I just finished watching the interview, and am about half-way through Graeber’s (very good) book. I must say I am somewhat surprised that you did not really hit on Marx, and the way David does really well, as any good anarchist must, skirting any treatment of Captial. In a recent online interview, he said something interesting about the CCP, and the way that China has managed to exploit global finance in such a way as to meet the needs of its domestic economy. It was the way he put it, though, that seemed most interesting to me. He called party leaders, and I’m paraphrasing here, very well-trained Marxists who treat all this high finance like a bunch of superstructural mumbo-jumbo, and who have managed to use the financialization of global capitalism in order to fuel their own “real sector” growth. This sounded like a back-handed compliment to me, and I just wonder how David would answer if confronted with the question of the fundemental shift that Marxism finds in the development of the capitalist mode of production. In other words, is it a really a 500-year ebb and flow between credit and hard money, or does something crucial happen with the advent of the commodity-form and surplus value, etc., etc.?