In the final lines of his introduction to Debt: The First 5,000 Years, David Graeber writes that [f]or a very long time, the intellectual consensus has been that we can no longer ask Great Questions. And as he put it in a guest post over at Savage Minds: The aim of the book was to write the sort of book people dont write any more: a big book, asking big questions, meant to be read widely and spark public debate
[T]he credit crisis and near collapse of the global economy in 2008afforded the perfect opportunity. In the wake of the disaster, it was as if suddenly, everyone wanted to start asking big questions again. Even The Economist, that bastion of neoliberal orthodoxy, was running cover headlines like Capitalism: Was It A Good Idea? (my italics)
Debt is a big book, in other words, because he wants to re-open a set of questions that had come to seem closed for a very long time, the questions of what human beings and human society are or could be likewhat we actually do owe each other, what it even means to ask that question.
To be more specific, Graebers starting point is the Grand neoliberal orthodoxy that regards Debt as the worst possible thing, the argument, for example, that austerity measures like an end to state subsidies of public libraries in California are preferable to the moral crisis of going (deeper) into debt. This has been a bipartisan consensus that dominated the Anglo-American political and media discourse up to somewhere around the beginning of Occupy Wall Street, and which still dominates perhaps a little more quietly, now our political classs actions. It may not be desirable to cut pensions or eliminate what used to be essential social services goes the argument but its better than going into debt.
This species of helplessness is particular to neoliberal policymaking, whose core ideological attribute is a cynical acceptance of (what is taken to be) reality, the declaration that There Is No Alternative, and the command that we must therefore be realistic, lie back, and resign ourselves to the inevitable. And in that precise sense, the very writing of Graebers big book the very bigness of its ambitions is a cognitive dissonance within this perspective, an attempt to argue that other possible answers and possibilities exist and are always available. Its an invitation to read the world differently, to see different possiblities in the here and now, and to argue not only that another world is possible, as the slogan/cliché has it, but that other worlds are present.
Click for Full Text!