[HN Gopher] David Graeber has died
___________________________________________________________________
David Graeber has died
Author : frabbit
Score : 462 points
Date : 2020-09-03 16:37 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theguardian.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theguardian.com)
| tosser0001 wrote:
| This was the first thing I had ever read by him about the time of
| the Yale controversy.
|
| Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004):
|
| http://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf
|
| It struck me as some really original thinking
| missedthecue wrote:
| Surprised how many people here loved his books. I only read debt
| and BS jobs, but found them to be shallow and poorly thought
| through, reading almost like the ramblings of a stoned
| undergraduate philosophy student. Moreover, I noticed that they
| were particularly full of motivated reasoning.
| einpoklum wrote:
| May he live long in our memory. An inspirational and profound
| writer - of whose work I have only tasted little so far, but
| enough to be very impressed.
| jahaja wrote:
| So damn sad. Such an inspiration as a fellow anarchist (in the
| sense he meant by it). Rest in peace my friend.
| Mizza wrote:
| Devastating news.
|
| I just spoke about his work (and what to do about it) during my
| recent keynote at PyConJP, I was just about to send him the video
| of it, now I can't. A horrible feeling.
|
| I met David after a reading one time, a very kind and intelligent
| man. (Weirdly enough, Peter Theil was also there. He is a lizard
| creature). If he was an asshole at times, he was an asshole in
| the good kind of way. The world lost a gem today.
| tome wrote:
| > Weirdly enough, Peter Theil was also there. He is a lizard
| creature.
|
| That sounds strange. What do you mean?
| pizza wrote:
| Would you be ok with sharing your memory of him more? It sounds
| like a treasured moment.
| kiliantics wrote:
| There is a debate between the two of them on youtube that's
| pretty interesting
| jimnotgym wrote:
| I came across him in a radio series he did about the debt book.
| 20 minutes later I was questioning everything I learned as an
| accountant about money and debt. Everything he said was calm and
| reasoned. I was awestruck. RIP. Far too young
| mempko wrote:
| Any links to the radio series?
| DanBC wrote:
| Possibly this? https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6
| tmpz22 wrote:
| That book is phenomenal, highly recommend.
| mxwsn wrote:
| A tremendous loss. I would highly recommend Debt: The First 5000
| Years to anyone here.
| rhizome31 wrote:
| Yes, to give a bit more info, this is an anthropology book. You
| will learn about incredible customs from various societies
| around the world and history. It also often touches on feminism
| because the main topic of the book (debt) and the situation of
| women are often tightly linked.
| pinewurst wrote:
| But not a boring one if people are afraid of that. I really
| enjoyed the mixture of history and anthropology in Debt.
| zingplex wrote:
| I think you're underselling it. The book is without
| question the most interesting I've read in the past twelve
| months. It took me several months to read, not because it
| was dull but because the ideas it presented every few pages
| were so thought provoking that a great deal of pondering
| was required to understand their implications.
| marmaduke wrote:
| > without question the most interesting I've read in the
| past twelve month
|
| I think for me, the past decade.
| [deleted]
| jb775 wrote:
| This book changed the way I think about many things in the
| world. Highly recommended.
| samatman wrote:
| I'll take a middle road here: I would recommend reading the
| book, but not uncritically.
|
| It's valuable, and part of a conversation which is quite
| current.
|
| But it isn't gospel.
| jseliger wrote:
| I wouldn't: https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-
| graeber-april-f...
| lmohseni wrote:
| Hmm, seems DeLong might have some sort of animus:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707
| loceng wrote:
| There's an "Updated and Expanded" version as well.
| TheTrotters wrote:
| Here's a good critique of Debt by Noah Smith:
| http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-...
| paganel wrote:
| Thanks for that link, it kind of already shows its age
| (2014), it was from a time when people still believed that
| capitalism was worthy of being defended out in the open (and
| when calling someone a "leftist" was still seen as a coming
| from the "center", not from the other political extreme).
| Interesting how fast things change.
| mtts wrote:
| No need to share this link twice. Especially since the piece
| is itself more of an unfocused mess than the book it intends
| to critique.
| lucasnortj wrote:
| Bullshit jobs was a tremendously tedious book but then that is to
| be expected from someone who is an anarchist; an ideology that
| competes with Marxism in its idiocy
| sbuccini wrote:
| dang pointed out that Graeber has posted some pretty interesting
| comments on this site[0], which unfortunately I cannot find right
| now.
|
| I had heard of, but not read, Bullshit Jobs so his HN comments
| was my first exposure to him. Honestly, I just remember being
| impressed by his willingness to engage. I'm sure it was painful
| and exhausting for him, especially his repeated skirmishes with
| DeLong, but so many authors shy away from challenges to their
| work so it was refreshing to see someone come into the
| proletarian trenches that are HN comments and do battle.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17904616
| huac wrote:
| his username was davidgraeber. I really enjoyed reading Debt
| and it is really a unique and useful perspective. RIP, he will
| truly be missed.
| nickff wrote:
| Direct link for the curious:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber
| MrsPeaches wrote:
| Wow, this exchange between him and Brad DeLong is utterly
| bizzare.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707
| [deleted]
| mindcrime wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17162935 is one of the
| instances where he posted here.
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| I didn't like the "We are the 99%." slogan. Traditionally in the
| US, protest movements have been asserting their right to correct
| an injustice. In this case, it was more of an assertion of power
| and a threat to impose the majority's will on the minority. That
| was in breaking with the culture of liberal democracy, which the
| anarchist authors of that slogan were not big fans of.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Lmao but it's okay for the 1% to impose their unjustified
| authority on everyone else?
|
| (Also your criticism that the slogan is merely just changing
| the balance of power is founded in an ignorance of anarchism.
| Anarchism does not aim to redistribute power, it aims to
| eliminate it. As long as power exists, it will be abused.)
| KKKKkkkk1 wrote:
| I don't understand. Are you disputing my statement that
| anarchists are not fans of liberal democracy?
| jessaustin wrote:
| Oh yes we forgot that all the cities are burning because of
| all the anarchists. As always, invoking fears of actually-
| exceedingly-rare anarchists is the last life preserver that
| totalitarian regimes drowning in their own monstrous
| contradictions attempt to clutch.
|
| Is "liberal democracy" in evidence anywhere?
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| Much like "Western civilization", it sounds like it would
| be a good idea.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| Anarchists as a general rule aren't a big fan of grabbing
| power for _anyone_ , 99% or 1%.
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| No, you are misunderstanding the slogan. The slogan is
| saying that there is a rich 1% that holds the majority of
| decision making power in today's world. It is up to the
| rest of the 99% to unite and recognize this tyranny, and to
| then wrestle away that power.
|
| There is no mention of the 99% abusing that power instead,
| and given that DG was an anarchist, He presumably instead
| meant that that power should be destroyed.
| manu3000 wrote:
| > to impose the majority's will on the minority.
|
| this is what democracy is about
| say_it_as_it_is wrote:
| I had no idea how common slavery was used by patriarchs to settle
| debts until I read "Debt: The First 5000 Years". Graeber's death
| is tragic.
| eruleman wrote:
| "What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a
| promise. It is a promise corrupted by both math and violence..."
| - David Graeber
| cbHXBY1D wrote:
| Horrible. His writing affected me in so many ways and was a
| gateway to leftist theory/thought.
| input_sh wrote:
| Really saddened to hear this.
|
| I've only recently started digging into his work and I can only
| imagine how it'll impact my worldview for years to come.
|
| For those unfamiliar with his work, here are some essays I
| recommend as a start:
|
| 1. On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs:
| https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/
|
| 2. What's the Point If We Can't Have Fun?
| https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav....
|
| 3. How to change the course of human history (at least, the part
| that's already happened) https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-
| human-history/
| marmaduke wrote:
| buy and read Debt: the first 5000 years. It is an eye opening
| perspective on world history.
|
| His Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is also one I always
| wished to read a follow up on.
| programmarchy wrote:
| Great book. It was the exit ramp from the libertarian history
| of money for me.
| noneeeed wrote:
| I should probably give that another go when I have more time.
| I got part way in and just stopped after a while as it just
| seemed to be taking forever to get anywhere.
|
| It's a bit like Better Angels of Our Nature, which I got
| about 1/3rd of the way through before getting bored of the
| same point being demonstrated over and over.
|
| There's something to be said for making serious time for
| reading serious books, rather than reading them piecemeal
| over too long a time as I did back then.
| lmohseni wrote:
| In my opionion, it seemed to really "pick up" around
| chapter 6, "games with sex and death" when it really
| started to get into anthropological nuts and bolts.
| noneeeed wrote:
| That's good to know, thanks.
| TheTrotters wrote:
| But also be sure to read critiques of Debt written by
| economists.
|
| Here's one by Noah Smith:
| http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-
| debt-...
| tome wrote:
| Thanks for linking that. It does a good job of drawing out
| some of the feelings I had when I read _Debt_. On the one
| hand I 'm very glad I read the book. I found it very
| enlightening in terms of various aspects of history and
| anthropology, as well as enlightening about various leftist
| ideas. On the other hand I can't say I came away feeling
| like I had read a "correct analysis" or that I really
| understood any better how anything worked. (I'm quite
| surprised to see so much praise for it on HN actually and
| such little challenge, the sad news about the passing of
| its author notwithstanding.)
|
| [EDIT: There are also some good counterpoints to Noah
| Smith's critique in the comments, for example
| https://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-
| debt...]
| specialist wrote:
| From that reply:
|
| _" While markets are one thing, capitalism is quite
| another, though, as it's marked by the power imbalances of
| wage labor, something not found in all previous incidences
| of commerce..."_
|
| Upvote for dissembling markets from capitalism.
|
| But I really wish the peanut gallery would also separate
| corporatism from capitalism.
|
| There's nothing about capitalism (dogma, theory, practice)
| which prohibits the surplus (profit) from being shared with
| labor.
| aabhay wrote:
| That's like saying there's nothing inherently about
| dictatorships that makes them oppressive. While yes you
| can invent a hypothetical situation where the capitalists
| give all their money to workers, the overwhelming
| empirical history is that capitalists don't share their
| profit with laborers.
| gnusty_gnurc wrote:
| It's just that living conditions and average wealth has
| skyrocketed over the past couple hundred years.
|
| Deirdre McCloskey refers to it as the Great Enrichment:
|
| > The rise in the liberal nations has been a stunning
| 3,000 percent at the least--or if one allows properly for
| improvements in quality, such as better medicine and
| better housing (and for that matter, better economics),
| more like 10,000 percent. A factor of 100. Goodness.
|
| https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-
| enrichment
| jessaustin wrote:
| I also enjoy cherry-picking. Here's a different time
| period to consider:
|
| https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/
| FranzFerdiNaN wrote:
| That happened not because of capitalism but in spite of
| it. It happened because of technological development and
| rampant and ruthless exploitation of mostly foreign lands
| and people, and by stealing from future generations. It's
| a terrible system that is constantly failing most people.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Sure, not because of capitalism but it spite of it. It's
| just that, in places that didn't have capitalist
| economies, _it didn 't happen_. Not to the same degree
| (with the possible exception of China, and even they are
| looking capitalist in practice).
| baron_harkonnen wrote:
| > There's nothing about capitalism (dogma, theory,
| practice) which prohibits the surplus (profit) from being
| shared with labor.
|
| ... excepting of course for that particularly
| comprehensive work on Capitalism that very clearly argues
| that 'surplus' value can only be created from the
| exploitation of labor and any group that accumulates that
| surplus is effectively stealing it from labor.
| notJim wrote:
| From Wikipedia: "Capitalism is an economic system based
| on the _private ownership of the means of production and
| their operation for profit_ ". I looked around a bit to
| see if this is a contentious definition, but other
| definitions I found shared the key bit about private
| ownership of the means of production. If a private entity
| owns the means of production, why wouldn't that entity
| attempt to maximize its share?
| claudeganon wrote:
| Noah Smith is about as intellectually dishonest as they
| come. He has misrepresented Taleb's work on several
| occasions, possibly never having read it in the first
| place:
|
| https://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/SmithBSVendor.html
| naravara wrote:
| I'm not as down on Noah Smith as many, but this is honestly
| a pretty bad review.
|
| He basically admits to having trouble understanding it
| owing to it being disorganized (a point he repeats
| frequently). But then he complains about people who
| criticize him for not making good faith attempts
| understanding what they're saying. Then he spends way too
| much of it trying to criticize anyone who would tell him
| it's bad and even spends an entire paragraph talking about
| how he suspects Graeber is a public intellectual who
| bristles at criticism before going on to pre-emptively
| bristle at any potential criticism of his review.
|
| Not his best work, to be sure.
| maybelsyrup wrote:
| I just clicked your link to "What's the point if we can't have
| fun?" and read the whole thing without really intending to (I
| told myself I was just gonna bookmark it).
|
| In many ways, the pieces I've read of Graber's have gone over
| my head (someone down-thread mentioned "Debt" taking them
| months to read because every two pages was original enough to
| ponder for days at a time).
|
| But what stands out to me was how much fun I always have
| reading him. Often, I'm laughing - and I've read other
| anthropologists and can say that, for instance, Clifford Geertz
| wasn't exactly humorous.
|
| I'm not trying to be trite here. I believe that, whatever your
| beliefs, your character and personality can be revealed in your
| writing in a way that stands alone, apart from whatever
| argument you might be making. I never met Graeber, but from his
| writing, he always seemed like a person I'd enjoy the hell out
| of having dinner with. Salute to a real one!
| DINKDINK wrote:
| Graeber's writing offers many thought provoking left anarchist
| perspective that's sorely missing in public debate.
|
| I thoroughly enjoyed "Debt"'s perspective on social-economic
| collaboration, money, credit, debt, and contract arbitration.
| It's a very informative and thought provoking book.
|
| "Bullshit" grossly misses some fundamental aspects about modern
| markets and power structures and as a result turns into an
| insipid, meandering grievance without substance. The commentary
| mistakes social-welfare states which have monopoly enforcement
| on: credit repayment (legal tender), and authoritarian control of
| the means of production (permitting) as capitalism (_private_
| ownership and deployment of goods and services). As a result, the
| entire subsequent criticism that follows in the book is
| misguided. If I had to summarize it: "Economic (consumer's-goods)
| producers are supremely inefficient in the deployment of labor,
| resources, time, production quantity which results in a social
| malaise". It implicitly pathologizes the choices of people who
| work in the "bullshit" jobs as unable to make nuanced,
| multivariable decisions. Yes, it may be the case a security
| camera would be a more efficient observer to an empty lot than
| paying a human, bored out of their mind, to sit in a hut. But
| that critique denies the economic calculus the hut worker made,
| that this job was the most ideal option out of the many different
| dimensions available to them.
|
| If the set of available options cannot be combined to produce
| desired results, it's not possible to combine inputs among a
| further reduced set of options to produce the desired results
| ("regulation"). The only option is to increase the set of
| available options (liberalization, de-monopolization), to produce
| different outcomes. The entire book fails to address to roll of
| entrepreneurship, e.g. a speculative endeavor by an individual or
| group that they can deploy labor, resources, time, production
| quantity in a more ideal and enjoyable arrangement. The absence
| is a shame because instead of the book being a diatribe, it could
| have been a powerful call to action to improve our lot.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| That's a real shame. "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory" really affected my
| world view, we lost him too soon.
| rsync wrote:
| I enjoyed immensely _Debt_ ... has anyone read both and can
| compare and contrast the quality and depth of the two ?
|
| I don't have a lot of room in my reading list, currently, but
| if _Bullshit Jobs_ is comparable in quality, I could move it
| into the queue ...
| erikig wrote:
| The humor of the request by a /u/rsync for a comparison of
| two books was not lost on me (or as the cool kids on reddit
| say "Username checks out")
| lmohseni wrote:
| I would say _Debt_ debt is pretty grand and sweeping, whereas
| _Bullshit Jobs_ is a much quicker read. However, some of his
| insights into the "spiritual violence" of a bull shit job
| really, deeply, changed the way i spend my time, and as good
| as _Debt_ is, if I could only choose to have read one, I
| would choose _Bullshit Jobs_.
| Aeolos wrote:
| I would agree, Bullshit Jobs has content that is
| understandable, if not immediately relatable, to anyone who
| has spent any time in the workforce. It can be a powerful
| read indeed.
|
| Debt is more academic, and it uproots many societal
| misconceptions about money and debt through the aeons. It
| is an excellent read for anyone interested in
| anthropology/sociology/economics, but it _is_ dense and it
| is not an easy read.
|
| As other posters pointed out, you can read Bullshit Jobs in
| a couple of days, but Debt can easily take months to
| finish.
| Aeolos wrote:
| Bullshit jobs is a bit more light-hearted and not as deeply
| researched as Debt. It is based mainly on observations from
| hundred of replies to his original article on bullshit jobs.
|
| I found both books insightful and enjoyable to read and would
| highly recommend them to anyone.
| ashtonkem wrote:
| I don't think I finished reading Debt; it was both less
| light hearted as you said, and I don't think I had anywhere
| near the economical, historical, or anthropological
| background to understand completely.
| erikig wrote:
| What a loss, I just finished reading Debt this week and even
| though I don't completely agree with his conclusions I enjoyed
| the way he came to them.
|
| He also had one of the best laughs I've heard.
|
| He will be missed.
| uvesten wrote:
| What an odd coincidence, I just started reading "Bullshit Jobs"
| today :/
| marricks wrote:
| This article of his I found particularly profound:
| https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav...
|
| > Why do animals play? Well, why shouldn't they? The real
| question is: Why does the existence of action carried out for the
| sheer pleasure of acting, the exertion of powers for the sheer
| pleasure of exerting them, strike us as mysterious? What does it
| tell us about ourselves that we instinctively assume that it is?
|
| For anyone who was influenced by Dawkins in high school it's a
| breath of fresh air, our world doesn't have to be bound to
| dogmatic religion or even dogmatic selfishness.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| I suggest re-reading The Selfish Gene and not getting caught up
| too much at the title, but actually paying attention to the
| content (as a high schooler it may not be easy to grok,
| especially if your school taught evolution wrong, even teachers
| often don't understand it). Dawkins never says people are
| always selfish by necessity. He says genes (not individual
| organisms) propagate _as if_ they were selfish, but this is
| just a metaphor, if the metaphor disturbs you you can ignore
| it, the actual content of the evolutionary reasoning does not
| require using words like selfish.
|
| Also, that quote on playing just dodges the question. Why is
| what we call "play" so pleasurable to animals? "Because they
| enjoy it" is not an answer. Why don't animals do other things
| for pleasure? And there are very good evolutionary arguments,
| but that's not the point now.
| joycian wrote:
| I never got that feeling from Dawkins? Could you explain?
| marricks wrote:
| Passage below is where he really mentions Dawkins:
|
| > The epitome of this line of thought came with militant
| atheist Richard Dawkins's book The Selfish Gene--a work that
| insisted all biological entities were best conceived of as
| "lumbering robots," programmed by genetic codes that, for
| some reason no one could quite explain, acted like
| "successful Chicago gangsters," ruthlessly expanding their
| territory in an endless desire to propagate themselves. Such
| descriptions were typically qualified by remarks like, "Of
| course, this is just a metaphor, genes don't really want or
| do anything." But in reality, the neo-Darwinists were
| practically driven to their conclusions by their initial
| assumption: that science demands a rational explanation, that
| this means attributing rational motives to all behavior, and
| that a truly rational motivation can only be one that, if
| observed in humans, would normally be described as
| selfishness or greed. As a result, the neo-Darwinists went
| even further than the Victorian variety. If old-school Social
| Darwinists like Herbert Spencer viewed nature as a
| marketplace, albeit an unusually cutthroat one, the new
| version was outright capitalist. The neo-Darwinists assumed
| not just a struggle for survival, but a universe of rational
| calculation driven by an apparently irrational imperative to
| unlimited growth.
|
| It goes on to discuss an alternative to the neo-Darwinist
| view and brings back to the core thesis of the piece, play.
| I'd really just massacre the thesis if I summarized it so if
| you find that interesting or disagree I'd really read his
| piece I linked above!
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Classic misunderstanding and caricature of the Darwinian
| argument and Dawkins' book. For one, he conflates genes and
| organisms.
|
| > all biological entities were best conceived of as
| "lumbering robots," programmed by genetic codes
|
| Either this is just physicalism (which is quite well
| accepted among most scientists) or assumes the straw
| Darwinist is a genetic determinist and denies environmental
| effects, which is misleading.
|
| > ruthlessly expanding their territory in an endless desire
| to propagate themselves
|
| When Darwinists say something approaching this, they are
| talking about _genes_ and not people and indeed it is
| merely a metaphor.
|
| > that science demands a rational explanation, that this
| means attributing rational motives to all behavior
|
| No, quite the opposite. It's not about rational motives,
| the whole point is there is no intelligence behind it, no
| "intelligent design" no reasoning. The whole thing emerges
| from natural selection and the fact that gene proportions
| _will_ change from generation to generation and this
| process is not fully random: some genes succeed more than
| others through the properties they lend to organisms.
|
| Again, let's not conflate social Darwinism as an ideology
| with Darwinian evolutionary theory, of which Dawkins' book
| is merely a popularizer. Also, at the time of writing The
| Selfish Gene, Dawkins wasn't so obsessed with being a
| militant atheist as in the last ~15 years or so. _The
| Selfish Gene_ is a pretty uncontroversial in a scientific
| sense, but it 's quite unfortunate in its title and many
| people don't want to put in the mental effort of thinking
| about evolutionary mechanisms. It's the type of thinking we
| use for math puzzles or a hacking, and it's unpleasant to
| most people so they jump back to arguing about politics and
| "surely they actually mean XYZ, let's not bother engaging
| with the actual words in the book..."
|
| And just on the side, I don't particularly like Dawkins as
| a person, I find his books on atheism quite dull and weak-
| manning religion, his tweets annoying and provocative in a
| cringe-inducing way, and his intellectual output over the
| last decade disappointing overall. Doesn't mean I feel the
| need to caricature the scientific arguments.
| marricks wrote:
| Eh, my comment is people do conflate and it helps
| reinforce selfish world views.
|
| Have you read the article I linked? If you haven't read
| it then I don't think this is really a productive
| conversation and my point stands about how it should be
| understood fully in the scientific history he provides
| it, not my pull quotes.
| fallingfrog wrote:
| A terrible tragedy, he died so young, with so many books left
| unwritten.
| samizdis wrote:
| This is a real blow. I've been reading his stuff for years.
| Here's a link [1] to his stuff in The Baffler from 2012 to 2016,
| but there's much more available - I've .pdfs of his writings that
| I saved from many sources. I'll update this later if I can find
| the original, live links.
|
| [1} https://thebaffler.com/authors/david-graeber
|
| Edited to add: Actually, Wikipedia has a pretty good linked list
| of his articles, and a quick title check with mine _seems_ to
| suggest that it is comprehensive.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber#Articles
|
| Further edited to add: A short (180-page) book by Graeber, _The
| Utopia of Rules_ , is a lovely example of his thoughtful writing
| style. It's nicely summed up in Wikipedia [1].
|
| It is available to buy from many good book stores, and it is also
| at Amazon. However, you can download it as a .pdf here [2].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Utopia_of_Rules
|
| [2] https://b-ok.cc/dl/2643480/a4be9e
|
| @dang - please delete this comment if it breaks any HN rules.
| jseliger wrote:
| He is interesting but also wrong a lot:
| https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-april-f...
|
| If you'd like an antidote to his book _Debt_ , _Money Changes
| Everything: How Finance Made Civilization Possible_ is useful.
| _Debt_ may be called "5,000 years of anecdotes:"
| https://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/debt-the-first-500-pages.
|
| This: https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/the-anarchist-and-the-
| anthr... also doesn't cover him with glory.
|
| He did think differently and often intelligently, which is to
| be admired, but "Different and also correct" is different from
| simply "different."
| blueline wrote:
| for anyone interested in some history between the author of
| the first link and graeber, in his own words:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707
| samizdis wrote:
| That was an informative read. Many thanks.
| samizdis wrote:
| I don't know how your comment, although interesting and with
| worthwhile links (thanks, by the way), relates to mine. I'd
| not mentioned his "thinking differently", and neither did I
| suggest that he was "different and also correct". (Nor did I
| mention his work "Debt".)
|
| I liked his writing; for its style and because it made me
| think. I like that. It doesn't imply total agreement or
| fanaticism, and neither does it imply hostility or
| disagreement.
|
| I would offer, from your first link, part of a comment lifted
| from its comment thread (even if I might dispute the
| commenter's use of the word "tiny"):
|
| _... We can all pick over tiny details in books and engage
| in hermeneutic readings.... It's not hard..... [W]hat's going
| to be remembered, David's book with its intellectually
| revolutionary message, one that has inspired so many young
| economists that I meet or DeLong's pedantic complaints about
| ambiguous meanings and contentious issues.... Who wins in the
| contest for etiquette? I don't know. But who wins the
| intellectual argument? Again, let history decide. But I'm
| thinking Graeber._
| banmeagaindan2 wrote:
| Pity, a worthy opposition for sparring. I wish the debate with
| Peter Thiel had worked out better - I think they were hamstrung
| by the format and something like the Uncommon Knowledge
| conversational style would have bought the best out.
| ideals wrote:
| "Bullshit Jobs" had a profound change on my outlook in the tech
| industry. Perhaps it was because I was on the heels of leaving
| Amazon at the time I read it, but it changed my mindset on what I
| should be working towards in life.
|
| Sad day
| mars4rp wrote:
| Yes, Bullshit jobs and "fooled by Randomness" is a must read
| for anyone that wants to work in tech sainly
| totablebanjo wrote:
| What are you working towards now? How did your outlook change?
| rektide wrote:
| World lost another real one. Such a real view of the bigger
| picture, such a student of humankind.
|
| Pour one out.
| rhizome31 wrote:
| Yes, about one month after Bernard Stiegler passed away, this
| is a sad succession of losses.
| heydenberk wrote:
| I had some interesting interactions with him (and former deput
| asst secretary of treasury DeLong) on this site.
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163449
|
| He certainly got the better of that interaction and he was
| patient enough to continue the conversation on Twitter later. He
| was one of those intellectuals (like Noam Chomsky) who is
| accessible and engaging with members of the public. I wouldn't
| say I knew him, exactly, but we became internet acquaintances,
| and I appreciated his thoughtfulness whenever we interacted. I
| can only imagine how many other people had such opportunities to
| talk to him and will miss him like I will.
| k1m wrote:
| As this is published in the Guardian, it's fair to point out that
| David Graeber was very much outspoken against the Guardian in the
| last couple of years and refused to write for them again.
|
| > as for the Guardian, we will never forget that during the
| "Labour #antisemitism controversy", they beat even the Daily Mail
| to include the largest percentage of false statements, pretty
| much every one, mysteriously, an accidental error to Labour's
| disadvantage -
| https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912
|
| > these venues only allow people like me on to legitimate
| themselves; i.e., the Guardian would systematically refuse to
| allow me to say anything about the Corbyn antisemitism charges,
| but simultaneously beg me to write about trivial matters like
| Black Friday. I finally was forced to face up to the reality:
| they wanted the name of prominent intellectual lefties associated
| with them so their systematic attacks on the political left would
| be taken more seriously. We were being used. -
| https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1256291019542401024
|
| > oh I'm definitely not writing for the Guardian again -
| https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1214619782991040512
| samizdis wrote:
| You might want to read this. It is short and respectful:
|
| https://pluralistic.net/2020/09/03/rip-david-graeber/#rip-da...
| dang wrote:
| And what a classic "journalistic" cheap shot they're taking at
| him with that photo (https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9e901f036a1
| 05724595e106ace3d6...). I was going to ask if anyone could
| suggest a better article, but the text itself is quite good. No
| doubt the photo was chosen by someone other than the author.
|
| A pity to lose him. Graeber was unusually fresh, with a talent
| for provoking interesting discussion, whether one agreed or
| not. He also got into flamewars on Hacker News:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber.
| FatalLogic wrote:
| I feel that you're rushing to judgement and assuming the
| worst.
|
| The article sings his praises. The photograph isn't the best,
| but perhaps it was an attempt to illustrate his quirky and
| iconoclastic nature.
|
| I fully agree with you that this is a sad loss. Much too
| soon.
| dang wrote:
| You may be right - I'm certainly making an interpretation
| there.
| BitwiseFool wrote:
| I think you're probably right. If the subject's
| photograph is unflattering the content of the article
| skews negative. For example, just look at any article
| where the person has their mouth open and is making the
| 'Ch' or the 'Ooo' sound - it's always negative.
| k1m wrote:
| The photo choice struck me as a cheap shot too. But I
| don't know who's responsible for that at the Guardian. I
| assumed knowing his views on the Guardian they didn't try
| very hard when it came to the photo.
| phs318u wrote:
| It's worth remembering that The Guardian, like most large
| organisations, is comprised of individuals who may vary
| quite significantly from the position of the entity
| overall. This article may be a reflection of that.
|
| DISCLAIMER: I'm a subscriber.
| echelon wrote:
| This is why it's hard to be a human.
|
| We jump to conclusions, but we're not always unwarranted.
| It'd be better to live in a world where we didn't have to
| suspect ulterior motives.
|
| But alas, hill climbing in an adversarial landscape while
| continually being preempted and distracted seems to be
| our lot in life. It's no wonder we're a bit grumpy.
| KineticLensman wrote:
| The photographer was Frantzesco Kangaris. His portfolio [0]
| has several posed portraits of famous people that might be
| considered less than flattering but which were clearly posed
| with their agreement. Kangaris has produced work for news
| sources across the political spectrum including The Telegraph
| (diametrically opposite from the Guardian).
|
| It's certainly possible that the author didn't choose it but
| it is possible that Graeber himself didn't object.
|
| [Edit - totally agree about the sadness of his loss]
|
| [0] http://www.fkphoto.co.uk/
| [deleted]
| RandoHolmes wrote:
| I don't see anything wrong with the photo.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| On the contrary, I thought that photo showed him with a
| quizzical, skeptical look, which is something I would bet
| he'd appreciate were he here to do so.
|
| Any chance we can get a black bar for him? His ideas were so
| interesting that I think it would be appropriate, even though
| he wasn't involved in the history of computing _per se_.
| Tarsul wrote:
| I agree with your take on his look in that picture.
| Additionally, while his views of the Guardian have soured,
| it's more to the left than the quotes above might suggest.
| E.g. this opinion piece from today: https://www.theguardian
| .com/commentisfree/2020/sep/03/left-b...
| pydry wrote:
| >Additionally, while his views of the Guardian have
| soured, it's more to the left than the quotes above might
| suggest.
|
| It's one thing to wax lyrical about a utopian left wing
| ideal. It's quite another to then be a willing attack dog
| for an establishment that is hell bent on killing any
| hope of something like it flourishing:
|
| "The Corbyn era certainly has been buried. It was never
| going to survive its complacency over Boris Johnson, its
| failure to treat allegations of antisemitism with any
| urgency, or its years spent umm-ing and ahh-ing over
| Brexit."
|
| One of those examples was part of a baseless smear
| campaign (partly on behalf of a foreign state) that the
| Guardian helped spread, quite deliberately.
|
| It's quite audacious for a newspaper to attack a public
| figure with a baseless smear campaign and then try to
| attack them on the basis that they didn't appropriately
| deal with the smear campaign they helped run.
| k1m wrote:
| I think Graeber's point is that occasionally publishing
| writers like this gives the Guardian a kind of fake left
| cred that then makes their attacks on the left (which can
| be relentless, as in the case of Corbyn) much more
| powerful.
|
| Below his pinned tweet on the Guardian is this tweet from
| him, mentioning the writer of the opinion piece you link
| (Aditya Chakrabortty):
|
| > this is the "cred" they built up by publishing people
| like me, .@OwenJones84, .@GeorgeMonbiot, .@chakrabortty -
| all of whom I very much respect. They used us so no one
| would believe they would simply lie to destroy any chance
| of a left gov't. But that's exactly what they did. - http
| s://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210323190402162704
|
| I actually respect David Graeber a whole lot more than
| the others he mentions here because he didn't let his
| access to the Guardian stop him from calling them out.
| Going as far as to say he wouldn't write for them again.
| TheOtherHobbes wrote:
| So much this. The anti-Corbyn smearing was practically
| Soviet in its intensity, and directly contributed to the
| appalling political situation the UK finds itself in now.
| You expect it from the right, but when it's also coming
| from the supposed left - in sync with obvious social
| media astroturfing - it's impossible not to question
| what's really going on.
|
| I know a number of people who will never trust the
| Guardian again. Unfortunately I know more who simply
| believed the lies.
|
| I'm glad Graeber said all this because he confirmed what
| a lot of people suspected was the case.
|
| So an especially sad loss, as well.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| Corbyn actually got an easy ride in many ways, notably in
| the 2017 election where he inexplicably was able to stand
| as effectively the main Remain candidate without
| challenge, despite his massive historic Eurosceptism.
|
| All of the accusations of antisemitism were dismissed by
| his supporters out of hand, but some were legitimate,
| likely not in any personal antisemitism but in a
| willingness to turn a blind eye to antisemitism in
| ideological allies.
| cynicalkane wrote:
| "He also got into flamewars on Hacker News"
|
| It's disappointing to see 'flamewar' contexualizxed after
| 'provoking interesting discussion'. Reading through Graeber's
| long, contradictory, insult-filled, self-important rants, I'm
| not sure what would motivate this contextualization.
|
| Normally, I might assume good faith, but Graeber's polemical
| behavior characterizes both a significant part of his work
| and a significant part of his participation on his site. The
| contextualization of this kind of unhinged and hateful
| behavior as some sort of intellectualism is something I find
| especially repulsive and pernicious.
| s0l1dsnak3123 wrote:
| Can you provide examples please? I've followed Graeber for
| years, and this sounds nothing like the person I came to
| know.
| cynicalkane wrote:
| You can refer to dang's link to Graeber's flamewar with
| Brad DeLong on here. It begins and ends with insults
| sandwiching a suspiciously uncharitable characterization
| of the subject.
|
| This suspicion is founded: many of Graeber's claims are
| also false; in particular, Delong provided a litany of
| elementary falsehoods in _Debt_ , in which Graeber's
| inaccurate claim about Apple is merely of especial
| characteristic inaccuracy--but that's beyond the scope of
| this post. Zooming back out, if one leads and ends with
| hateful insults which they cannot justify, that ought to
| be viewed with deep suspicion. No, DeLong is not a "con-
| man" who "suckers" people because he wants to call out a
| book which he feels, and can earnestly argue, is deeply
| wrong.
|
| Near the end of this long, screenfilling rant, Graeber
| claims he has been trying to "ignore" DeLong. I didn't
| know such fits of apoplexy were how you ignored someone.
| gord288 wrote:
| Well no, here's what Graeber actually said at the end of
| his comment (emphasis added):
|
| > I've honestly tried to just ignore the guy, hoping
| he'll eventually go away, but _since_ he won 't, _I guess
| I have to explain what 's really going on._
| cynicalkane wrote:
| That reads like a post-hoc justification to me. Most
| people practice ignoring people by, well, ignoring them.
| If they don't, they will explain what's "really going on"
| by _just explaining it_ , not with prolonged fits of
| unwarranted and uncharitable apoplexy.
|
| As I described elsewhere, Graeber is also lying when he
| said he made any serious attempt to ignore DeLong at all.
| amznthrowaway5 wrote:
| Can you go into more detail? Because Graeber's post seems
| quite convincing, and DeLong fails to coherently reply to
| the accusations.
|
| Graeber went into detail about why DeLong was impossible
| to ignore, including DeLong apparently creating a twitter
| bot to attack Graeber (!!).
| cynicalkane wrote:
| I mean, Graeber is right in that he was being trolled.
| But Graeber lies when he says he tried to ignore DeLong
| and Graeber lies when he characterizes DeLong as
| obsessively harping on one inaccuracy.
|
| Graeber's fit of apoplexy wasn't just in that one HN
| comment. His "ignoring" DeLong was an uninterrupted train
| of obsessive, one-sided, and often bizarrely misdirected
| anger and insult. The only "ignoring" was that Graeber,
| in all his raging against DeLong's trollbot, did not
| bother do any raging in the form of citing facts or other
| defense. As DeLong puts it:
|
| > Graeber, of course, makes no attempt to defend his
| claims in his chapter 12. He doesn't because he can't.
| Chapter 12 is in fact riddled with errors.... It really
| appears to be just too easy for people like David Graeber
| to imagine that they are in a two-month extended
| conversation where there is a human mind on the other
| side, when actually they are just the bird pecking itself
| in the window glass[1].
|
| That incident was a piece in a longer flamewar in which
| Graeber, essentially, behaves in the obsessive and
| intellectually bankrupt manner he accused DeLong of
| behaving.
|
| [1]https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-
| april-f...
| ChickeNES wrote:
| I felt much the same way having never heard of Graeber
| before but being familiar with DeLong. I'm seeing the
| same from Graeber supporters in the comments shouting
| down Noah Smith's review of Debt instead of addressing
| his arguments.
| ChickeNES wrote:
| Wait, just to be clear, he was taking Corbyn's side? I don't
| know anything about Graeber whatsoever (I honestly thought he
| was some CS pioneer I had forgotten before clicking the link),
| but that's a pretty bad look
| steffandroid wrote:
| Please read this piece that Graeber wrote in defence of
| Corbyn:
| https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/first-
| time-...
| gghhzzgghhzz wrote:
| or video covering similar
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6oOj7BzciA
| samizdis wrote:
| Exactly that. I second your recommendation that it should
| be read.
| ChickeNES wrote:
| Same old argument I've read from others, it's not going to
| change my mind about Corbyn or Labour, sorry. And before I
| get accused of being a right-winger, I'm no fan of Boris,
| Trump, the Tories, UKIP, or the GOP either
| areoform wrote:
| Please reconsider your broader position on changing your
| mind. This reflexive inflexibility is perhaps the central
| reason why our civilization is in disarray.
| kmlx wrote:
| like any other person, he had his misgivings.
|
| yes, it's a bad look, but one of his few (another one was the
| infantile Occupy movement).
|
| but, to be factual, anti-semitism in the UK Labour Party has
| been a thing since the 20th century, and culminated with the
| recent leader Corbyn:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_in_the_UK_Labour_.
| ..
| pydry wrote:
| >but, to be factual, anti-semitism in the UK Labour Party
| has been a thing since the 20th century
|
| Anti semitism is a thing in society at large. It's bigger
| than it is in society in the Conservative Party. It's
| smaller than it is in society at large in the Labour party,
| but not entirely non-existent.
|
| The reason it became such an "issue" with Corbyn was about
| Israel attempting to shield itself from Corbyn's criticism
| (e.g. land expansion, abuse of palestinians, highly racist
| policies) and because others found it useful to jump on
| Israel's bandwagon. It's not because it was common. It
| wasn't.
|
| Tom Watson (deputy leader, never a corbyn fan) was one of
| those people.
|
| He even went as far as visiting Isaac Herzog in Israel with
| a contingent of MPs (all of whom loathed Corbyn) to
| "apologize" for the "anti semitism problem" in the Labour
| party:
| https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/15/tom-
| watson-...
|
| Isaac Herzog, then leader of the Israeli Labour party, is
| famous for declaring that "race mixing is a tragedy" and
| _refusing to apologize for it_. This is who the concerned
| "anti racists" allied themselves with - an Israeli
| _obsessed_ with racial purity:
| https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/isaac-herzogs-
| remarks-...
|
| The hypocrisy and pearl clutching on this issue was
| absolutely staggering - especially by the guardian. The
| fact that something like this can be used to take down an
| honest politician in this way gives us a terrifying peak
| into the future.
| claudeganon wrote:
| From your own link:
|
| > In April 2020, an 860-page report into the handling of
| antisemitism by the party concluded that there was "no
| evidence" that antisemitism complaints were treated any
| differently than other forms of complaint, or of current or
| former staff being "motivated by antisemitic intent."
|
| So how exactly did it "culminate" with Corbyn?
| tome wrote:
| Here is a (1984, hah!) book on the topic that I found
| interesting
|
| https://libcom.org/files/thats_funny.pdf
| kunai wrote:
| Why? It's pretty evident at this point that the whole Labour
| anti-Semitism thing was a cheap way to generate clicks and
| tank Corbyn-led Labour. Criticism of Israel's genuinely awful
| human rights record is not anti-Semitic.
| mft_ wrote:
| It wasn't just related to criticism of Israel.
|
| There were plenty of examples [0] of unpleasant statements
| coming from people on a Labour party platform or at their
| events, which were not dealt with sufficiently quickly or
| seriously by the Labour Party. They could've made this
| problem go away by just having a proper policy and dealing
| with these cases swiftly and appropriately. They didn't.
|
| [0] https://news.sky.com/story/12-shocking-claims-of-abuse-
| in-le...
| jessaustin wrote:
| Oh good, another English dossier. Those are entertaining!
| One notes that at that link there are no specific
| accusations against Corbyn. It's all "Corbyn-supporting
| groups" and "concerns about Corbyn's leadership". Seems a
| bit thin!
|
| We would have seen this fiction in USA too, if voters
| would have just forgotten that Bernie is actually Jewish.
| mft_ wrote:
| No one said Corbyn himself was anti-Semitic - just that
| there was anti-Semitism within the Labour Party, and it
| wasn't dealt with sufficiently during his tenure as
| leader.
|
| It's not unreasonable to hold a leader somewhat
| responsible - it's not like Trump isn't criticised
| (rightly) for things done by other people on his watch.
| mrow84 wrote:
| > It's not unreasonable to hold a leader somewhat
| responsible - it's not like Trump isn't criticised
| (rightly) for things done by other people on his watch.
|
| Clearly you could decide that you will hold a leader to
| be (somewhat) responsible simply by virtue of them being
| the leader, as a matter of principle. However, it seems
| quite possible to at least _imagine_ situations where a
| leader is "fatally" undermined by people within their own
| organisation. Given that, it is worth considering whether
| that may have been the situation for Corbyn, and if so
| where culpability lies.
|
| To complete your point, I would contend that this isn't
| the key issue with Trump - it isn't obvious to me that
| generalising over these situations is really that useful.
| jessaustin wrote:
| ITT, one reads "...anti-semitism in the UK Labour
| Party... culminated with the recent leader Corbyn..."
| There aren't too many ways to interpret that.
|
| It is interesting to imagine holding the national leader
| of a political party responsible for her or his own
| actions, let alone the antics of other party members.
| Whatever UK has done to make this possible, we should do.
| Only, I suspect it will turn into yet another double
| standard.
| mft_ wrote:
| I interpret to chronologically: that the rise of Corbyn
| to leadership of Labour revitalised some segments of
| supporters, some of whom had anti-Semitic views. I don't
| for a second think that he personally was anti-Semitic,
| but some of his supporters and political allies probably
| are, and his prominence led to their greater prominence
| also.
| mrow84 wrote:
| > No one said Corbyn himself was anti-Semitic
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/2019/12/05/jeremy-
| corbyn...
| mft_ wrote:
| Sure; I meant in this discussion on HN. Sorry for not
| being clear.
| s0l1dsnak3123 wrote:
| Yes, and there is also now proof of sabotage by the right
| of the Labour party specifically in order to create the
| narrative you are repeating.
|
| "The 860-page document claims that "an abnormal intensity
| of factional opposition to the party leader" had
| "inhibited the proper functioning of the Labour Party
| bureaucracy" and contributed to "a litany of mistakes" in
| dealing with antisemitism, which it admits was a serious
| problem in the party."
|
| https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-
| leak-r...
|
| Meanwhile, the Tory party gets a free pass on their
| rampant Antisemitism and stoking hatred of immigrants.
| mft_ wrote:
| Whether or not the draft dossier of uncertain providence
| is all legit, I agree it looks like Labour's issues ran
| deep. However, I'd still argue there's an issue around
| Corbyn's leadership.
|
| You're the leader of Labour; your party is being
| criticised in very damaging ways and (for the sake of
| argument) it's because your internal processes are being
| sabotaged. What do you do? Maybe... look into it? Fix it?
| Change the people responsible if that's what it takes? At
| best, it was weak leadership. At worst, it was a
| reluctance to discipline political allies.
| s0l1dsnak3123 wrote:
| The Labour leaks prove that Labour did try to fix it -
| Corbyn should've booted all the neo-liberals out of his
| party via mandatory reselections. Unfortunately, he's too
| decent to play dirty - but that's what's needed right
| now.
|
| I think it's pretty clear that Rachel Reeves, Ian Austin
| et al are not allies when they are funnelling money and
| faking ad spend, and leaking lies to the press
| specifically to stop labour from winning.
|
| (I'm not referring to all claims of antisemitism here as
| lies by the way, but many of the stories that broke in
| the Guardian were later redacted as bunk)
| monoclechris wrote:
| I think it is very unlikely the Equality and Human Rights
| Commission will come to this same conclusion.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| > refused to write for them again.
|
| Reminds me of Christopher Hedges and his experience on the CBC
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4XlPxvi9F4
| QuesnayJr wrote:
| Graeber was a talented polemicist who had a loose relationship
| with the truth. For example, in the first edition of his book,
| _Debt_ , he wrote Apple Computers is a famous
| example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers
| who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little
| democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops
| in each other's garages...
|
| He gave conflicting explanations
| (https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/01/the-very-last-david-g...)
| for that quote, but at the very least it shows how uncareful he
| was as a scholar.
| consz wrote:
| I would refer to this --
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707
|
| for a response to your point directly from Graeber himself.
|
| I don't think there's any reason to listen to Delong's
| criticisms, he's intellectually dishonest and a stalker to
| boot.
| QuesnayJr wrote:
| Brad DeLong is a distinguished economic historian who has a
| long-running blog where he tends to the ascerbic. He's not
| gunning for Graeber. Graeber is just one of many topics he
| has addressed over the years.
|
| Graeber can't really defend his Apple quote, so he resorts to
| this kind of personal attack. DeLong being wrong about Sumer
| does not make Graeber right about Apple.
|
| He had very little tolerance for disagreement. The blog
| Crooked Timber had a roundtable to discuss _Debt_. The
| discussion was mostly positive, but with some criticisms
| around the edges. Graeber had a vituperative response that
| took everyone by surprise. You can see the conclusion of the
| discussion with a perplexed response here:
| https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/04/because-imperialism/
| [deleted]
| autosharp wrote:
| Five days ago he was feeling "a little under the weather":
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrVKRhr1TA
|
| Looking forward to that last book he just finished.
| kristopolous wrote:
| It's wild how fast death can come.
|
| He looks fine here. He apparently was still using Twitter on
| sept 2. It must have been sudden.
| jb775 wrote:
| Can't wait for the last book. How awesome would it be if it's
| better than _Debt: The First 5000 Years_
| techer wrote:
| How very sad. So much knowledge. Thanks for posting that.
| mcprwklzpq wrote:
| I thought maybe he finished the book on origins of inequality
| with David Wengrow. But he said it is a book about kings. He
| published the book "On Kings" in 2017, it is in open access
| [1]. I assume he talked about another book about kings.
|
| David Graber wrote in his bio: <<I am currently working with
| the archaeologist David Wengrow on a whole series of works
| completely re-imagining the whole question of "the origins of
| social inequality," starting with the way the question is
| framed to begin with.>> [7]
|
| With David Wengrow he published an article "Farewell to the
| 'childhood of man': ritual, seasonality, and the origins of
| inequality" in 2015. [2] They did a talk presenting the
| article. [3] They published an article "How to change the
| course of human history (at least, the part that's already
| happened)" in 2018. [4] And "Are we city dwellers or hunter-
| gatherers?" in 2019. [5] They talked about their work again in
| 2019. [6]
|
| I wonder if they planned to do more. It seemed as something of
| an even bigger scale than the Debt if turned into a book. But
| maybe it always was going to be a series of articles.
|
| 1 [pdf] - https://haubooks.org/on-kings/
|
| 2 [pdf] - http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62756/
|
| 3 [video] - https://vimeo.com/145285143
|
| 4 - https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/
|
| 5 - https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-
| dweller...
|
| 6 [video] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvUzdJSK4x8
|
| 7 - https://davidgraeber.industries/contact
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-03 23:00 UTC)