Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.
It makes sense that state doesn’t have to be official. Simply whatever order is in highest charge. It you have true socialism then the state is the proletariat whether decentralized or centralized. This makes anarchism impossible as I anticipated.
Crispin, you are it seems to me very correct about the points you outline. From having lived in the London Anthro eco-system during the years that Graeber was around I would add: You might have in mind that LSE (London School of Economics... and Social Sciences) is an old colonial institution of the most modern type and has for about 3 decades acted as a think tank for whoever might be governing and/or in opposition and has produced major government ideologues that also helped in advancing programmes as well. One of the chief requisites for being hired at the LSE is however is not an interest in government per se but being an idea person savvy to getting media recognition and appearances. As far liberalism goes ...I think that neo-liberalism is the actual currency of trade in this context, and in this sense an anarchist with a set of polished anti-government grudges is just another member...at the party. Another interesting thing about Graeber at this time is he noticeable changed his outfits to a rather grubby, worn, used but ultimately 'old school' tweeds and corduroys and brown leather shoes. Also as far vocab and diction in the book (which I admit I have not read yet) how do you separate David G from David W ...much of what sounds odd for G might really be W writing ...perhaps beyond the scope of his training as a Cambridge theoretical archaeologist. And mind you as far as generalities go you will be hard pressed to find a schooled British intellectual who is not an almost innate liberal of some stripe at heart. regards, j
I just want to point out… Questioning the notion of “equality” in itself (without further qualifiers) as being sufficiently specific/concrete as a political goal is not necessarily a capitulation to liberal, let alone Hayekian “right-libertarian” thought… It’s literally an idea directly out of Marx & Engels (which is a perfectly reasonably place for anticapitalists to be drawing influence, & I think it’s to Graeber’s credit if he was doing so, rather than engaging in some kind of weirdly dogmatic intra-left sectarianism, of the sort that you see come from both sides of the anarchist/Marxist divide all too often. And given that, in other areas of the same book, Graeber & Wengrow are clearly critiquing Marx’s theory of history (& stage theories of history in concept), it wouldn’t surprise me if they were reading Marx in their preparatory study in order to write the book, & perhaps this is simply one idea they agreed with. The point isn’t that equality isn’t a generally positive principle. They aren’t saying “Oh actually all that equality/egalitarianism stuff we were on about? Forget that- hierarchy all the way!” On the contrary, the point, as formulated by Marx, was simply that, when it comes to formulating concrete political OBJECTIVES around which to organize actual movements, goals to struggle towards, “equality” is problematically vague & doesn’t get at the point, because it’s just a fact that “equality” in some dimensions (even specifically within the preview of “economic equality”) inherently implies inequality in other dimensions, & if you don’t resolve these contradictions & actually specify what kinds of equality you’re struggling towards, what it is concretely that you’re actually trying to achieve, this can & will lead to conflicts. To illustrate, he was asking: are we saying equality in terms of the exact number of hours worked?.. Well, no- that would lead to inequalities, because some jobs are much more physically or psychologically draining/demanding than others. A certain number of hours might be reasonable & sufficient to get the job done at one job, but might be BACKBREAKING at a more manual, exhausting job- or might be insufficient to complete another job. Does it mean a perfect equality of hourly income?.. Well, no, because again in some jobs someone might be working longer hours than in others. Or they may be far more or less productive than in another position… So if you just pay everyone the exact same amount per hour, that may technically be a form of “equality” in one sense, but it’s also implying inequality, because you’d be exploiting the people who simply produce more value within that time, extracting wealth that they produced by paying them a fraction of the total value of their hourly labor, while you’d be arbitrarily giving others far MORE than the actual value of their labor. And this would also mean that people who aren’t able to work as many hours would just be screwed; equality of hourly income would mean that those who are able to or required to work the longest hours would make far more money- so equality of hourly income means inequality of net income if we account for the reality that demands & productivity & so on of every job are not identical. Obviously the exact specifics of the argument one would make here depend on whether we are talking about the logic or a future market socialist society or w future communist society. But similar points stand in both cases; if we just say “equality” is the goal without any further clarification, that leaves the door open to people advocating for many narrow forms of “equality” in a single dimension which actually inherently imply inequality in other dimensions, & at the same time don’t necessarily actually solve the existing structural inequalities that are actually problems today. So the point is, yes, we do need to resolve certain unjust inequalities, but we need to actually do the work of thinking through which inequalities are unjust, which ones contribute to serious systemic problems , & which forms of equality (or equality in which dimensions of social life) actually resolve problems without just creating new forms of inequality. This is not a rejection of egalitarianism or the value of equality- it’s an actual serious, rigorous effort to drill down into the nuts & bolts of what it would MEAN to have a truly just society, what dimensions you would or would not need (or even benefit from) achieving equality in, & which would just be a distraction because to try to focus on achieving/maintaining equality in that dimension inherently leads to guaranteed inequality of other sorts. And, in fact, Marx’s conclusion was one that I’d think should be perfectly satisfactory to an anarchist- which is that as far as forms of economic equality, it is CLASS EQUALITY, the abolition of the class divide, that ought to be the priority, & the achievement of universal human freedom/emancipation ought to be the animating principle that motivates us rather than some abstract, vague, & contradictory notion of equality for equality’s sake, without further specification (though obviously, with further specification, there are other forms of equality that Marx & Engels & the like were in favor of- such as people’s equal right to have their basic needs satisfied as a baseline prerequisite for any kind of emancipated, just society; there’s a reason their ultimate conclusion was advocacy for a stateless, currencyless, marketless, classless society & they didn’t just STOP at advocacy of socialism, of class abolitionism, even though that is a very fundamental & pivotal form of equality which IS crucially important, & DOESN’T necessarily lead to other inequalities the way that just paying everyone the same exact wage regardless of all other factors would, for example. So I don’t think this is indicative that Graeber had become any more moderate (let alone that he was advocating liberal capitalism). I think it’s just indicative that he was actually thinking seriously about the implications of what various forms/specific instantiations of the general principle of “equality” would mean, what their human consequences would be, & therefore exactly what the goals he wanted to advocate towards ought to look like… Which I think is a perfectly reasonable & admirable goal for a left-wing theorist to take seriously.
He's on the same team as Peter Can't trust it Ban social impact bonds crypto and esg Telepresence labor and globotics heck yes $elab Gobble gobble Butter balls
I’m reading Pirate Enlightenment right now. Figured it’d be an interesting introduction to Graeber’s work. I have Dawn of Everything, which I got thinking it’d be an anthropological dive into the anarchistic nature of humans at their core and anthropologically, but you’re saying he diverts into some sort of social democracy exposition without really connecting the dots? That sounds truly disappointing. I suppose I’ll read Debt: the first 5000 years instead. Are there any high points to Dawn of Everything? Anything redemptive in it?
This sounds like a fascinating analysis of the evolution in Graeber's thinking. Maybe it would be interesting to reach out to Nika Dubrovsky? I guess she would be the best suited to give you insight into the development of his thinking the last couple of years. I'm actually really interested what she would say.
Interesting and though I have yet to read his books, having only found out about him last year, I find these passages odd....where the decolonial shift reminds me of someone's critique of "equality" I heard this week, that I could def be on board with, it's from a rev rad pan-african liberation pov....by Diallo Kenyatta. I'll need to revisit that and come back to this. My linguistics background also has me quite aware the problems of english where it breaks up into futility in some ways. But like you said, an in-depth explanation is warranted... Cool, thanks for this insightful reflections.
Thanks for this video! It’s hard to find critiques of this book that feel balanced and committed to understanding the material. As a younger anarchist reading this with all David’s other books in mind, I don’t think I really got that sense of liberalism or prescriptivism that’s making you nervous. Like I think I actually valued the opportunity to take a closer look at what I mean by the State ™ so that when I say I’m “anti-statist” I say it with all the conviction and room for nuance that I need. Especially going into various multi cultural institutions where words have different meanings, histories, and implications; there’s value in not being trapped by a definition. In knowing when to make room for the semantics of the situation. In that way I think it was a further evolution of how he’s thought and written in the past, which, is part and parcel of anarchism. (This is the first of Wengrow’s work I’ve read and I’m less familiar with him and his politics but given they wrote this together I didn’t expect this book to be as entirely a reflection of Graeber as his other work). We need to be able to adapt as we come to understand new histories and new realities; we have to allow new knowledge to change us. Same goes with Equality. I haven’t stopped using equality as an organising concept in discourse by any means, but I am now more aware that there’s more to freedom than just “equality” because equality as a term is not quite enough. At least in other cultures or languages there may be better words that encapsulate what we want “equality” to mean. My point is that I think making us rethink just these two words should make us better and more grounded anarchists. Avoid throwing a stone unless you know what it’s made of.. kind of thing. I mean this discourse happens with so many other words. We’re still undecided on whether we think anarchists should embrace “democracy” or do away with it. Depending on how useful you think it is we may never quite come to agreement, but the discourse at least sharpens our thinking collectively and ensures we don’t fall into the sentimental traps of the word. As for the three freedoms; I didn’t really feel they were prescriptive. (Maybe I need to reread the part about it being scientific though 😂). The sense I got was that these were three of the strongest patterns observed over various cultures and other research **thus far** and they hoped more might unfold as their writing partnership continued. They had like 3 books planned I think so I’m at least willing to accept that they knew there’s more to say about this. Anyway, all this to say, I don’t think you need to worry that this will dilute anarchists anti-statist stance if they interact with this book. I think as anarchists we can trust each others ability to hold volatile ideas in discourse and to come to conclusions we can work with. I think if David were still alive you’d be able to have this conversation out with him in person and sus out for yourself whether or not he was watering down his anarchism (I’m sure he’d disagree, but at least he could tell you why); but since all we have is this book; the best we can do is assume the best of intentions just cut off before we could hear it completed. Isn’t that what makes anarchist organising so powerful? Giving our community members the benefit of the doubt? I think rather than encouraging new anarchists or leftists to fear the content and implications of this book, we should embrace the opportunity to have it out collectively on ideas that we have long considered central; so that we can evolve into an anarchism that’s adapted to meet the reality of the present. What differentiates anarchists from the Marxists, I believe, is that we’re less driven by increasingly purified and doctrinating theory than we are by present reality and the evidence of the time. Both work together of course but we’re more bound together by action than by word. Thanks for the review! Again, one of the better ones I’ve heard.
Was Graeber ill during the writing of The Dawn of Everything, and is it possible this changed his outlook or reflections? I read Debt and intend to reread it but recall not being entirely convinced by all of his arguments. He seemed to de-emphasise developments in European states from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation and the point when many of those states became imperial powers. Life would remain nasty, brutish and short for most people with those entities, but no state could compete with increasingly technological, bureaucratic and mercantilist enemies unless it adopted those same techniques. States can “progress” in certain ways without being progressive.
I've read a lot of reviews of Dawn of Everything by anthropologists and historians, but this is the first review I've watched from a philosophy perspective. I think you bring great insights into the critique of the book. You are spot on in shedding light on the lack of coherent definitions of concepts, as well as how the book seems to undercut Graeber's earlier commitment to an anarchist sensibility. It reminds me of how the young Marx was against the state, only to give way to the older Marx seeing the state's usefulness as a means to impose communism in the hopes it would eventually "wither away". In Graeber's case, the older Graeber seems to simply hand wave away the state as something that can't really be defined and has no origin. But hey, the state's political representatives (like Corbin) can be useful ! I think your review in the LA Review of Books should be required reading by anthropologists.. Incidentally, I heard that David Wengrow is working on a follow up to Dawn of Everything.
It’s been awhile since I read the book and I knew little of his politics. But I read it as a retelling of history and pre-history and while some of their politics seeped through I don’t think they indicated any way forward other than our species has tried countless ways of organization so let us not get trapped by what we have now.
At 33:28 you label Graeber as leaning towards state socialism despite the fact that he explicitly makes the case that state is a meaningless term. Make it make sense.
welll, he spent his last couple of years defending corbyn. okay? from charges of anti-semitism, etc. i guess i thinbk that 'there's no such thing as the state' is (a) obviously a moveaway from anarchism, and (b) a way of defending the existence if the state, believe it or not. nothing to see here! i am puzzled by a dozen of his late moves.
This seems like a very superficial critique; at 15:46 you mistakenly think he’s ridiculing Occupy Wall Street and his earlier positions, but this is just a lack of imagination on your part. To attack this brilliant man after his death on such spurious grounds says more about you than it does David.
i’m not saying he’s directly attacking ows. but surely that was a movement above all against inequality. 99%. but graeber’s end position is: that doesn’t even make sense.
You must have shot this with the intention of blurring your face, right? I mean, it’s just not possible in 2024 to mistakenly make such a horrible video.
Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.
In Pirate Enlightenment, he also opens by touching on it, before decking into the horizontal structures of Malagasy societies when the pirates showed up in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s.
Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.
It makes sense that state doesn’t have to be official. Simply whatever order is in highest charge. It you have true socialism then the state is the proletariat whether decentralized or centralized. This makes anarchism impossible as I anticipated.
Crispin, you are it seems to me very correct about the points you outline. From having lived in the London Anthro eco-system during the years that Graeber was around I would add: You might have in mind that LSE (London School of Economics... and Social Sciences) is an old colonial institution of the most modern type and has for about 3 decades acted as a think tank for whoever might be governing and/or in opposition and has produced major government ideologues that also helped in advancing programmes as well. One of the chief requisites for being hired at the LSE is however is not an interest in government per se but being an idea person savvy to getting media recognition and appearances. As far liberalism goes ...I think that neo-liberalism is the actual currency of trade in this context, and in this sense an anarchist with a set of polished anti-government grudges is just another member...at the party. Another interesting thing about Graeber at this time is he noticeable changed his outfits to a rather grubby, worn, used but ultimately 'old school' tweeds and corduroys and brown leather shoes. Also as far vocab and diction in the book (which I admit I have not read yet) how do you separate David G from David W ...much of what sounds odd for G might really be W writing ...perhaps beyond the scope of his training as a Cambridge theoretical archaeologist. And mind you as far as generalities go you will be hard pressed to find a schooled British intellectual who is not an almost innate liberal of some stripe at heart. regards, j
I just want to point out… Questioning the notion of “equality” in itself (without further qualifiers) as being sufficiently specific/concrete as a political goal is not necessarily a capitulation to liberal, let alone Hayekian “right-libertarian” thought… It’s literally an idea directly out of Marx & Engels (which is a perfectly reasonably place for anticapitalists to be drawing influence, & I think it’s to Graeber’s credit if he was doing so, rather than engaging in some kind of weirdly dogmatic intra-left sectarianism, of the sort that you see come from both sides of the anarchist/Marxist divide all too often. And given that, in other areas of the same book, Graeber & Wengrow are clearly critiquing Marx’s theory of history (& stage theories of history in concept), it wouldn’t surprise me if they were reading Marx in their preparatory study in order to write the book, & perhaps this is simply one idea they agreed with.
The point isn’t that equality isn’t a generally positive principle. They aren’t saying “Oh actually all that equality/egalitarianism stuff we were on about? Forget that- hierarchy all the way!” On the contrary, the point, as formulated by Marx, was simply that, when it comes to formulating concrete political OBJECTIVES around which to organize actual movements, goals to struggle towards, “equality” is problematically vague & doesn’t get at the point, because it’s just a fact that “equality” in some dimensions (even specifically within the preview of “economic equality”) inherently implies inequality in other dimensions, & if you don’t resolve these contradictions & actually specify what kinds of equality you’re struggling towards, what it is concretely that you’re actually trying to achieve, this can & will lead to conflicts.
To illustrate, he was asking: are we saying equality in terms of the exact number of hours worked?.. Well, no- that would lead to inequalities, because some jobs are much more physically or psychologically draining/demanding than others. A certain number of hours might be reasonable & sufficient to get the job done at one job, but might be BACKBREAKING at a more manual, exhausting job- or might be insufficient to complete another job. Does it mean a perfect equality of hourly income?.. Well, no, because again in some jobs someone might be working longer hours than in others. Or they may be far more or less productive than in another position… So if you just pay everyone the exact same amount per hour, that may technically be a form of “equality” in one sense, but it’s also implying inequality, because you’d be exploiting the people who simply produce more value within that time, extracting wealth that they produced by paying them a fraction of the total value of their hourly labor, while you’d be arbitrarily giving others far MORE than the actual value of their labor. And this would also mean that people who aren’t able to work as many hours would just be screwed; equality of hourly income would mean that those who are able to or required to work the longest hours would make far more money- so equality of hourly income means inequality of net income if we account for the reality that demands & productivity & so on of every job are not identical.
Obviously the exact specifics of the argument one would make here depend on whether we are talking about the logic or a future market socialist society or w future communist society. But similar points stand in both cases; if we just say “equality” is the goal without any further clarification, that leaves the door open to people advocating for many narrow forms of “equality” in a single dimension which actually inherently imply inequality in other dimensions, & at the same time don’t necessarily actually solve the existing structural inequalities that are actually problems today. So the point is, yes, we do need to resolve certain unjust inequalities, but we need to actually do the work of thinking through which inequalities are unjust, which ones contribute to serious systemic problems , & which forms of equality (or equality in which dimensions of social life) actually resolve problems without just creating new forms of inequality. This is not a rejection of egalitarianism or the value of equality- it’s an actual serious, rigorous effort to drill down into the nuts & bolts of what it would MEAN to have a truly just society, what dimensions you would or would not need (or even benefit from) achieving equality in, & which would just be a distraction because to try to focus on achieving/maintaining equality in that dimension inherently leads to guaranteed inequality of other sorts.
And, in fact, Marx’s conclusion was one that I’d think should be perfectly satisfactory to an anarchist- which is that as far as forms of economic equality, it is CLASS EQUALITY, the abolition of the class divide, that ought to be the priority, & the achievement of universal human freedom/emancipation ought to be the animating principle that motivates us rather than some abstract, vague, & contradictory notion of equality for equality’s sake, without further specification (though obviously, with further specification, there are other forms of equality that Marx & Engels & the like were in favor of- such as people’s equal right to have their basic needs satisfied as a baseline prerequisite for any kind of emancipated, just society; there’s a reason their ultimate conclusion was advocacy for a stateless, currencyless, marketless, classless society & they didn’t just STOP at advocacy of socialism, of class abolitionism, even though that is a very fundamental & pivotal form of equality which IS crucially important, & DOESN’T necessarily lead to other inequalities the way that just paying everyone the same exact wage regardless of all other factors would, for example. So I don’t think this is indicative that Graeber had become any more moderate (let alone that he was advocating liberal capitalism). I think it’s just indicative that he was actually thinking seriously about the implications of what various forms/specific instantiations of the general principle of “equality” would mean, what their human consequences would be, & therefore exactly what the goals he wanted to advocate towards ought to look like… Which I think is a perfectly reasonable & admirable goal for a left-wing theorist to take seriously.
He's on the same team as Peter
Can't trust it
Ban social impact bonds crypto and esg
Telepresence labor and globotics
heck yes $elab
Gobble gobble
Butter balls
I’m reading Pirate Enlightenment right now. Figured it’d be an interesting introduction to Graeber’s work. I have Dawn of Everything, which I got thinking it’d be an anthropological dive into the anarchistic nature of humans at their core and anthropologically, but you’re saying he diverts into some sort of social democracy exposition without really connecting the dots? That sounds truly disappointing. I suppose I’ll read Debt: the first 5000 years instead. Are there any high points to Dawn of Everything? Anything redemptive in it?
Read them for yourself
This sounds like a fascinating analysis of the evolution in Graeber's thinking. Maybe it would be interesting to reach out to Nika Dubrovsky? I guess she would be the best suited to give you insight into the development of his thinking the last couple of years. I'm actually really interested what she would say.
Interesting and though I have yet to read his books, having only found out about him last year, I find these passages odd....where the decolonial shift reminds me of someone's critique of "equality" I heard this week, that I could def be on board with, it's from a rev rad pan-african liberation pov....by Diallo Kenyatta.
I'll need to revisit that and come back to this.
My linguistics background also has me quite aware the problems of english where it breaks up into futility in some ways.
But like you said, an in-depth explanation is warranted...
Cool, thanks for this insightful reflections.
Thanks for this video! It’s hard to find critiques of this book that feel balanced and committed to understanding the material. As a younger anarchist reading this with all David’s other books in mind, I don’t think I really got that sense of liberalism or prescriptivism that’s making you nervous. Like I think I actually valued the opportunity to take a closer look at what I mean by the State ™ so that when I say I’m “anti-statist” I say it with all the conviction and room for nuance that I need. Especially going into various multi cultural institutions where words have different meanings, histories, and implications; there’s value in not being trapped by a definition. In knowing when to make room for the semantics of the situation. In that way I think it was a further evolution of how he’s thought and written in the past, which, is part and parcel of anarchism. (This is the first of Wengrow’s work I’ve read and I’m less familiar with him and his politics but given they wrote this together I didn’t expect this book to be as entirely a reflection of Graeber as his other work). We need to be able to adapt as we come to understand new histories and new realities; we have to allow new knowledge to change us. Same goes with Equality. I haven’t stopped using equality as an organising concept in discourse by any means, but I am now more aware that there’s more to freedom than just “equality” because equality as a term is not quite enough. At least in other cultures or languages there may be better words that encapsulate what we want “equality” to mean. My point is that I think making us rethink just these two words should make us better and more grounded anarchists. Avoid throwing a stone unless you know what it’s made of.. kind of thing.
I mean this discourse happens with so many other words. We’re still undecided on whether we think anarchists should embrace “democracy” or do away with it. Depending on how useful you think it is we may never quite come to agreement, but the discourse at least sharpens our thinking collectively and ensures we don’t fall into the sentimental traps of the word.
As for the three freedoms; I didn’t really feel they were prescriptive. (Maybe I need to reread the part about it being scientific though 😂). The sense I got was that these were three of the strongest patterns observed over various cultures and other research **thus far** and they hoped more might unfold as their writing partnership continued. They had like 3 books planned I think so I’m at least willing to accept that they knew there’s more to say about this.
Anyway, all this to say, I don’t think you need to worry that this will dilute anarchists anti-statist stance if they interact with this book. I think as anarchists we can trust each others ability to hold volatile ideas in discourse and to come to conclusions we can work with. I think if David were still alive you’d be able to have this conversation out with him in person and sus out for yourself whether or not he was watering down his anarchism (I’m sure he’d disagree, but at least he could tell you why); but since all we have is this book; the best we can do is assume the best of intentions just cut off before we could hear it completed. Isn’t that what makes anarchist organising so powerful? Giving our community members the benefit of the doubt?
I think rather than encouraging new anarchists or leftists to fear the content and implications of this book, we should embrace the opportunity to have it out collectively on ideas that we have long considered central; so that we can evolve into an anarchism that’s adapted to meet the reality of the present.
What differentiates anarchists from the Marxists, I believe, is that we’re less driven by increasingly purified and doctrinating theory than we are by present reality and the evidence of the time. Both work together of course but we’re more bound together by action than by word.
Thanks for the review! Again, one of the better ones I’ve heard.
Was Graeber ill during the writing of The Dawn of Everything, and is it possible this changed his outlook or reflections? I read Debt and intend to reread it but recall not being entirely convinced by all of his arguments. He seemed to de-emphasise developments in European states from the early Middle Ages through the Reformation and the point when many of those states became imperial powers. Life would remain nasty, brutish and short for most people with those entities, but no state could compete with increasingly technological, bureaucratic and mercantilist enemies unless it adopted those same techniques. States can “progress” in certain ways without being progressive.
I've read a lot of reviews of Dawn of Everything by anthropologists and historians, but this is the first review I've watched from a philosophy perspective. I think you bring great insights into the critique of the book. You are spot on in shedding light on the lack of coherent definitions of concepts, as well as how the book seems to undercut Graeber's earlier commitment to an anarchist sensibility. It reminds me of how the young Marx was against the state, only to give way to the older Marx seeing the state's usefulness as a means to impose communism in the hopes it would eventually "wither away". In Graeber's case, the older Graeber seems to simply hand wave away the state as something that can't really be defined and has no origin. But hey, the state's political representatives (like Corbin) can be useful !
I think your review in the LA Review of Books should be required reading by anthropologists..
Incidentally, I heard that David Wengrow is working on a follow up to Dawn of Everything.
It’s been awhile since I read the book and I knew little of his politics. But I read it as a retelling of history and pre-history and while some of their politics seeped through I don’t think they indicated any way forward other than our species has tried countless ways of organization so let us not get trapped by what we have now.
At 33:28 you label Graeber as leaning towards state socialism despite the fact that he explicitly makes the case that state is a meaningless term. Make it make sense.
welll, he spent his last couple of years defending corbyn. okay? from charges of anti-semitism, etc. i guess i thinbk that 'there's no such thing as the state' is (a) obviously a moveaway from anarchism, and (b) a way of defending the existence if the state, believe it or not. nothing to see here! i am puzzled by a dozen of his late moves.
This seems like a very superficial critique; at 15:46 you mistakenly think he’s ridiculing Occupy Wall Street and his earlier positions, but this is just a lack of imagination on your part. To attack this brilliant man after his death on such spurious grounds says more about you than it does David.
i’m not saying he’s directly attacking ows. but surely that was a movement above all against inequality. 99%. but graeber’s end position is: that doesn’t even make sense.
You must have shot this with the intention of blurring your face, right? I mean, it’s just not possible in 2024 to mistakenly make such a horrible video.
Fascinating, but this guy really slurs his speech.
Again at 26:43 you claim that Wengrow & Graeber are arguing that liberalism is created by indigenous peoples as a critique; but that’s not what they argue at all; they simply show that it was those indigenous critiques that forced European thinkers like Rousseau and Hobbes and Diedrot to start asking new questions and formulating new answers. Those indigenous thinkers influenced the trajectory of the Enlightenment but were not its architects. Subtle but important difference.
In Pirate Enlightenment, he also opens by touching on it, before decking into the horizontal structures of Malagasy societies when the pirates showed up in the late 1600’s and early 1700’s.