Debt is the most effective way to take a relation of violent subordination and make the victims feel that it’s their fault. Colonial regimes did this all the time; they would charge people for the cost of their own conquest, via taxes. However, using debt in this way also has a notorious tendency to rebound, because the subtle thing about debt relations is that, on a certain level, they are premised on equality—we are both equal parties to a contract. This both makes the sting of inequality worse, because it implies you should be equal to your creditor but you somehow messed up, but also, makes it possible to start saying ‘wait a minute, who owes what to who here?’ But of course once you do that, you have accepted the idea that debt really is the essence of morality. You’ve accepted the masters’ language.
Nice
interview with David Graeber (who I
interviewed on RSB back in 2007) over on the impressive website of
The White Review.
Readers Comments
"They would charge people for the cost of their own conquest."
AT&T...
Citibank...
Verizon....
A perfect quote for the fees by corporations.
You know, I don't believe in conspiracies, so much. But filling the unemployment rolls with thousands of Left-indoctrinated young people, with massive debts and degrees in worthless subjects, would be a socially disruptive move worthy of Alinsky himself. If it wasn't done on purpose, it certainly is playing to the hard Left's hand of cards anyway. Actually, I rather like the picture of a first-rate trim carpenter ending up with the nice house, nice vehicles, great family, and wonderful vacations, while the pseudo-discipline major spends his career paying off debt as the hipster-in-residence at the retro-vinyl record store. Someone needs to bring the young people back down to the brass tacks of life, and it isn't going to be the college admissions office.