PPE 471 Midterm #2

Graeber Chapter 9

- Axial Age (800 BC - 600 AD) Axial Age -> first time in human history when literacy necessary to participate in public life The emergence of cash transfers between strangers, which occurs in mathematical terms, led to the emergence of a new kind of thinking which revolved around concepts of "profit" and "advantage" -> very homo economicus view of the world in essence. Importantly, this view emphasized self-interest to an even greater degree than modern economic models. Mo Di -> if one adds up total costs of aggression, benefits never outweighed costs. Only way to optimize overall profit of humanity was to abandon pursuit of private enterprise and adopt "universal love." Confucians rejected the initial premise of calculating profit and instead called for benevolence and righteousness. At the same time, emergence of religious systems which lacked supernatural forces and element -> rather, largely escapist element. Impacts: - War decreased - Slavery faded as an institution - Began to address social dislocations caused by debt - Confucianism adopted and implemented by Han dynasty -> Ren an inversion of profit-seeking calculations

Ferguson Chapter 5

- Both groups seeking to be conquered by Ngoni and poor men seeking work seeking subordination in hopes of economic stability. Ngoni incorporated enemies into social system at bottom of social "totem pole" -- In essence, the existence of possibilities for hierarchical affiliation created free choice through structuring societal relationships Colonial Transformation and Continuity - After mineral wealth discovered in Africa, region characterized by labor scarcity -- State applied coercion to force people into low-cost wage labor, but people traveled hundreds of miles to submit themselves to oppressive socioeconomic system -- Joining meant incorporation, but because racial hierarchy, no social mobility - Long-term consequences: -- Wage labor linked to male personhood -- Marriage opportunities linked with wage-earning capacity -- Divide between rural and urban social membership grew, with urban associated w/ wage labor - Connection between status as worker and kinship - South African capitalism is not impersonal; instead, personal ties and relationships of dependence are present in modern capitalism - Labor shortage gives workers a bargaining chip for better conditions - Race, class, and work were all lines of cleavage Era of Labor Surplus: Asocial Assistance - South African no longer characterized by labor scarcity; rampant unemployment despite "healthy" economy - "Unclaimed men" have become without commodity value -> terrifying predicament - Non-working women, elderly, and disable still have relationally that contributes to personhood -> grant recipients. They usually pass part of grants to men. - Giving key to survival of poor -> unemployed rely on "informal economy" of distribution. - Inequality is unavoidable, so fearing dependence due to fears of legitimizing inequality is pointless. - Asocial inequality -> huge inequalities of life conditions and life chances are increasingly severed from embarrassing experiential social relationships of inequality -- Seek out social inequality so that those relationships can be leveraged to improve life conditions Asocial Assistance - Traditional social interventions for ill, disabled, children, and women - Basic Income Grant (BIG) -> campaigns in South Africa and Namibia - Does it promote dependency? Wrong question because poor will be dependent regardless of whether BIG exists or not - BIG could be a new form of memberships -> nationwide membership and solidarity - Neither politicians nor "impoverished masses" have gotten behind it because it only addresses monetary, rather than social needs - Lacks social recognition, since all citizens would receive it, and it wouldn't have to be something that one applies for - Paternalism -> most South Africans agree with idea of paternalistic government - Idea of citizenship shifts to whether one is a deserving benefactor of the state

Chapter 3

- Credit theory -- Money is not a commodity, as classical economists have declared, but an accounting tool -- It serves as an IOU and a promise to pay something else of equivalent value because currency is not in itself useful -- One only accepts currency because one assumes that others will --- Modern banknotes --- Provisioning soldiers --- Creating markets in colonies - Primordial Debt Theory -- Developed as a multi-disciplinary debate about the nature of the Euro -- Core argument -> any attempt to separate monetary policy from social policy is wrong because they've always been the same. Governments use taxes to create money and they are able to do so because they have become guardians of debts that all citizens have to each other -> this debt is in the essence of society itself -- Sense of debt expressed through religion because human existence itself is debt -> obligations or promises to god, sages (learning), ancestors (children), and society (hospitality to strangers) -- King takes over guardianship of primordial debt we owe via right to tax -- If taxes represent our absolute debt to the society that created us, creating money comes when we start calculating specific debts to society -> systems of fines, fees, penalties, and debts we owe to individuals - Graeber doesn't really buy the idea of primordial debt because we traditionally view debt as something that you can pay off, but can you ever actually pay off this debt? Moreover, would we even want to? And ancient free world citizens didn't pay taxes, so taxes as a representation of the absolute debt to the society that created us.

Graeber Chapter 2

- Difference between debt and a simple obligation is the ability to precisely quantify debt, which requires money - Traditional history of debt stipulates order of: barter -> money -> credit systems -- However, Mesopotamian records show money and debt arriving at same time (proven by coins in archaeological records) -- Debt and credit are more difficult for economists to classify because it's impossible to pretend that motivations are purely economic; lending to stranger and family member is different - Three functions of money: medium of exchange, unit of account, store of value -- Money created for efficiency because barter requires a double coincidence of wants, which makes it hard to have an an economy which operates truly as a barter economy as a result - Adam Smith -- Rejects the idea of governments creating money -- Insisted that property, money, and markets not only existed before political institutions, but that they were foundations of political society -- This was the foundational story for the creation of economics, but it's problematic because it didn't actually happen that way - Barter myth and facts -- When it occurs, it happens between strangers or enemies --- Namibikwara of Brazil -> festive elements to avoid warfare --- Gunwinggu of Australia -> trading of cloths only occurred after music, dancing, sex, or other festivities -- Shows you cannot separate the "human" and economic spheres of behavior --- Trade only occurs on base of conviviality --- Made possible because each side makes a trade and walks away, never to meet again -- No true barter society can occur because everybody would constantly be inches away, poised to strike, but without ever actually striking --- Naturally hospitable Pukhtun of N. Pakistan -> barter impossible --- Such relations impossible in small communities where all have relationships and regularly interact ---- Henry and Josh examples ----- Henry needs shoes and has potatoes. Josh has shoes, but also has no need for potatoes. Henry tells Joshua "nice shoes" and Josh gives him the shoes with understanding that if he ever needs potatoes, he can go to Henry. ----- Exchange seen as neighborly gestures which kills need for double coincidence of wants and need for money ----- Not telling with greater regard for how money was created -- Barter more common in modern times following collapse of national economies in RUS and ARG -- Credit system --- Accounts kept in established currency even though none exists --- System existed before invention of coinage -> Mesopotamian temples calculated debts in silver but could be paid in nearly anything (agricultural goods most common) --- Nearly the entire original history of money and debt has been disproven --- Popular notion of coins -> credit in monetary history, but the reverse is actually true. Coinage was actually relatively unimportant in medieval times; royal households would use tokens of various kinds for small payments and coins would regularly be reissued and reminted -- Smith's account of economic history is backwards --- We began with what we now call virtual money through credit systems, much later came the introduction of coins. Finally, barter appeared as an accidental byproduct of the use of coinage.

Widlok Chapter 1

Sharing phenomena are inadequately understood when they are considered as cases of reciprocal gift-giving Sharing, defined as enabling others to access something valued, provides alt to market and gift Goal: Challenge assumption that sharing is a form of reciprocal gift-exchange and that it can be expected to follow same logic we find in gifts or other reciprocal exchanges Reciprocal gift exchange, as it stands currently, is an awkward term which combines notions of universal, law-like reciprocity with a culturally-relativist notion of gift giving - Sharing is a unique transactional mode in its own rights - "Reciprocal" and "exchange" are hard terms to define too Mauss - Gifts may appear to be voluntary, but they structure social order due to obligations to give, receive, or return gifts Widlock trying to show that many phenomena are read against a gift exchange template, but gift theory is misleading the study of sharing because of their proximity Gift giving defined by obligation to give, receive, and return a gift. Sharing has no recognizable return and is not usually accompanied by displays of generosity and power. Goal of Widlock: refute the applicability of gift theory to sharing Myth of reciprocity -> based on idea of balance of mutual sacrifice, but sharing doesn't fit this condition. Children who look after aging parents aren't necessarily behaving reciprocally (depends on how you view time gaps, but even this is a stretch) Usually, sharing is generated by certain cultural conditions rather than reciprocity, which is problematic because it has been used to justify selfish nature of humans Realities of sharing: - Gifts like the kula derive energy and excitement that a gift will be returned or received, but this excitement disappears w/ bird's eye view - Perspective and shifting social positions are important considerations when studying gifts -> as others become hungry, we become providers to them, as others gain food, they become providers to us - Sharing -> training for accepting unevenness -- Feeding everyone requires uneven input

Ferguson Chapter 6

- Different types of redistribution claims: common suffering, shared ownership of land, service delivery Resource Nationalism and its Limits - Julius Malema - > Economic Freedom Fighters Party which advocated for land and natural minerals as something that people should share collective ownership in - Best way to do this is through state ownership, but also, the state is a flawed bureaucracy. Can the state really be trusted with this responsibility? - Nationalizing doesn't really do anything to answer key questions of distribution Ameliorative Welfare and Its Limits - Cash payments depoliticize poverty by attributing it to lack of experience by individuals rather than as a feature of a social structure within a larger web of relations Is it accurate to think of redistributive payments as gifts? No. - Many think of sharing within frame of reciprocity, but we think of it as something not a form of exchange - We might think of sharing as something out of generosity, but in many cases, it can be thought of as something asked for or demanded - So instead of seeing social payments as a gift, maybe the proper way to view them is as a share? - One distinction between a gift is with a gift, you thank the giver. With a share, you whine. - Namibia -> BIG framed as a concrete right, which means that it's framed as a share. Language of Christianity invoked to encourage rich to share with the poor. Conclusion: Towards a Politics of Rightful Share - Emerging politics based upon claim-making which is dependent upon sense of rightful entitlement -> politics of the rightful share - Why is this claim so powerful? It's the idea of what Kropotkin terms "the commons," which is the idea that society's wealth belongs to all because all of society plays some role in the extraction of wealth.

Widlock Chapter 2

- Evolutionary thought normally deals with development to the point where homo sapiens appear, while cultural history deals with developments after that point -- This division is clunky and it's possible to combine the two views for a "third way" Primate heritage of sharing - Very few animals share, but humans do. Why? -- Primate research on sharing reveals that human sharing is widespread, while non-human sharing is rare and only occurs with offspring or close kin --- This shows that sharing doesn't increase linearly with time or some other factors; arguably, it peaks in small hunter-gatherer societies. Less sharing in state-led capitalist/communist societies. Origin -> function - Theories focusing on competition of genes and evolutionary fitness have struggled to accommodate sharing as an outcome of the evolutionary process -- Inheritance of altruistic gene - Sharing awkwardly sits on line of having clear reproductive effects and cultural features whose variation has no direct consequences on reproduction - Darwinian theory imperfect because it's difficult to prove a link between genetic and cultural change; thus, we must understand sharing as a complex social practice that can't be explained by simple models of survival and genetics Ache case - Sharing main way to access resources - Data here seems to contradict sociobiological assumptions -- No difference in sharing between distant kin and close kin -> sharing improved survival condition of everyone in the network, which seems to show that altruistic genes are not more likely to be passed between close kin -- Reciprocal altruism not observed -- Sharing not limited to situations where provider can't stop theft - Deciding factor is the manner in which the resource is available: -- Large packets (large game animals) shared more often -- Things synchronously accessible many group members, like fruits, are less subject to sharing - While not every case fits this pattern, it shows that not every instance of sharing can be explained in purely genetic terms Risk reduction function - Sharing enhances nutritional status of all members in group rather than reproductive success of a few - If sharing has positive effects, it's likely that humans have often selected sharing strategies rather than humans with certain strategies being selected against against those without one OR with a different strategy - Sharing is one way to deal with an unreliable food supply: the other two are mobility (moving to find new food) and storage. Cultural bias for mobility over storage, even though storage secures subsistence in an environment where conditions can change rapidly and unfavorably. Leveling Function - Sharing incurs less costs than storage because it provides a leveling mechanism to prevent monopolization of goods - Sharing is incredibly versatile too: one-way sharing, two-way sharing, and multiple-way sharing. - Sharing mechanisms designed to regulate distribution of resources according to various criteria. - Inuits, who have a detailed vocabulary for sharing, shows that sharing can coexist with systems of redistribution and gift exchange. Seal partnerships form specific obligaitons with specific people (usually close kin) and were strongly reciprocated.

Widlock Chapter 4

- The things we share matter; intrinsic properties and the value that humans place on an object are the largest determinants of whether something gets shared. - An "object" of sharing may not necessarily be physical (services/idea/time), granting access is as much sharing as it is giving - Back to value -> two determinants: -- Value -> culture/society determines value -- Affordance -> shared items that are unownable (air) and those that are ownable (food) Four Categories of Sharing: - Big Community Items: Boats, 4x4 vehicles, big game animals, and other large items that are non-divisible, but culturally necessary or important. These items have material and social affordances in terms of the power associated with controlling the administration of the share. - Food (commensality) -> have the ability to both serve as gifts and shares. Lends itself to being shared due to distribution and the fact that it opens up possibilities of other shares. - Housing (residency) -> - Halbezurg -> intermediate products or ideas that can be manipulated as final products in a number of ways. Metal tips, for instance, could become arrows or knives. This can apply to ideas as well.

Ferguson Conclusion

- Universal wage labor has never been a reality, but we view it as the "ideal-typical." Large portions of society have been disconnected from wage labor. - Most fundamental development in politics of cash transfers would be the development of new grounds for justifying or authorizing such distributive claims. Labor a crucial ground for these claims, but other sorts of reasoning (humanitarian crises, philanthropy, medical care, and resources). -BIG could be an answer between the two extremes of Marxism and anarchism -> appreciation for both non-labor based forms of distribution and the use of the administrative capabilities of the state - Works because it relies on decisions of the poor rather than on the decisions of bureaucrats Relationship Between BIG and Nation-State - Linked to idea of nation-state, which is prone to xenophobia and capabilities of state

Ferguson Chapter 4

Argument: Many on the Left disapprove of direct cash distribution because the presence of money/markets is linked with asocial self-interested, but this prevents them from seeing that 1) markets are social sites of distribution and 2) in southern Africa, participation in cash economy and social relations of care and obligation are not contradictory but mutually enabling How to Do Things w/ Markets - Markets tools for distributing resources in ways that are inline with social aims, in spite of the Left's hostility and suspicion of markets - Critique: Markets allocate base off consumer's ability to pay for good, but can combine information function of markets with egalitarian goals by providing cash payments directly to those at risk of food deficit Money and Mutualities of Poverty - Common tale of traditional African society bounded by shared values/obligations corrupted by the heartless market - In reality, poor people's livelihoods bound with forms of sociality that cut across market and non-market and between social obligation and commoditized exchange -- "sociality of money" in that money is integral to social relations - Two examples where mutualities and cash are intertwined: kinship and sex/love - Underlying arg: Most important and highly valued forms of social interaction and solidarity among southern African poor are facilitated by money + participation in markets Social Life of Cash Payments - Even small amounts of cash income stimulate social and economic activities AND enable people to meet needs - Cash doesn't compensate for inactivity, but complements range of activities - Poor always dependent and the poorer they are, the more dependent they are - Build on existing mutualities and arrive at new ways of thinking about money, markets, and role in leftist politics

Ferguson Chapter 2

Argument: Only a historical understanding of contemporary regimes of state distribution programs can enable us to think effectively about futures for systems of direct state distribution in southern Africa and beyond Invention of the Social - Starts to approach question of social assistance with literature about "invention of the social" - Many social problems in 20th century EUR seen as moral problems - 19th century -> shift of crime from moral t social problem - New solutions arose to deal with this problem -> focus on family and development of social insurance to deal with problem in technical terms rather than moral terms. - Thus, welfare states founded on techniques for managing issues of the "social" -> new distribution programs justified as social intervention and solidarity African Social -> did the social ever exist here? - Attempts to introduce social techniques limited by rural population + moral/religious ideas - Used for formal-sector workers, but constrained by social and demographic documentation - Overall, social welfare provided modern facilities to small and privileged minority of recognized formal-sector workers - In settler colonies, more fully realized "social" established -> SA with protections for white settlers and extended social welfare state for all SA citizens in 1940s What Comes After Southern African "Social?" - In SA, big expansion of social assistance. Different from European model because not based on wage labor, but on those that lack wage labor. - Occurred because 1) deterioration of agrarian livelihoods post-Apartheid 2) ANC's neoliberal growth policies and austerity failed - Led to end of family-led social policy and a willingness to decouple assistance for poor from wage labor and family structure Historicizing the Future and New Tech of Social - Wants to show the distinct layers of history that shape and constrain the future - Use historical understanding of how the "social" has evolved to see new futures and policies that government can be involved in economic inclusion -> cash transfers - New programs of direct distribution changing rules of "social" game by developing new technical methods of identifying, recognizing, and paying recipients of cash transfer - How to get info about recipients? Biometrics maybe? Be open to political possibilities that new "techniques of the social" may enable.

Graeber Chapter 6

Blood Debts (Lele) - How does a token of recognition that one cannot pay turn into a form of payment by which a debt can be repaid? - Lele -> African society in Belgian Congo that used cloth as their currency. The system was hierarchical, so young men generally were in debt to elders, who usually would have extra pieces of cloth lying around. Marriage, in particular, was expensive because arrangements required several bars of camwood for the arrangements. - Blood debts -> human beings do not simply die without a reason (if someone died during childbirth, they committed adultery). - Once a culprit for death identified, he owed a blood debt, which means he owed the victim's next-of-kin a human life. Culprit would have to transfer young woman from family to be victim's pawn. All children of the someone's pawn would also be that person's pawn. - Advantage -> if you have a pawn, you can settle it by paying one of your pawns and your own women remain free. In other words, this quickly makes the entire thing turn into a chess match. - If you're a male pawn, one's owner would have to pay fines, fees, and blood-debts. - If a Lele woman refused to accept being a pawn, she could be a village-wife, which would mean she'd slip off to another village and become a "wife of the village" that all men would be obligated to protect. -- In this position, she could be purchased as a "common wife" for several unmarried Lele men - Village in position to both demand and pay blood debts since they were responsible for managing blood-debts - Villages could back up debt claims with force and use organized violence to enforce claims for pawns - Debt a process which dislodges people from webs of mutual commitment to make them exchangeable -> slavery a logical extreme of this. Sheer physical violence from the outside largely responsible.

Ferguson Chapter 1

Breaks down "give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime" Assumes poverty is a problem of production rather than distribution. It's also empirically unsound too because most growth in fishing sector occurs in a few countries -> even in THOSE countries, fishing employment is stagnating or falling TLDR: This slogan comes from a world where the labor of the poor was needed for production and that the central problem was that there aren't enough trained people. The modern world, however, is characterized by problem of distribution Dependency arg -> all wage laborers are dependent on their employers People won't lose will to work, won't fail to contribute to society, and won't be less likely to misuse cash transfers Gendered politics of social assistance -> new cash transfers programs tend to assist dependents and assume men as "wage earners" don't need social assistance." Created a situation where male identity rooted in labor. Women not seen as full citizens because men seen as breadwinners and women seen as dependents. Political demands in southern Africa focused upon demands for a share of tangible goods rather than abstract rights Changes in political system can be legitimized through claims of production, reproduction, or common suffering. The most successful claims have all been based around mineral wealth -> Alaska PFD legitimized because all people own rights to mineral wealth in land. To achieve this goal, non-labor based distribution must be legitimized before creation of mechanisms for distribution as well as frames of political reference that allow for shares to be considered "rightful" A revitalized distribute tradition may be able to intersect cleavages to create a new form of progressive politics -> could lead to new mobilizations

Graeber Chapter 11

European life in 1400s good for "ordinary farmers" - Black Death upped wages and low-class wealth - Puritan reformers destroyed this festive lifestyle over the next centuries - Jean Bodin attributed falling wages to precious metal imports from Americas Chinese demand for precious metals very high - Mongols overthrown by Han revolution and created Ming dynasty - Gold and silver dominated Ming underground economy - Chinese demand for silver funded European ventures in Americas - Europe traded on virtual currencies (debt) instead of metals Mining operations in Americas -> brutal - Cortes paid debts through conquest profits - One of many examples of debt-financed wars and conquests Capital more than just "money" - In Axial Age, money was a tool of empires and would lose value following collapse of empire - Capital, however, persists through regime change - Different religions view debt in many different ways: -- Islam banned usury -- Martin Luther insisted on moral basis for debt repayment -- Calvin and most later protestants -> reasonable interest rates not isnful -- Interest -> compensation for opportunity cost of capital -- Casimir of Brandenburg overthrew father and refused to directly repay debt --- Appointed creditors to government administration, who then used political power to loan to subjects --- Even his executioner sent Casimir a bill for rebel eyeballs and fingers "Communism from the Rich" - Rich had common interest in maintaining squo and collaborated - Credit matter of honor and reputation - After influx of precious metals, they were too rare for common use -- Most ended up in royal treasury, while day-to-day transactions credit-based - Most money exclusively trust-based; coinage only used for traveling strangers Moral Views of Debt - Bodin -> amity and friendship foundation of human society - Davenart -> credit collapses won't last long - Hobbes -> deep mistrust of credit systems Origins of capitalism - Not a story of the gradual destruction of communities by the impersonal market, but rather, a story of a credit-based economy transitioning to interest-based economy -- Impersonal elements intruded formerly personal concept of debt and credit (signed, legal bonds and debtors prisons) -- Criminalizing debt = criminalizing human society - Adam Smith -> "impersonal nature" of financial transactions - Nietzsche expanding on Smith's premises, arguing that life is exchange (Nietzsche observing in hindsight) Intrinsic vs. Social value of $$ - Economists wrote as if intrinsic value of gold and silver were universally understood after intro of precious metals - Rise of paper money -> credit-based valuation of $$ -- Led to origins of modern banking, which issued more money by issuing more book credits than cash reserves - Bank of England -> first centra bank -- First issuance of genuine paper money by banks -> debt owed by the king rather than debt owed to the king - English coin in crisis -> silver worth more than face of coins -- Locke -> silver's intrinsic value non-negotiable, treasury reissued coins w/o charges --- Prices and wages collapsed because circulation of silver dried up --- Locke and British insisted on intrinsic value of metals, avoiding acknowledgement of gov responsibility to back debts -- Tulip mania -> fear of bubbles -> gold and silver-backed systems Political nature of money -> real fear with paper (credit) money was the enablement of leveraged financing in banks as well as the greed of economic actors like bankers and traders Origins of modern capitalism - Rooted in 18th century -> financial apparatus to maximize capital value through private corporations, stock markets, national debt, and the use of debt to finance arms/slave trade - Putumayo scandal -> Huitoto Indians in Peru enslaved and slaughtered by British agents. First argued they were indebted, turned out British indebted to merchants, tried to offload debt to Huitoto. Myth of capitalism and "free labor" - Modern conception of capitalism distinguishes "free labor" (wage labor) from slavery - Wage labor used to be a lifestyle where apprentice educated into master, but replaced with truck system, which involved paying workers with vouchers Incorrect picture of worker -> Smith and Bentham's writings about 8-to-5 a false, utopian image -> lower-class usually works as beggars - 1825-1975 -> powerful people instituted vision of organized workplace/labor, which allowed for paper money to replace credit-based transactions entirely Graeber advocates for a Jubilee, or a systematic wiping of debts. All revolutions fundamentally about a distribution of land and cancellation of debts, so this can be justified by social peace. Might not be "economical," but moral policy.

Graeber Chapter 1

Fundamental assumption: debt must be repaid -> lenders accept degree of risk (but moral rather than economic statement) Debt - Central question of debt is who owes what to whom - Basis of power is in the fact that we don't know "what" it is Moral confusion - Most hold that: 1) paying back money one has borrowed a matter of morality 2) anyone in the habit of lending is money is evil -- Two approaches to minimize this reputation --- shunt off responsibility to third party --- insist that borrower is worse (more common) - Confusion over language -> negative connotations associated with someone acting like they don't owe anything to anyone Debt an obligation that can be precisely quantified - Because of this characteristic, it's simple, cold, impersonal, and transferable - The process of calculating principal, balances, and rates of interests is inhuman and turns a matter of morality into impersonal arithmetic -- Justifies things like violence in response to not repaying debts

Ferguson Introduction

Goal of Book: explain long-term political and social ramifications of the development of cash transfer programs and disconnect between traditional neoliberal narratives and reality of accelerated development of cash transfer programs Shift from neoliberal policy in S. Africa before shifting to implementation of system of elaborate cash transfers, which make up 3.4% of country's GDP. Upwards of 30% of country's population receives it. Cash transfers a product of political circumstances -> ANC had a mandate to transform economic conditions of poor and working class people which made up its constituency. Programs were effective at reducing poverty and inequality with broad acceptance across society. Differences in how cash transfers viewed: Developed world views them as replacement for income gained from working, but developing world believes that such payments are not meant to serve as a sole income. Social payments viewed as a way to deal with interruption of "normal" system in which adult heads of households earn wages to support dependents. For instance, in South Africa, restructured capitalism created less of a need for migrant laborers to work in mines. This led to the isolation of the poor from the central system of production. At the same time, they gained the ability to advocate for themselves, which led to demand for "service delivery." Blurred ideological lines because they co-opt neoliberal language of "human capital" and "investment."

Graeber Chapter 8

History of money follows a cyclical pattern. Coinage emerged in northern China, in India, and lands surrounding Aegan Sea between 600-500 BC. Shift from credit to coinage, but in 600 AD (when slavery was disappearing) cash dried up and credit became king again. Broadly speaking, alteration between credit and coinage. Why ? Most important factor is war. Coinage dominates in periods of violence because gold and silver can be stolen. War necessitates quick financing of military expenditures, which creates a bias towards money. In a world with a high threat of violence, there is a strong incentive to making sure that transactions are simple. Credit systems, meanwhile, dominate in periods of social peace. China (2200 - 771 BC) -> early rulers used various forms of payment like pearls, jade, gold, and knives/spades. In most of country, no single, uniform unit of account. Social currencies holding sway in countryside; were converted to commercial currencies in dealings with strangers. Cowrie shells were used used between people who didn't know each other well.

Graeber Chapter 7

In slavery, the human being is essentially "dead" because they are ripped from their context of existence "Honor" -> two contradictory meanings: simple integrity in which people honor commitments AS WELL AS degradation in which violence reducing human beings to commodities occurred. Linked to the origins of money. CASE OF HONOR PRICE IN MEDIEVAL IRELAND - Ireland, for much of its history, was a human economy perched on the precipice of an emerging commercial economy - Absence of markets except for a few on the coast; money primarily used for social purposes such as gifts, fees, or feudal payments. - Money could be loaned in a highly complex system of pledges and sureties to pay fines - System of honor: literally "face" (respect in eyes of others) and power to protect family and followers from degradation. The higher your honor, the more influence you'd have. - Honor could be "quantified" in terms of money as an "honor price." Different from wergled, actual price on someone's life. If someone kills someone, they pay seven cumals (slave girls) plus their honor price as compensation. Same went for injury (honor price + price of injury). - Honor price also paid if you insulted someone too - This was all explicitly codified in Irish law; furthermore, the code allowed for the specification of just about every possibility in the book - A free woman was honored at half the price of her nearest male relative; if she was dishonored, price paid to relative. - When lords bought serfs, they were acquired for their honor price. If a serf was attacked, it was seen as an attack on the lord's honor and thus he would be responsible for collecting honor price. Lord's honor price notched upward as a result of gathering another dependent. What this case shows is that if one's honor is tied to their ability to extract the honor of others, then it makes sense to tie a lord's honor to the number of serfs they have. Furthermore, a man being forced to surrender a woman, who he his obliged to protect, is an ultimate blow to his honor. Conversely, having the power to do this is a reaffirmation of honor.

Graeber Chapter 4 and 5

Is money a commodity or an IOU? - Both -> coin example where "heads" show off political authority, while "tails" show off precise worth - Money was created for more than just barter with neighbors, since a pure credit money system would have serious issues -- Credit money based on trust -> scarce commodity -- Metal coinage has intrinsic and fiduciary value - Markets in history use jumble of different currencies, some from barter with foreigners, some from barter goods to pay taxes. This illustrates much of political landscape. -> money always hovers between commodity and debt token Religion's Adoption of Debt Structures - Religion (particularly Christianity) borrows on this fact heavily -- Idea of unpayable debt and promise of eventual forgiveness at the end of time -- Involves idea of "redemption" that is central to religion, even though this debt is essentially too large to be forgiven Debt and Morality - Debt is a terrifying prospect, particularly the idea of indebting one's children permanently -- Debtors also hold greater moral salience - Debt presumes assumptions of equality, which makes it an exchange between equals -- But class distinctions rarely defined -- Framed in terms of contract and betrayal -> moral issues arising from failing to honor a bargain and need to take into account interests of creditor - Religion described morality in terms of debt, but their approach showed that morality cannot actually be reduced to such terms Debt and Human Nature - Reciprocity a central tenet of human nature that creates three moral principles on which economic relations are found Communism - Principle that any human relationship operates on principle of "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" with goal of restoring common ownership and collective management -- Allows us to look past private ownership and work in terms of efficiency -- Morality plays a role to some degree in any transaction Exchange - Equivalence so that each side gets as good as it can get through bargaining -> also true in gift giving, which rearranges social relations Hierarchy - Relations with imbalance tend not to operate by reciprocity at all -- Justified in reciprocal terms (protection for taxes) but not reciprocal, rather in terms of logic and precedent -- Conquest becomes institutionalized as raiders systematize relations with victims -- Easily turns into caste relations stemming from precedent development, where it becomes the norm Shifting Between Modalities - These three modes all exist in some combination in all societies. The market isn't real; rather, it's a mathematical model where everyone has same motivation and rational self-interest maximizers -- Justice -> everyone pays back debts and balances accounts -- Agreement between equals to no longer be equals key aspect of debt -> settlement means returning to status of equals -- Debt = incomplete exchange -- Debt basis of most philosophy because it forms relations and keeps us from always fighting -- If we see all relations as a matter of exchange, ongoing relations can only take the form of debt

Ferguson Chapter 3

Key argument: Distribution is a necessary and valuable social function and should be recognized, named, and valued as such -> especially central to regional political economy of southern Africa - Common assumption that livelihoods are made by being productive, but no modern society in which number of people being engaged in productive labor covers whole population. There's a "surplus population" excluded from production system. From Lumpenproletariat to Informal Economy to Distributed Livelihoods - Wage laborers only small percentage of population - Lumpenproletariat -> presence of urbanites outside of production-based class categories of proletariat or bourgeoise - Informal economy usually used for these livelihoods, but it's now so pervasive that it's questionable to use that term. - Ferguson terms it "survivalist improvisation" -> precocious, insecure, and flexible improvisation - Poor households across southern Africa subject to demands of others in economic affairs -> any income received encounters strong social and moral claims by those to whom one has obligations - Lots of activity related to social claims on income and wealth in poor communities - Long and careful work goes into building relationship which makes distributive flows possible - Distribution is not just a matter of income distribution, but involves social relations, social institutions, and social processes Distributive political economy - Research into wage labor creating streams of income for rurally based kin through social processes of distribution, but decline in manual labor across southern Africa leads to wages no longer being dominant source of income + other sources of income like social grants and informal economy - Social grants not just payments to individuals -> individuals become source of income for other sub-dependents -- Broader domain of social practices is implicated and cuts across distinct social domains of landholding, kinship/sharing, migration, work, love/sex, and death/funerals Distributive Livelihoods at Top of Heap - Reliance on distributive channels for accessing resources not unique to poor - Distributive livelihood strategies are not simply a product of poverty and deprivation, but rest upon deep social logic that finds application at all social levels Distributive policy -> state programs of distribution are inserted in world in which distribution is already a pervasive process with a concrete set of activities

Graeber Chapter 10

Middle Ages (600-1450 AD) - Merging of commentary ideals of axial age, commodity markets, and universal world religions - Began with collapse of empires, which broke military-coinage slavery complex - Economic life fell under jurisdiction of religious authorities -> movements to reduce predatory lending and return to virtual credit Medieval China - Decline of empires, armies, and coinage, but China was unique in that this was only temporary - Confucian bureaucracy reemerged and chartarlist economy exploded -- Foreign trade never important -- Gov aware of its ability to turn anything into money thorugh its power to tax - Threats of nomads in North and popular unrest - Confucian ideology characterized by -- Patriarchal authority -- Equal opportunity -- Low tax rates -- Promotion of ag -- Careful gov control of merchants - The ultimate goal was to funnel enough money to satisfy urban centers and nomads without also causing rural population to rise up in arms Confucian bureaucracy actively promoted markets -> hostile to motive of profit and merchatns - Profit only legitimate as compensation for labor, but not for speculation - Pro-market, but anti-capitalist - Markets understood as ways of exchanging goods through medium of money - Capitalism viewed as art of using money to make more money (money -> capitalism -> money) - Chinese state refused to align themselves with would-be Chinese capitalists, which were conceived by state media as useless parasites Usurers fundamentally selfish -> but antisocial and selfish motivations could be put to good use Merchants soldiers -> not good people but necessary to society and could be leveraged for public good - Maintained highest standard of living for much of history - Advocated for spread of Buddhism -> many schools adopted notion of karmaic debt. -- Acquiring money to repay temporal debt meant acquiring new spiritual debts because acquiring wealth necessitated exploitation, damaging, and causing suffering to living things -- Infinite charity needed to resolve this Treasuries of Buddhist monasteries became first forms of concentrated financial capital -> managed by monastic corporations and shared capitalist imperative of constant growth Coins used between strangers replaced tallies -> item could be broken in half to signify credit agreement had been reached -> these gave rise to paper money Any system of exchange ultimately founded on its social manifestation of communism

Widlock Chapter 3

Widlok: Sharing is the dominant mode of social transfer and exists primarily to foster social cohesion. Definition: The social practice of enabling access to what is valued on the basis of shared demands; taking advantage of what is valued and opportunities for letting go. Distinction between sharing and gift: Gift: obligation to give, receive, and return Sharing: opportunity to request, respond, and renounce Implications of this: - Sharing doesn't require a central authority to manage since it's voluntary - More systems of sharing than gift exchange - Gift exchanges can occur independently of sharing schemes - Sharing inherently grounded in relationships - The largest continuity between these two modes of transfer is the idea that the right kinds of acceptable demands in the correct circumstances must be made.