Revolutionary as in the "different from conventional" rather than "en route to revolution." I guess my choice of words was poor for this case. :) It's not just

Revolutionary as in the "different from conventional" rather than "en route to revolution." I guess my choice of words was poor for this case. :) It's not just educated, but also interested. For two reasons.. the first is that a nuanced change to the origin of money narrative is not really interesting in itself, without the context. 2nd, because the really interesting implications (imo) come from merging the barter and debt narratives. He doesn't get into it very explicitly. A lot of modern economics (eg much of Friedman's work) orbits the money multiplication concept. (1)Savers deposit money. (2)Banks lend the money. (3) borrowers buy a house with it. (4/1)The money gets redoposited by by the seller (5/2) banks lend the money.... Each time they lend the money, the total amount of money in existence (in people's bank account) multiplies. This process controls the supply of money, and its inflation implications. It's how (most) money gets created. It relates to banking stability. Business cycles. Stimulus. A lot of the complicated implications of money stem from here. Graebers story is more elegant, with a single mechanism. It's all debt. The banking money multiplier predates money, and is the real way money came to be. I immediately thought of bitcoin. My current thinking is that bitcoin will be real money when people start borrowing it, not when they start buying stuff with it. Or else, maybe bitcoin is not really significant since it's just a way of denominating money. Anarchists will be interested for the anthropology, the history of debt rebellions and such. Not a lot of anarchists out there, so I assume modern writing from anarchist perspectives is generally interesting to them.