THANK YOU DAVID GRAEBER, the shift to bureaucracy in Universities! Yikes. These tools of domination and manipulation...through the seemingly boring paper trail!!!
You have to have an understanding that "human nature" is ultimately a spectrum and certain ranges can be magnified via education, institutions, culture, media, society and advertising. In a capitalist society all of these bring out hyper-individual ways of interacting with people and the world but if the education and fundamental structures were more cooperative and based on solidarity then a different spectrum of "human nature" would be strengthened.
@@onetwo3411 Capitalism is a revolutionary force which overcomes lots of traditional means of interacting with each other. For example, it challenges the patriarchal family by enabling women to enter the conventional workforce. The highest increase in the rate of exploitation occurred not in the 18th century with the power loom nor the harnessing of electricity nor steam, but in fact in the 20th century. Despite declining labour hours per individual, the participation of women shot up dramatically. Now capitalism seeks new avenues and advocacy for child labour and increased length of days has become topical again - capitalists at the edge of progress have always advocated removing any trammel to exploitation or just flouted any restrictions regardless of legality, but it requires adequate material conditions for elite consensus to coalesce around them. The will of the majority is very distinct from elite consensus however. The Republican party in the 20th century divested itself of its radical beginnings (with Lincoln noting that renting oneself wasn't much superior to being sold) and became a party ardently dedicated to business - yet around 2/3rds of its members support a Green New Deal and a slim majority raising the minimum wage - things which would cause a neo-Austrian apopleptic rage. Graeber points out that practically all interactions and relations we have between each other do not occur in a capitalist fashion because it'd be impossible to operate in that method - one illustrative example he gives is within Goldman Sachs, a broker passing a mechanic may hand them a wrench without deciding how much that interaction would cost them. In fact, Sears was completely run into the ground by attempting even in microcosm the kind of logical conclusion which one would have to adopt via Objectivism. That does leave us somewhat stumped though - if convenient myths about "Pareto efficiency" aren't even true and humans arrange themselves hierarchically and with deference to authority even though it contravenes both capitalist and socialist impetus, then aren't supposedly radical solutions just means of more aesthetically arranging dominance? Not necessarily - it was impossible for the Greeks to imagine a society where philosophy was possible without slavery, but we can envisage a society based on freely associating equals. Industrial matters could be arranged in a similar fashion to Mondragon or Kantega, enabling us to free to write poetry or criticise after dinner as it were.
I think languages change because of the need for identity. Sapolsky observed that most languages are created and evolved by children. It is an expression of mutually recognised individuality (familiarity). The formalisation of language is at the service of commerce between strangers in the setting that lacks familiarity. The notion of universal commerce is therefore at the expense of familiarity - and ultimately at the expense of identity. Perhaps if we look closely at the word "boredom" we might see that it is a discomfort caused by reduced identity?
@@felicityc I'm not sure that it matters whose name you use to label the idea. It's empirically true that children have an outsized role in developing language.
Bureaucracy is also about control and preventing change, and For a basic income to work, we need a minimum standard of living, where everyone is guaranteed basic healthcare, basic education 1-12 grade after which some field of work like electrician, carpenter, masonry, or mechanic and affordable housing, based on the level of of income, higher education will be for those who are qualified academically or motivated to go on to engineering,law enforcement or teaching or field of science, law enforcement officers should have a minimum 2-4 year degree, in my opinion, Nice discussion…
"i think that the role of violence is undertheorized." Yes, what about the violence inherent in the Animal Agriculture system? Is it not rape and violence when these things happen to animals? Anthropocentric Humanists (Anarchists among them) need to answer this question. Is bureaucratic violence 'OK' if animals are the victims? Is it somehow no longer violence? Except it is humans doing the violence... Isn't this a problem?
one of the big problems that pop up, is the social construct we make between "human" and "animal". a firm, honest investigation into "animal" rights would also be prone to shaking what we currently base "human" rights on, and while my personal opinion would be that it could strengthen "human" rights, it could also be used as a justification for the opposite. i am fully in favor of moving past harm to animals(even though i would like to still have non manipulative and humane husbandry). i do think that the vegan movement has certainly made a lot of strides, but for the most part, getting people to care takes a lot of patience, time and effort, and understanding of different levels of education and experience.
@@dylantchang5987 i would imagine there would be several standards, such as: 1. does not cause lasting damage 2. is painless 3. does not cause distress 4. is beneficial to the animal 5.Etc. i am not advocating for anything in particular, and i do think decommodification needs to happen to an extent, but i do think we can think about this in a intelligent and humane way that instead of it being parasitic, it would be mutualistic instead.
@@ethanstump By any objective moral standard that takes into account the desire of all beings to live their own lives on *their* terms, killing animals and taking their children away from them to use their eggs and bodily fluids violates all 4 of those requirements, no matter how “humanely” it is done, or what economic system it occurs under. Are you familiar with abolitionist activists such as Dr. Steven Best? They propose a different approach to the animal question that does not grant human beings the “right” to decide how nonhumans should live their lives.
@@dylantchang5987 no, I am not familiar with the animal rights activists. as you can clearly see, i am more human centric. I'm still changing and evaluating my viewpoints, but at the moment I'm focused on other things, like the differences between state and anti-state socialisms. also while I definitely am all for these lab grown meats/eggs/diary and the like, and cleaning up the environmental hazard that is modern farming, I am puzzled as to why symbiotic forms of farming that benefit both are so frowned upon. is it because of consent? and how would you even verify animal consent in a consistent way among different species? we aren't the only species that farms other species.
We cannot be "free" of commitment when ("it's always NOW) we are composed of thermodynamical time-timing positioning e-Pi-i sync-duration resonances, ie Bose-Einsteinian, Newtonian Fluxion-Integral, Temporal Condensation in which the apparent "flow" from function to form is the fractal conic-cyclonic modulo-geometrical interference positioning resonance bonding chemistry of bio-logical re-evolution.., ONE-INFINITY Singularity Eternity-now Interval. An ideal anarchy of equals in a mutually supportive environment requires Precision, ..in Labelling of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical phase-locked coherence-cohesion material manifestation, ..Accuracy. Be-cause-effect "I am you and you are me and we are all together" fitted to pure-math Gold-Silver Rules of Mutual Respect and parallel coexistence in/of QM-TIME Completeness. A short course in Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection Techniques applied to 0-1-2-ness Polar-Cartesian self-defining => condensation coordination logarithmic interference positioning is required, a sequential illumination of wave-particle superposition-> superimposed aspects of Superspin Modulation Mechanism Lensing @.dt zero-infinity axial-tangential relative-timing orthogonality. (An Anthropogenic Actual-Artificial Intelligence application of probabilistic correlation design principles in action-Actuality) Then it's time to review and reiterate heirachical mono-dualistic AM-FM vertical integration condensation.
This is the fault of idealism. While I agree that it’s ideologically not great to strengthen the state so you can eliminate it, this fails to take into account the reality of counterrevolution. So if we would like to not have fought in vain, it is quite important that the state be allowed to wither away naturally by resolving the contradictions in society.
@@viergelalouidor4163 good question. There are a lot. The main contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. While we can seize the means of production in a revolution, it doesn't change the fact that the bourgeoisie will be constantly trying to take back their lost power through violent means. This is exactly what happened to the Paris Commune. The bourgeoisie also sought to regain its lost influence through war in Russia and the states that would eventually band together into the USSR, China, Korea, and pretty much everywhere a Communist revolution happened. The only revolutions that survived through these onslaughts were the ones that formed a powerful state apparatus to oppress the bourgeoisie and other enemies of the revolution. And then we see states like the USSR collapse after they abandoned this principle under Khrushchev. Other contradictions and disagreements should be solved in court, or peacefully through the Democratic process.
@@viergelalouidor4163 also, idealism and lack of Centralism left Spain under Franco's forces. This unwillingness to use what most in the west would call "authoritarian" methods also led directly to fascist take overs in Italy, Germany, Chile, and others. People say that Hitler came to power through being elected by the German people, and that's kinda true, but the Nazis gained their influence in the first place with the aid of wealthy backers who supported them as a direct reaction to powerful Socialist movements. The reason that these Socialists failed was mainly that they feared revolution.
Interesting. I think David naively believes that all adults are mature. They are not. I think the existence of the state and the inevitable abstraction of discipline and violence, directly follows.
At 6:30 in the video. I don't understand this talk about how everything is backed up with violence in our society. Yeah sure if you break the rules and get caught, violence will be the ultimate answer if you don't give up. So what? Would anyone want a society where this is not the case? Ex. Someone is building a garage partly on my lawn and when I involve the authorities they can't really do much because they can't go to violence. Sounds like a horrible society.
He is using simplification. The thing is the rules were not created by the collective, they were created by a few people and are enforced by a police. That horrible society that you exemplifies already exist, because for the ruling class, the laws dont apply. When a landowner robs people of their way of living that is violence. So yeah, our society is based on violence because the rules were made to mantain the right of those few to exploit the masses, and exploitation is violence. My point is: Most of the rules(if not all) are not there to protect you or your rights but to protect the right of a few to exploit you. I know that i'm simplifying too, but i think i got my point across on why he says that your society is based on violence, keep in mind that violence is not just physical violence and maybe you will start to get it. I hope i was of any help, Cheers mate!
@@leonardorosindasilva3555 thanks for the clarification. But if that is his claim, he should back it up with something, examples. I think there are lots of laws that protects you as a consumer or a worker, at least here in Sweden where I live. Or perhaps he did that but I stopped listening too early or missed it.
Hey, @Carl H When he is talking about rules backed up by violence, he is talking bureaucratic violence. Lets take your example with slight twist. Someone is building garage on your lawn. You two get in argument. If he/she fight with violence, can you fight with violence too? Yes. Of course Now lets get authority involved. That person gives fake evidence to authority and claims his place. Now you get little furious and authority uses violence to stop you. Can you fight back? No, you can't fight back with violence. If you fight bureaucracy or authority with violence then they will put you in jail. Now to get back your place , you have follow rules, which are again created by authorities. You don't follow this rules like for some reason you lost your documents or that person bribe authority to change documents at government side. Then you won't get place back. This is my interpretation so I might be wrong. But I hope I gave you different perspective.
The line that I think is missed here in your example is one of rights. Constitutional rights to be specific. Not rules. Violence should be the answer only to protect your rights if your Constitutional rights are being violated. If someone is building a garage on your lawn in your example, they are violating your Constitutional right to your property. If that same person were building a garage on his own property, yet violated some arbitrary city code by using the wrong size nails or whatever, he’s not violating anyones Constitutional rights and should not be subject to violence (and imo, government shouldn’t have any part here whatsoever). We’ve allowed the government’s agents (police) to go way outside their bounds (protecting Constitutional rights by enforcement of anyone who violates another’s rights). “War on drugs”being the most egregious example.
Errm, language develops through the internalisation of foreign influences, with the exception of American, which bastardises the English language and tries to halt its progress. Graeber struggles against an appalling interviewer, trying to make several incongruous issues coherent and lucid. The best thing, here, grammatically speaking, is to allow the interviewer to ask the question; allow Graeber to answer; hit the pause button; consider Graeber's thought and then, after a cup of tea, repeat the process for the next question and response. If the bladder issue gets involved, which it will, take a break and come back later. It'll justify the release of tension.
I know you have literary pretensions, Rudi, but for our sake don't have them. Plant a garden or collect stamps or doing something else that takes account of your limitations.
Inspiring discussion; thanks for publishing it. May his soul rest in eternal peace.
David Graeber.... ❤🩹❤🧡💛💚💙💜🤎👋🙏💐🌸🏵🌹🥀🌺🌻🌼🌷☀🌝🌞🌈💯
THANK YOU DAVID GRAEBER, the shift to bureaucracy in Universities! Yikes. These tools of domination and manipulation...through the seemingly boring paper trail!!!
There is something rousing about listening to a german speaking broken English so loud that the microphone breaks apart.
10:45 - violence creates lopsided structures of the imagination.
Interesting interview, thank you!
Thank you so much for sharing, your interview is a great supplement to the book.
God bless his Soul. Our World is less bright without Him.
Love David
To be an anarchist you need to have faith in human nature...And i think he does. Great interview.
You have to have an understanding that "human nature" is ultimately a spectrum and certain ranges can be magnified via education, institutions, culture, media, society and advertising. In a capitalist society all of these bring out hyper-individual ways of interacting with people and the world but if the education and fundamental structures were more cooperative and based on solidarity then a different spectrum of "human nature" would be strengthened.
@@ianperfitt why have we gravitated towards capitalism and more importantly what is the alternative?
@@onetwo3411 Capitalism is a revolutionary force which overcomes lots of traditional means of interacting with each other. For example, it challenges the patriarchal family by enabling women to enter the conventional workforce. The highest increase in the rate of exploitation occurred not in the 18th century with the power loom nor the harnessing of electricity nor steam, but in fact in the 20th century. Despite declining labour hours per individual, the participation of women shot up dramatically. Now capitalism seeks new avenues and advocacy for child labour and increased length of days has become topical again - capitalists at the edge of progress have always advocated removing any trammel to exploitation or just flouted any restrictions regardless of legality, but it requires adequate material conditions for elite consensus to coalesce around them. The will of the majority is very distinct from elite consensus however. The Republican party in the 20th century divested itself of its radical beginnings (with Lincoln noting that renting oneself wasn't much superior to being sold) and became a party ardently dedicated to business - yet around 2/3rds of its members support a Green New Deal and a slim majority raising the minimum wage - things which would cause a neo-Austrian apopleptic rage. Graeber points out that practically all interactions and relations we have between each other do not occur in a capitalist fashion because it'd be impossible to operate in that method - one illustrative example he gives is within Goldman Sachs, a broker passing a mechanic may hand them a wrench without deciding how much that interaction would cost them. In fact, Sears was completely run into the ground by attempting even in microcosm the kind of logical conclusion which one would have to adopt via Objectivism.
That does leave us somewhat stumped though - if convenient myths about "Pareto efficiency" aren't even true and humans arrange themselves hierarchically and with deference to authority even though it contravenes both capitalist and socialist impetus, then aren't supposedly radical solutions just means of more aesthetically arranging dominance? Not necessarily - it was impossible for the Greeks to imagine a society where philosophy was possible without slavery, but we can envisage a society based on freely associating equals. Industrial matters could be arranged in a similar fashion to Mondragon or Kantega, enabling us to free to write poetry or criticise after dinner as it were.
I think languages change because of the need for identity. Sapolsky observed that most languages are created and evolved by children. It is an expression of mutually recognised individuality (familiarity). The formalisation of language is at the service of commerce between strangers in the setting that lacks familiarity. The notion of universal commerce is therefore at the expense of familiarity - and ultimately at the expense of identity. Perhaps if we look closely at the word "boredom" we might see that it is a discomfort caused by reduced identity?
Where do you get off posting a thoughtful comment on youtube?
Sorry.
Graeber made me think too much, and some just leaked-out into the comments.
Mental incontinence?
Or simple outsourcing?
@@ozwhistles i think that was a jest, and not a reprimand.
This is a von Mises concept, not worth over-considering
@@felicityc I'm not sure that it matters whose name you use to label the idea. It's empirically true that children have an outsized role in developing language.
i am still recovering from claiming housing benefit in hackney council....40 years ago.
in what way still recovering?
@@sawtoothiandi psychic discombabulation
@@gda295 i got that from a narcissistic 'boss' still processing it, same system..
9:29 “us and them,” alienation from government, alignment with corporatized leisure
Bookmarking this
2:57 - distinction between marxism and anarchism
Oh a fellow cyberneticist/pragmatist!
YES
A discussion on raspberry popsicles.( i’m sorry i just had to ).
Bureaucracy is also about control and preventing change, and For a basic income to work, we need a minimum standard of living, where everyone is guaranteed basic healthcare, basic education 1-12 grade after which some field of work like electrician, carpenter, masonry, or mechanic and affordable housing, based on the level of of income, higher education will be for those who are qualified academically or motivated to go on to engineering,law enforcement or teaching or field of science, law enforcement officers should have a minimum 2-4 year degree, in my opinion, Nice discussion…
Ahead of his time.
i doubt the interviewer understood one word David Graeber said
It´s obvious he was frustrated about that
I think bureaucracy appeals to our slave mentality or masochism. A master / slave relationship.
20:40 D&D!
What class/race would David play?
"i think that the role of violence is undertheorized." Yes, what about the violence inherent in the Animal Agriculture system? Is it not rape and violence when these things happen to animals? Anthropocentric Humanists (Anarchists among them) need to answer this question. Is bureaucratic violence 'OK' if animals are the victims? Is it somehow no longer violence? Except it is humans doing the violence... Isn't this a problem?
one of the big problems that pop up, is the social construct we make between "human" and "animal". a firm, honest investigation into "animal" rights would also be prone to shaking what we currently base "human" rights on, and while my personal opinion would be that it could strengthen "human" rights, it could also be used as a justification for the opposite. i am fully in favor of moving past harm to animals(even though i would like to still have non manipulative and humane husbandry). i do think that the vegan movement has certainly made a lot of strides, but for the most part, getting people to care takes a lot of patience, time and effort, and understanding of different levels of education and experience.
@@ethanstump by what metric do we define what constitutes “humane” commodification of and violence against nonhuman animals for human pleasure?
@@dylantchang5987 i would imagine there would be several standards, such as: 1. does not cause lasting damage 2. is painless 3. does not cause distress 4. is beneficial to the animal 5.Etc. i am not advocating for anything in particular, and i do think decommodification needs to happen to an extent, but i do think we can think about this in a intelligent and humane way that instead of it being parasitic, it would be mutualistic instead.
@@ethanstump By any objective moral standard that takes into account the desire of all beings to live their own lives on *their* terms, killing animals and taking their children away from them to use their eggs and bodily fluids violates all 4 of those requirements, no matter how “humanely” it is done, or what economic system it occurs under. Are you familiar with abolitionist activists such as Dr. Steven Best? They propose a different approach to the animal question that does not grant human beings the “right” to decide how nonhumans should live their lives.
@@dylantchang5987 no, I am not familiar with the animal rights activists. as you can clearly see, i am more human centric. I'm still changing and evaluating my viewpoints, but at the moment I'm focused on other things, like the differences between state and anti-state socialisms. also while I definitely am all for these lab grown meats/eggs/diary and the like, and cleaning up the environmental hazard that is modern farming, I am puzzled as to why symbiotic forms of farming that benefit both are so frowned upon. is it because of consent? and how would you even verify animal consent in a consistent way among different species? we aren't the only species that farms other species.
We cannot be "free" of commitment when ("it's always NOW) we are composed of thermodynamical time-timing positioning e-Pi-i sync-duration resonances, ie Bose-Einsteinian, Newtonian Fluxion-Integral, Temporal Condensation in which the apparent "flow" from function to form is the fractal conic-cyclonic modulo-geometrical interference positioning resonance bonding chemistry of bio-logical re-evolution.., ONE-INFINITY Singularity Eternity-now Interval.
An ideal anarchy of equals in a mutually supportive environment requires Precision, ..in Labelling of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical phase-locked coherence-cohesion material manifestation, ..Accuracy.
Be-cause-effect "I am you and you are me and we are all together" fitted to pure-math Gold-Silver Rules of Mutual Respect and parallel coexistence in/of QM-TIME Completeness.
A short course in Geometrical Drawing and Perspective Projection Techniques applied to 0-1-2-ness Polar-Cartesian self-defining => condensation coordination logarithmic interference positioning is required, a sequential illumination of wave-particle superposition-> superimposed aspects of Superspin Modulation Mechanism Lensing @.dt zero-infinity axial-tangential relative-timing orthogonality.
(An Anthropogenic Actual-Artificial Intelligence application of probabilistic correlation design principles in action-Actuality)
Then it's time to review and reiterate heirachical mono-dualistic AM-FM vertical integration condensation.
Lmao someone swallowed a dictionary and choked
WERNER HERZOG
This is the fault of idealism. While I agree that it’s ideologically not great to strengthen the state so you can eliminate it, this fails to take into account the reality of counterrevolution. So if we would like to not have fought in vain, it is quite important that the state be allowed to wither away naturally by resolving the contradictions in society.
What are some examples of contradictions that need to be resolved by the state?
@@viergelalouidor4163 good question. There are a lot. The main contradiction is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. While we can seize the means of production in a revolution, it doesn't change the fact that the bourgeoisie will be constantly trying to take back their lost power through violent means. This is exactly what happened to the Paris Commune. The bourgeoisie also sought to regain its lost influence through war in Russia and the states that would eventually band together into the USSR, China, Korea, and pretty much everywhere a Communist revolution happened. The only revolutions that survived through these onslaughts were the ones that formed a powerful state apparatus to oppress the bourgeoisie and other enemies of the revolution. And then we see states like the USSR collapse after they abandoned this principle under Khrushchev. Other contradictions and disagreements should be solved in court, or peacefully through the Democratic process.
@@viergelalouidor4163 also, idealism and lack of Centralism left Spain under Franco's forces. This unwillingness to use what most in the west would call "authoritarian" methods also led directly to fascist take overs in Italy, Germany, Chile, and others. People say that Hitler came to power through being elected by the German people, and that's kinda true, but the Nazis gained their influence in the first place with the aid of wealthy backers who supported them as a direct reaction to powerful Socialist movements. The reason that these Socialists failed was mainly that they feared revolution.
Interesting. I think David naively believes that all adults are mature. They are not. I think the existence of the state and the inevitable abstraction of discipline and violence, directly follows.
You should read _Dawn of Everything_ which amasses significant anthropological observations that challenge this long-held canard with evidence.
At 6:30 in the video. I don't understand this talk about how everything is backed up with violence in our society. Yeah sure if you break the rules and get caught, violence will be the ultimate answer if you don't give up. So what? Would anyone want a society where this is not the case? Ex. Someone is building a garage partly on my lawn and when I involve the authorities they can't really do much because they can't go to violence. Sounds like a horrible society.
He is using simplification. The thing is the rules were not created by the collective, they were created by a few people and are enforced by a police. That horrible society that you exemplifies already exist, because for the ruling class, the laws dont apply. When a landowner robs people of their way of living that is violence. So yeah, our society is based on violence because the rules were made to mantain the right of those few to exploit the masses, and exploitation is violence.
My point is:
Most of the rules(if not all) are not there to protect you or your rights but to protect the right of a few to exploit you.
I know that i'm simplifying too, but i think i got my point across on why he says that your society is based on violence, keep in mind that violence is not just physical violence and maybe you will start to get it.
I hope i was of any help, Cheers mate!
@@leonardorosindasilva3555 thanks for the clarification. But if that is his claim, he should back it up with something, examples. I think there are lots of laws that protects you as a consumer or a worker, at least here in Sweden where I live. Or perhaps he did that but I stopped listening too early or missed it.
Hey, @Carl H
When he is talking about rules backed up by violence, he is talking bureaucratic violence. Lets take your example with slight twist.
Someone is building garage on your lawn. You two get in argument. If he/she fight with violence, can you fight with violence too? Yes. Of course
Now lets get authority involved. That person gives fake evidence to authority and claims his place. Now you get little furious and authority uses violence to stop you. Can you fight back? No, you can't fight back with violence.
If you fight bureaucracy or authority with violence then they will put you in jail.
Now to get back your place , you have follow rules, which are again created by authorities. You don't follow this rules like for some reason you lost your documents or that person bribe authority to change documents at government side. Then you won't get place back.
This is my interpretation so I might be wrong. But I hope I gave you different perspective.
The line that I think is missed here in your example is one of rights. Constitutional rights to be specific. Not rules. Violence should be the answer only to protect your rights if your Constitutional rights are being violated. If someone is building a garage on your lawn in your example, they are violating your Constitutional right to your property.
If that same person were building a garage on his own property, yet violated some arbitrary city code by using the wrong size nails or whatever, he’s not violating anyones Constitutional rights and should not be subject to violence (and imo, government shouldn’t have any part here whatsoever).
We’ve allowed the government’s agents (police) to go way outside their bounds (protecting Constitutional rights by enforcement of anyone who violates another’s rights). “War on drugs”being the most egregious example.
@@chevelle1 thank you that does make sense
Errm, language develops through the internalisation of foreign influences, with the exception of American, which bastardises the English language and tries to halt its progress.
Graeber struggles against an appalling interviewer, trying to make several incongruous issues coherent and lucid.
The best thing, here, grammatically speaking, is to allow the interviewer to ask the question; allow Graeber to answer; hit the pause button; consider Graeber's thought and then, after a cup of tea, repeat the process for the next question and response.
If the bladder issue gets involved, which it will, take a break and come back later. It'll justify the release of tension.
I know you have literary pretensions, Rudi, but for our sake don't have them. Plant a garden or collect stamps or doing something else that takes account of your limitations.