The possibility of political pleasure: David Graeber at TEDxWhitechapel
Vložit
- čas přidán 11. 02. 2013
- David Graeber is an anthropologist and sometime activist currently teaching at Goldsmiths, University of London. He did his original fieldwork in Madagascar, and has written on the nature of value, direct action, money, manners, debt, fetishism, consumption, revolution, and democracy. He has also been occasionally known to occupy things.
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)
I love how he's wearing red and black :)
Me too!
✊🚩🏴 rest in power comrade
Social/ Sindicalist Anarchism ❤️
It's so sad to lose such a profound proponent of anarchism.
Hearing this man talk reminds me why I fell in love with anarchist thought.
Rest in power David
I only recently read Debt. I’d never heard of Graeber and one of my MBA friends recommended it to me. I finished it, then went to look up the authors work/see what he had to say about our current economic situation etc only to find out he’d passed. Same thing happens to me with Mark Fisher.
We’ve lost too many good revolutionary authors before their time.
I actually suspect the CIA of killing him. He died of internal bleeding that just started to happen by itself. It sounds suspicious to me. I have heard of a kind of laser beam that can be directed to a pinpoint and go through building and can be delivered from a long distance away, like in a helicopter or a plane of some sort.
He‘s still around and his ideas are still moving ;)
He's about the idea, not about coercing you into believing the idea. It's a very sincere delivery, I think.
He is an anarchist and I've listened to him give other speeches and he always urges against political approaches to problems. He encourages direct action. For example if a town in the desert needs a well, the political answer is to approach your senator, mayor, representative, etc. He urges against this and instead recommends direct action, in this case building the well regardless of the legality of the action. Anarchy is so beautifully simple. Occam's Razor at its finest.
But why say that direct action isn't political? Isn't what he's saying here that direct action is democratic and so political?
@@kvaka009 explicitly non-political actions with profound political consequences. it's worth making the distinction imo
@@hb8213 can you give an example?
Let's take this example to it's logical conclusion. If a town in the desert needs a well and just goes ahead and digs one without permission the well will be shut down by the local government until the proper fees and permits are paid and secured. And if the well is dug on land not belonging to any of the townspeople who were involved in the digging of the well that well would then become someone else's property to do what they want with it, probably charging a profit for the use of the well by the townspeople. This is not a simple or beautiful solution at all. Until you rid the land you live on of it's government, direct action (of this particular variety) is worthless. And unless you set up some sort of an organizational structure that utilizes the threat of violence or imprisonment of the capitalists who would inevitably try to retake the land you "stole" from them in your just revolution, the land will once again belong to a government that puts profits above people. This is why anarchism is a naïve ideology. Stateless, classless society cannot exist until all global capitalist powers have been abolished and repressed for long enough to ensure they will not rise again.
@@0228christian you make a distinction between the "town [people]" and the government and then also the structures of violence. What are these distinctions? Are you saying that the townspeople have no part in the government? Are structures of violence and the people who execute and uphold those structures not the same and these are different from the government? Your clarification of the example seems very confused. "Government" is some strange abstract entity somehow distinct from the town but similar to the state. I think you seem believe that anarchism promotes having no government, which is false. And to your larger point, yes, unless a polity can prevent external or internal powers from arising and corrupting that form of polity, then that polity will not survive. I'm not sure why that is an argument exclusively against anarchism though.
Rest in power, David Graeber.
I just accidentally found out about his heath and was dumbstruck... He's gone
Great talk. Not coached to death by TED "communication" coaches, thank goodness.
This talk shows how awful most TED Talks have become, and many a TEDx Talk too. How refreshing, this one!
Can’t believe he’s gone. Thanks so much for all the wisdom David 💚
David Graeber is one of the greatest provocateurs of creative ideas!! Thanks a lot....
“When we think of creative solutions to world problems we tend to think within walls of violence. The best ones are ones you don’t know are there and just assume are definitive parts of reality.”
Wow, this really grounds me in a sense of reality. Sometimes I find myself lost in the sea of endless writings of the left, disconnected from why I even found anarchy in the first place. This brings it back to simple terms that makes me feel much more connected.
he hates reality
@@fightfannerd2078 you hate good will
There is no "Left" or "Right" AT ALL ! The division has been created by a very small group to come into and stay in power and control.
- Think for yourself and care for each other -
yeah I get that feeling. crazy how sensible and disciplined the guy was.
unfortunately I've lost my mind so many times haha
Graeber is fantastic. I love that he's wearing red and black.
Good man with positive ideas. I will stand with him.
it saddens me knowing this brilliant person is no longer alive to help us imagine better futures and fight the fight
At least we still have his thoughts that he shared with the world. Many of the people he has inspired will continue along the same path.
He is the reason why I’m pursuing a PhD in Anthropology. I have made an oath to carry the burden which he so diligently bore. He’s my inspiration and I promise that I won’t let his work die.
@@Senriam I'm rooting for ya!
David Graeber.... ❤🩹❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎👋🙏💐🌸🏵🌹🥀🌺🌻🌼🌷☀🌝🌞🌈💯
David is a great thinker and a great revolutionary =)
A breaker of paradigms
Never mind the "ummms" -- there was a larger point being made: that politics is not about masterful leaders or polished speeches, but about a process that could be a joyful kind of work for all of us. A stretch for the imagination.
He always has those filler words like um. His talk at google is like that.
There was a study done that found that the usage of “um” goes down the more you know about a subject, but after a certain point of mastery it starts going back up. This is an example of the latter.
Wonderfully 'off-hand', matter-of-fact look at creating politics that isn't about fear and fighting.
Watching such a profound talk where the speaker captivates and connects with the audience, then realizing it has just less than 70K views eight years on gives such a funny feeling to me.
Is it possible David was wrong? Are people in modern western society not actually that interested in democracy? If so, why not?
Great question. I read his book on debt and was struck by his depth of thought. I do have a concern, not just about the topic in this post, but in general. For me, IMHOP, the impression I'm getting is that if we all just changed our thinking, then all would be better. I think what is missing, for me, is the pragmatics of what happens when we change our thinking. You might say, the logistics of how to make this happen...what happens after we change our thinking? I am able to make this post because I don't have to worry about shelter, or if I have food and water tomorrow, or protect my family or secure all the other basic needs for my existence. I think this is a luxury compared to where the rest of the world. Once this change of thought is made, labor will have to happen. And labor will have to be paid. A value will have to be placed on this labor which can then be exchanged for basic necessities. So this is more than just a change of thought...which can happen in an instant (at the very best). Perhaps this is the engineer in me. For example: as I am changing my thinking I am also thinking about going to work tomorrow, buying groceries, taking my kids to school. Guess what happens when my "changed mind" comes into to conflict with those things (and it will). Which wins? Sorry to have dumped this on your post. Just looking for civil conversation.
@@lewpearson9800 Thanks for writing!
Bread and circus?
It's awkward, but getting used to people saying "umm" while spreading a gentle, meaningful message, is going to be part of developing a democratic culture. On the one hand we all need to learn to speak better; on the other, we need to learn to listen to people who haven't mastered public speaking.
I'd rather hear a profound and interesting message interspersed by "umm"s than a perfectly delivered dishonest or hollow message.
This was great. Building environments of trust and co-operation for collective problem solving is the key to create positive change in reality. There are no limits, we should be going for a total revolution in all spheres of life: economic, political, media, art, science, literature, culture in general, religion, etc. etc. Imagination can make everything better in a really short time, we just need to start working systematically and effectively to create these spaces.
I like your optimism. Just don't forget that a lot of big moves in politics have huge unintended consequences, sometimes terrible. It's instructive to look closely at how previous implementations of radical ideas went so wrong. Personally, I'm all for radical change, but even more for great caution in its pursuit. In particular, I'd say that when a political movement has to engage in oppression to achieve its ends, or doesn't appreciate the great service its critics are doing it and talk to them sincerely, or pushes big changes through, against the wishes of large swathes of the population, while it, perhaps briefly, has the power to do so, it's getting something fundamentally wrong.
@@benjamingeorgecoles8060 Consensus is hard to achieve. Unanimity is 100% of the vote. A Supermajority of the vote is 2/3 majority.
"Consensus" is a nebulous term but its not a bad policy. The problem is selection bias with small pools of the population establishing committees that are out of touch and illegitimate.
However, somewhere between 60% and 100% of any electorate can't be wrong.
Sometimes 50% of the people can be quite wrong. But that's why we have the next election.
Your post is basically evoking the pragmatic thinking of the conservative - tread carefully, do not disregard traditions, do not destroy them, take into account the due process and proper form, circumstance of things.
@@scolic03 Hi. Thanks for the reply.
Do you think there's something inherently wrong with 'the pragmatic thinking of the conservative'? Do you not think it's an important voice in the conversation, at the very least?
A supermajority would be sufficient for many very big political changes, I'm sure... Though making concessions to the minority might still be best, in many cases.
When you say '60 to 100% of any electorate can't be wrong', do you really mean that? Literally? Aren't you underestimating people's ability to be wrong? There have been times past when fairly large majorities would have favoured systematic lynching of ethnic or religious minorities... or other such terrible things.
@@benjamingeorgecoles8060 Hard to say. I like to quote Žižek on this: its not "knowledge" its "wisdom". It takes finesse - when and where you need to be conservative/tread lightly and when you need to be radical. I think it's a simple dichotomy: Both the left and right parts of the political spectrum have their radical and their conservative policies in the playbook, its a matter of finesse, judgment and "wisdom" to apply one or the other.
As for the "60% can't be wrong", I take that back... I was wrong on that one.
Surely you need some safeguards against the excessess/tyranny of the majority. The only practical safeguard I see is a strong liberal Constitution (and a constitutional state to uphold this Constitution) that would protect the liberties of the populace.
@@scolic03 Well, yeah, that all sounds pretty wise to me. :)
Do you remember where Žižek said those things? I'd be interested to check it out sometime.
I was revolutionized by Chomsky but I can't love a mind and a man more than David Graeber.
Great development! Now watch Parenti.
@@0228christian been listening to MP for years. I'll see your Parenti and raise you a Chalmers Johnson ;o)
@@TheGodlessGuitarist nice! I'm not particularly familiar with Johnson. I'm familiar with his work on US imperialism, but I know he wrote a lot about China as well and did some work with the CIA at times in regards to his expertise in Chinese and Japanese affairs. That makes me a little wary of his take on it, but I'd be open to reading more if you have any suggestions.
@@0228christian "I'm familiar with his work on US imperialism"
That's about my limit too
Great...as always, we anthropologists are not usually very good at public speaking, but we've got some interesting ideas to offer ;) thinking outside of the box!
Great man.
We need to learn to except people who speak to the pubic in a variety of ways. Personally I prefer his unstylised way of speaking over some of those who have 'mastered' public speaking.
(Respond to 7 year old comment now, hi!)
In my opinion he certainly speaks ‘unstylised’ but not without mastery. It’s more like talking to a friend but just that it’s a group of possible friends called an audience. Very pleasant to watch and listen to.
And quite masterful in that regard then :)
Best public speaking I ever saw, was when the speaker approached the audience as a group of friends, making eye contact etc. No powerpoints (shudder), no props, not worrying about hand gestures, just the person and the mike, telling a story.
Rest in peace and power.
CHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOk!
I guess the almighty youtube algorithm has determined similar fates for us lol.
RIP^2 David
I still can't believe we lost him ...
Simply Mind blowinging 😮😊
The subtle, yet beautiful, propaganda of a simple outfit from the person who made the "We Are The 99%!" slogan for the Occupy movement lol Goddamn if he doesn't say "Uhm" more than I can stand usually but my guy always has something to say. Always enjoy tuning into this cat. Gives me some hope.
And yeah, the "founders" most definitely knew what they were doing to protect their interest. And look at us now.
rest in power, mr. graeber
13:39 that pause right before "but they cant" especially, and really the whole body language and meter of the whole sentence, is so strikingly evocative of DiCaprio's character portrayal in Wolf of Wall Street.
David gives me hope for anarchy!
This was really how I felt in some of our meetings in the military. In intel, in our jobs, when we were doing good things, when we were all intelligent folks who were the best of the best and they trusted us to know what to do, and to check one another.
That was the last possible time.
And we should never have to have war to justify it.
We live under fascism at the moment, corporatism, crony capitalism, take your choice of term.
Capitalism
capitalism
Very good point, in my opinion. Acceptance of others, including others' cultures and ideals and viewpoints, their lack of experience, their greater experience, is extremely important going towards this theoretical global democracy that we speak of.
Brilliant.
Great talk, thanks for the upload.
I know what you're talking about. People are always giving me stick, for not speaking clearly or misusing words. But the one thing people hate more is how I just don't listen.
What's odd is how hard it is to work through.
Now here's a thinker I can get behind!
Love this
Read a bit on parliamentary rule. Form a local group to "monitor the govt and redress its injustices". Require at least 2/3 support to uphold any claims of injustices. Local groups can connect with each other, networking across the country, and then they can send one rep from each district to a legislature.
I just read his book "The dawn of everything", so I wanted to watch something else of his. Too bad he is deceased.
It’s about the ideas and not the person. He certainly left us some decent basic resources to be inspired by.
I think that even if they didn't survive they would still have instilled in people the experience of actual democratic process. They may even wish to extend that type of decision making to the workplace.
this is the same event as the sheldrake/hancock banned talks! must have been such a sweeeeet event! graebz ftw
Not to rub anyone, but ritual or ceremony likely has this root, still it is often weilded as a base idea of non-thinking, which is ONLY half-true, truly great speech!!! RIP Graeber.
Very nice
Ideas are great but action is greater. We all have ideas but accurately articulating them is very difficult and actually putting them into action is even more difficult. If you come up with an idea you should be the one who puts the initial work in because after all actions speak louder than words.
noobie379 There’s an expression in theatre that goes something along the lines of “one actor is a crazy person, many actors are a show”. Without speaking, actions mean nothing because they have no context to be understood in, the same as how without actions, words have no meaning because they don’t do anything. This professor is agitating and educating, not just philosophizing, and that is good work.
Rest in peace champ
I miss David Graeber
Again, it all boils down to a world where a small group (or class) or people making decisions for everyone else. It's pretty un-democratic, and really un-just.
Anarcho-capitalism (to the extent it could even exist) pretty much re-creates the domination of one small group ruling over everyone else.
Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism rejects vertical power hierarchies, capitalism depends on them.
I like his sentiment of trying to find a way to give everyone a platform to express their idea. That is basically the internet to be honest. Unfortunately, echo chambers and like minded people tend to have found each other and use their collective voices to push a certain idea or hatred, which can spread like wildfire. A prime example is 4chan.
4chan has been long dead. that's why the fascists moved to 8kun.
Companion: no one was ever more alive among us!
Visca la Terra!
Visca el Anarquismo!
I miss you 😓
If i had a drink everytime he says ''Umm''
You said: "if someone is being paid $5 an hour when they produce $50 of goods an hour another capitalist will come in and offer them $6 and again and again until their wages approach their productive outputs."
What?!?!?!?!!??
If that is true, then how come every single business owner (or the majority of private power) do their best to keep wages low??? If this was true, we would be seeing this today to an extent, and we're only seeing the opposite (real wages have dropped since 1979).
HERO
Sortition/citizen assemblies? Or does this run counter to what's being suggested here? What is being suggested here - in concrete terms?
Generally the principles of anarchism or precisely the idea of acting collectively _outside_ of any concrete terms. That plasticity is both the strength and weakness of anarchism in general (in my opinion).
@@Bisquick Thanks - so, what does "...acting collectively outside of any concrete terms." look like?
@@okafka5446 So like the most basic generic example I think is like if a city needs a well or something instead of confining the thinking to be like, "okay we gotta ask our politicians about zoning, get approval yada yada", just get a bunch of people and actually build the well. I think the phrase "ask for forgiveness, not permission" probably well embodies it if that makes sense.
@@Bisquick I see, and how does that work in relation to more complex needs? and within the current socioeconomic status quo?
@@okafka5446 Yeah I'm no expert haha I'm basically a socialist for the reasons you're asking lol doesn't seem to be the most practical to scale if that makes sense.
EDIT: I am recalling the first anarchist is I think...Proudhon? If you wanna check him out. I just know him for his criticism of Locke's private property nonsense.
It's very cold outside and we have to pay rent currently.
Unfortunately one of the formulations that came out of this is that financial inequality undermines democracy but you need democracy to defeat inequality.
Key word here is: Possibility
Well technicality if enough people want to do something in any system you can't stop them. However, in anarchy there is no restriction on defensive weaponry, so anyone who wanted to steal something as valuable as a factory would do so at great risk.
This is why I'm a Communist, it's a good thing to want., you don't have to be attached to actually getting it
Sort of, but not really. Democracy requires meaningful discourse. My experience with the internet is that it's mostly fluff; incredibly hard to find any true substance. The times where people are actually talking about ideas on the internet they tend to simply state their own opinion like it's dogma and fling poo at anyone who disagrees with them. That's not democracy, that's a monkey cage.
They do try to keep them low, but so long as a capitalist who doesn't have a worker and can hire a worker for a higher wage than that worker currently makes he will do so. I'll explain, if the workers is paid $5 and creates $50 of product then the firm gets the $45 extra. Now another firm sees this type of return on investment and wants to get in on the action, if they don't offer more than $5 that worker won't change jobs, so they offer $6, it's a higher wage but now the 2nd firm gets $44.
14-Hour-Meetings?! Those must be the tribes that chew coca leaves or they have other means of stimulating themselves. 😄
If you're incapable of focusing on substance, worrying more about delivery or matters of form, it is you who needs to get a brain upgrade.
genius
In response to your second question, I wouldn't call it slavery, but that is just semantics and not really important. The problem with this example is that it happens under any system. Under capitalism, however, if someone is being paid $5 an hour when they produce $50 of goods an hour another capitalist will come in and offer them $6 and again and again until their wages approach their productive outputs. If we currently had capitalism competition would tend to eliminate such scenarios.
NamekianPrince Productive output can't be approached. Otherwise capitalism wouldn't work.
It's based on surplus production.
RIP
RIP.
I'm a fan of David Graeber, but I must be honest, this talk was very disappointing. If this is your first taste of Graeber, don't give up on him. He's produced some brilliant work.
Really? It's not the best, but TED talks tend to be very limited, so he did his best. I think it's an idea that a lot of folks haven't thought of. I think it's less interesting for us already fans. It still is nice to listen to him.
Mostly, the restrictions TED talks force on you kinda wreck a lot of potential talks, especially if the person likes to ramble, they have to be really precise.
So exactly what is stopping anyone from buying a plot of land and gathering up their Anarchist/communist friends and living in a commune now? Its perfectly legal to do. Collectivization is in no way illegal, even Noam Chomsky gives examples of democratically run industries with no hierarchy.
This is what I'm saying!!!
I like his work but how many "aehm, ahms" can one say in 14 min.? Unbeatable
+Billetes Locales Damn you! I didn't even notice until I scrolled down and saw your comment.
I loved his whole speech but disagreed with his conclusion, I think. Did he suggest that democracy was the solution? If so, did he mean forced democracy or voluntary, where people can opt out if they disagreed?
He is a anarchist, so force is not something he promotes.
No force? So, if I wanted to not participate I would not be forced to pay for anything like taxes?
+Michael Cordon Who you gonna pay taxes to, if there's no leaders and no bosses?
+A Libertarian Socialist I could also end my life. My point is I think staying here and being forced to pay taxes is better than the alternatives available to me now. But I am still wishing I could stay in my home and be more free.
+Nox Aternum Bosses and non-political leaders don't force me to pay them taxes. Only political leaders and other gov't officials do.
He's right about all of the issues, he's just not the best public speaker
Funny, I've always REALLY enjoyed his speaking... It works really well for me. Mostly in small stories with little snippets of information, but still plenty of context that info is placed within.
Also like how his theoretical Professorial academics is grounded in a working class background.
Mike Hermida I too, really enjoy his speaking style. Graeber has always captivated me.
D Blaheta yeah, David graeber is an exceptional public speaker. I have no idea where OP got that from
Actually, some do have forums, now they have weapons. 🪦
In response to the first claim I'm not sure what you mean, capitalism is a system of private property, meaning everyone has a right to defend their property against aggression (theft, rape, fraud, etc.). They can either defend it personally or hire someone else to defend this property. The state violates this fundamental rule every time it taxes, it violently forces people to accept their "protective services" and if you try to defend your property from this aggression you will be shot.
Hopefully he works on that for next time he has something like this.
Um
I would love to see this guy and Jordan Peterson talk.
I can only imagine how badly he would destroy Peterson's egoistic pretention, honestly. if Dillahunty could laugh at him, Graeber would have absolutely demolished him.
Peterson is not on his level at all. I'm glad he's been forgotten as of late
I can't listen to this. Crazy umms in the craziest places, not in thinking pauses but in the middle of sentences or even phrases spoken without any slowdown, so the function of the ummms is bewildering. I'll go read UM an essay UM or book by him, UM!
Boo
"Ummm..... Ummm..... Um!!"
Jesus christ fire the sound guy
tech Africans how to feed themselves
As true as it sounds, that suggests Africans don't know how to feed themselves. That contradicts David's claim about natives.
Also, that the founding fathers admitted there's a problem within their democracy didn't mean they hated it. Rather they wanted to make it better. So they enshrined the words of independence which includes liberty but in choosing their leaders. Every system has its problems. But historically Monarchy and communism have demonstrated their bloody nature, best at killing their own.
They do know how to feed themselves. They just have other problems.
Stop post-colonialism and the exploitation by Russia, China and the „West“. Africa would be fine within a decade.
I think he's one of those scientists in Gulliver's Travels who impractically extracts sunbeams from cucumbers. Beware.
great analysis .
But it would help if you could point out, even very briefly, some of what you see as impracticality.
Presumably he'd grant that all the political changes he mentions here - particularly things like the complete removal of geopolitical borders - would need to be thought about a lot before possibly being implemented, assuming they even could. Maybe he thinks he and others have done a lot of that necessary thinking, and it's written down elsewhere. This is just a TED talk, after all.
Has he never heard of the internet. It is the most democratic thing in the history of mankind
until you discover that it isn't
Since when is the internet democratic!?!
this guy needs to work in public speaking he says umm too much
Finally someone who got not coached into submission by those coaches for public speaking. 😄😉
the right word is fascism.
Could you elaborate?
As an anarcho-capitalist I would like an explanation. Anarchism means, without rulers, anarcho-capitalism or voluntarism as I prefer to call it, is a system in which any voluntary acts between consenting adults is legitimate and cannot be interfered with by an outside force. All other forms of "anarchy" allow violent interventions against voluntary associations of people which necessarily establish the relationship of ruler (intervener) and ruled (peaceful groups) and are thereore contradictory.
He's a bum. He wants us all to be bums, just like he is.
First, he's dead.
Secondly, his ideas have nothing to do with being a bum/homeless.
I think his ideas make you very uncomfortable.
Still upset or have you come around?