > > > > > > so eloquently in his article. > > > > > > > > > Or so it seems to me, i may be wrong. > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 9:51 am, Lee Douglas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Ethics vs Morality as opposing lables for the same thing? > > > > > > > > > > That is not how I understand the two terms myself. > > > > > > > > > > Ethics is concerned with the correct course of action, both > > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > individuals and on a larger scale, whilst morality is an > > > > > > > > > individuals > > > > > > > > > understanding of what is correct or incorrect. > > > > > > > > > > That is I may have a moral system that agrees or disagree > > > > > > > > > with my > > > > > > > > > socities ethical values. > > > > > > > > > > Perhaps then my issues are merely semantic, but I do not > > > > > > > > > belive that > > > > > > > > > any human can be berift of a morality. That is to say a > > > > > > > > > personal > > > > > > > > > understanding or what is right or wrong. > > > > > > > > > > When he talks about his dislike of animal cruety, he says > > > > > > > > > that this is > > > > > > > > > no longer a question of morality but one of desire. Excuse > > > > > > > > > me for > > > > > > > > > mentioning Ayn Rand now, but she would have it that our > > > > > > > > > greatest > > > > > > > > > moral porpouse is our own happiness. This sure looks like > > > > > > > > > moralyity > > > > > > > > > equated with our desires here. > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 25, 7:42 am, paradox <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > He's a very lucid thinker. > > > > > > > > > > > There is a basis, some basis, to questions of morality > > > > > > > > > > (though i > > > > > > > > > > prefer the word "ethics" personally, so perhaps i'm closer > > > > > > > > > > to Marks > > > > > > > > > > than i might realise). A deconstructionist approach might > > > > > > > > > > lead one > > > > > > > > > > inexorably towards "biological value". If i recall (it was > > > > > > > > > > quite a > > > > > > > > > > while ago now), Matt Ridley presents this approach in his > > > > > > > > > > book "The > > > > > > > > > > Origins Of Virtue". > > > > > > > > > > > On Aug 22, 2:59 pm, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > By Joel Marks- plus reader comments > > > > > > > > > > > >http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/21/confessions-of-an-ex-... > > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -
