This is one of David Graeber's important points about the way we look at politics, and economics/money. He argues that the 'common' narrative is wrong, namely (

This is one of David Graeber's important points about the way we look at politics, and economics/money. He argues that the 'common' narrative is wrong, namely (very simplified) that we're all (rational) actors trading back and forth, and that we invented money to simplify this, and democracy to allow majority vote to 'win'. Instead, he argues that historically and in societies around the world, we didn't fundamentally 'trade' in this way, but rather we 'gave things' and 'got things in return' in the same way we exchange things with friends and family ('tribe?'). The basis was cooperation, not cold exchange. The same goes for democracy. Instead of majority rule, most(?) societies operated through consensus models, with majority vote as an undesirable last resort. I don't know enough about the topic to agree or disagree strongly, but having lived in a more 'traditional' society for much of my life, it does seem that many of the problems in my current society (Holland) are a direct result of the 'transactional' model. The interconnectedness and gift-based economics I experienced in that society had many advantages, and the lack of this here is, in my opinion, a primary cause for loneliness, alienation, lack of cross-class interaction, and resulting increase in individualism and self-centeredness. It's also interesting to me to see that my younger friends are much more interested in communal living and similar sharing initiatives, engage much more with the 'informal economy', and generally speaking dislike consumerism. In part they have no choice, but in part they seem quite happy with the results (despite difficulties finding jobs and getting a 'normal' career going).