To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Graeber
Graeber in 2015
Born
David Rolfe Graeber

(1961-02-12)February 12, 1961
DiedSeptember 2, 2020(2020-09-02) (aged 59)
Venice, Italy
Alma mater
Known for
Spouse
Nika Dubrovsky
(m. 2019)
Awards
Scientific career
Fields
Institutions
ThesisThe Disastrous Ordeal of 1987: Memory and Violence in Rural Madagascar
Doctoral advisorMarshall Sahlins
Signature
David Graeber

David Rolfe Graeber (/ˈɡrbər/; February 12, 1961 – September 2, 2020) was an American anthropologist and anarchist activist. His influential work in economic anthropology, particularly his books Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011), Bullshit Jobs (2018), and The Dawn of Everything (2021), and his leading role in the Occupy movement, earned him recognition as one of the foremost anthropologists and left-wing thinkers of his time.[1][2][3]

Born in New York to a working-class Jewish family, Graeber studied at Purchase College and the University of Chicago, where he conducted ethnographic research in Madagascar under Marshall Sahlins and obtained his doctorate in 1996. He was an assistant professor at Yale University from 1998 to 2005, when the university controversially decided not to renew his contract before he was eligible for tenure. Unable to secure another position in the United States, he entered an "academic exile" in England, where he was a lecturer and reader at Goldsmiths' College from 2008 to 2013, and a professor at the London School of Economics from 2013.

In his early scholarship, Graeber specialized in theories of value (Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value, 2002), social hierarchy and political power (Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, 2004, Possibilities, 2007, On Kings, 2017), and the ethnography of Madagascar (Lost People, 2007). In the 2010s he turned to historical anthropology, producing his best-known book, Debt: The First 5000 Years (2011), an exploration of the historical relationship between debt and social institutions, as well as a series of essays on the origins of social inequality in prehistory. In parallel, he developed critiques of bureaucracy and managerialism in contemporary capitalism, published in The Utopia of Rules (2015) and Bullshit Jobs (2018). He coined the concept of bullshit jobs in a 2013 essay that explored the proliferation of "paid employment that is so completely pointless, unnecessary, or pernicious that even the employee cannot justify its existence".[4]

Although exposed to radical left politics from a young age, Graeber's direct involvement in activism began with the global justice movement of the 1990s. He attended protests against the 3rd Summit of the Americas in Quebec City in 2001 and the World Economic Forum in New York in 2002, and later wrote an ethnography of the movement, Direct Action (2009). In 2011, he became well known as one of the leading figures of Occupy Wall Street and is credited with coining the slogan "We are the 99%". His later activism included interventions in support of the Rojava revolution in Syria, the British Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn and Extinction Rebellion.

David Graeber died unexpectedly in September 2020, while on vacation in Venice. His last book, The Dawn of Everything: A New History of Humanity, co-written with archaeologist David Wengrow, was published posthumously in 2021.[5]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/5
    Views:
    739 818
    573 533
    131 232
    910 777
    105 367
  • Debt: The First 5,000 Years | David Graeber | Talks at Google
  • On Bullsh*t Jobs | David Graeber | RSA Replay
  • David Graeber: On Bureaucratic Technologies and the Future as Dream-Time
  • David Graeber on Debt, Service, and the Origins of Capitalism
  • David Graeber: On Bureaucratic Technologies & the Future as Dream-Time / 01.19.2012 @ SVA

Transcription

>> Male Presenter: Welcome everybody on behalf of Authors@Google to another Authors@Google talk. Today's guest David Graeber, his new book DEBT: The First 5,000 Years of it. Please welcome David Graeber. [applause] >>David Graeber: Thank you, thanks so much for having me here. I guess I wanted to talk a little bit about how I came to write the book. It's an odd book, in a way, because it starts from trying to grapple with kind of a moral and political problem. Just what is this hold that the idea of debt has over people's imaginations, that morality itself comes to be thought of as a matter of paying one's debts? I guess I was first really confronted with it, started to conceive the notion of writing this book when I was, for some reason or another, I was at a garden party at Westminster Abbey and won't go into how I got there, but it was a curious experience. The priest was a very nice man named Father Graeme was sort of introducing me to everyone there but he had this very annoying way of doing it, he would sort of bring me up to people and say, "Hello I'd like you to meet David Graeber. He's an anarchist," [chuckles] which kind of limited conversations -- [laughter] possibilities a lot. But after a while he introduced me to this person who he said was I'd have a lot in common with, activist lawyer who's involved in a lot of community work and various things like that. So I chatted with her and she was talking about her activism and asked me about mine and I was talking about campaigns that I'd been involved with, involved in the Global Justice Movement for many years, about the IMF Structural Adjustment Policies and our effects on various parts of the world. I had spent two years in Madagascar and Madagascar had undergone all sorts of IMF structural adjustment over the years with various confusing effects; some of them were actually kind of ironically quite good like the state basically sort of pulled up stakes and left large parts of the countryside because they figure they weren't getting any taxes out of the countryside anyway and people sort of managing their own affairs completely autonomously and that was cool. But they also did things like withdraw support for mosquito eradication programs, the idea being IMF would set the terms for debt rescheduling and demand various budget cuts. In this case, there was a program that had been put in 50 years before to wipe out malaria in the highlands which had been very successful, people had all lost their immunity but they couldn't afford to keep it up anymore when they had to cut the budget. And as a result -- [pause] I believe, 15,000 people died, 10 or 15 depending on the accounts because the epidemic came back, everyone had lost their immunity. At least 5,000 of those were children and this had happened right before I came to Madagascar. A lot of people were naturally quite devastated by the experience. And I was telling this story and she was very sympathetic and she said, "Well, yes, but what were, as an activist what were you proposing to do about this? And I said, "Well we were involved in the Drop the Debt campaign this thing called Jubilee 2000,' I said the debt of the global south should be forgiven. Her reaction was -- [pause] somewhat shocked and mortified. She was like, "Well, they borrowed the money, I mean, surely people have to pay their debts." There was something about the way it was just so commonsensical and as an activist your first reaction when you say this you say, "Uh-oh, that conversation, alright. And I thought this was a friend. Okay, wait, which one do I do? There's like 12 different responses you can do. Do I say, "Well they didn't really borrow the money, some dictator who put it in a Swiss bank account." Do you say, "Well, actually, they paid the money about 20 times over at this point just through the miracle of compounded interest; they'll never get out." There's a million different responses. Actually, the response I think I came up with, what would be most effective in that context was the economical one which is if profits are your reward for taking risk, well, you're supposed to be taking a risk. So I mean the whole point of a financial system is to guide money towards wise investments and if you have a system like the IMF imposed on most of the world where you're going to get paid back no matter what you do, there's absolutely no incentive to make intelligent loans. But what really struck me was that sort of commonsensical like, "You have to pay your debts." I mean, I thought, "Well, this is a very nice person she just heard a story which involved 7,000 dead babies how, what other circumstance would she try to justify killing 7,000 babies?” Probably none. So what is it about the idea of debt that it can justify things in peoples' minds that you'd almost never – [pause] imagine defending otherwise? And it set me off and I started thinking about debt itself; the history of debt, what is debt, where does it come from, how long have we been thinking in these terms, how long has it had this moral power? And I quickly, when I started doing the initial research, discovered a number of rather surprising things. One of them was that no one has ever written the history of debt which is kind of shocking because really there aren't that many things that no one's ever written a history of. Think about it, people have written histories of salt, people have written histories of different types of fish. There's a French historian who wrote a history of shit, it's actually in a -- [laughter] human waste disposal over the years. [laughs] Pretty much anything you can think of there is a guy who's written a history of that. How is it that no one's ever written a history of debt? And people have written lots of histories of money, but the histories of money almost invariably turn out when you look at it to be histories of coinage which itself is interesting when you consider that most transactions over world history have been credit transactions. And you can find histories of credit but it's not exactly the same thing. So here's this thing which pervades every aspect of our lives. Modern nations run on deficit financing; consumer economies run on debt; international relationships are all about debt. Yet no one's quite sure what it is and no one has written a history of the phenomena. So I started to work and one of the first things I found was that most of our sort of basic common sense reigning assumptions about this are completely wrong. The other thing I found out is that this moral ambivalence, which was interesting, that sort of commonsensical but of course you have to pay your debt and then the argument but actually really no that doesn't make sense. That conversation has been happening for about 5,000 years itself. Throughout the history of debt, conversations like that keep happening. It seems that there's almost no time and place where you can't find people, on the one hand, treating the payment of debts as simple morality or even treating simple morality as the paying of debts. [pause] But at the same time, then concluding there's something very wrong with this and they need to imagine some other way to think of it but it not being clear what that is. [pause] I could multiply examples endlessly but one or two will just give you the idea: Plato's Republic. Plato's Republic begins, "What is justice?" It's the founding work of Western political philosophy, right? And from wealthy arms manufacturer, Kefalos, who's name actually means capital. He says, "That's simple just pay your debts and don't lie," and that's justice. Socrates blows that one out of the water right away, of course, he says, "Well, okay, some guy lends me his sword and then he goes violently insane and wants it back to kill people. Like, do I give it back? Of course not and probably I'll make up some lie as to why I can't." So they start with that and so right well right not that something else, maybe I mean it metaphorically. And the rest of the book is basically the okay not that maybe something else then. But that -- [pause] it's debt right and no actually it's not. [laughter] [chuckles] That shows up over and over and over again. In a way all the world religions start that way too. You have the Brahmans, sort of first grade theological text of Hinduism after the Rig Veda, they're discussing debt and debt and sin are actually the same, debt and guilt and sin are really the same word in the Sanskrit. So they start with this idea of cosmic debt: what is life, life is a debt we owe to the gods. So we owe our lives to the gods, we pay interest in the form of animal sacrifice and other rituals and then gradually we pay the principal back when we die. So they pose this as this sort of, human existence itself is a debt, all morality is debt. And when they, but as soon as they start extending it, it becomes clear that that's not really what they mean because they say, "Well you also have a existential debt not only to the gods and to the cosmos but you have an existential debt to your parents. How do you pay them back? You become a parent. You owe a debt to the sages who created wisdom like you're reading now. How do you pay that back? You become a sage; you learn things. You owe a debt to humanity as a whole for making your life possible. How do you pay back that, you're hospitable to strangers. But in every case what you're doing is you are undermining the basis for saying there even is a debt, you're not paying it back 'cause after all, as in the example of parents, somebody lends you money and you give the money to someone else, you're not actually paying it back. But what you are doing is you owe a debt to your parents and then you become a parent so your annihilating the difference. You owe a debt to the sages you become a sage; you owe a debt to humanity you become humane. [pause] Could that apply to the cosmos? Well, yes, according to most Hindu scripture that's exactly what's happening because you are the cosmos. And if you think about it the idea that you owe a debt to the cosmos, and this crops up again and again, debt to nature, debt to society, debt to these huge institutions larger than yourself, is kind of absurd because a debt is a business transaction. And a business transaction is by definition an arrangement between two legally equivalent entities; they make a deal. Now how would you enter into a business transaction with the entire universe, everything that is or has ever been including yourself? You kinda make a deal with them. Well, it's absurd. The only way to actually sort of undo the debt is what they're saying you realize and rituals if you're doing them right is that you are the cosmos, there is no difference. So there's no basis to say there's a debt at all. So again it's the same thing: you start morality is just debt, everything is a debt but they say it in such a way that once you figure out what they're really saying, they're really saying, "No, actually it's not; debt is absurd." Same thing happens in the Bible. In Aramaic – [pause] the word for debt and sin is also the same word. Actually the Lord's Prayer which we always remember through the Anglican translation which is, "Forgive us our trespasses just as we forgive those who trespass against us," sort of translated into this odd private property terms. But the original Aramaic and the original John Wycliffe translation is debt. "Forgive us our debts just as we forgive those who owe us money." But, of course, there's kind of a message there right because we don't actually forgive those who owe us money generally speaking. So in a way it's a way of saying like you are a sinner, [chuckles] you don't deserve anything, but, in fact, grace will come and [chuckles] you'll be forgiven. But so what is sacred isn't actually paying debts it's forgiveness of debts which was a tradition going back to ancient Mesopotamia and debt forgiveness and the biblical to believe which is adopted from that where periodically debts are canceled. And that is a divine act. So what's divine is not paying debts, what's divine is forgiving debts; cancellation. So over and over you have that same situation where people start with an assumption that morality and debt are the same and they, immediately, say except really they aren't and sort of cast around for some other basis on which to think of a universal morality, often having a great deal of difficulty in doing so. It's even more complicated because when you do think of debt as sin -- [pause] there's a question of who is the sinner. This crops up over and over again, too, just about everywhere. The person who borrows the money has probably done something wrong, especially if they haven't paid it right away; the person who lent is not doing much better. In fact one thing that happens over and over again in so many different traditions is you find that borrowing money or -- [pause] they frame morality as the obligation of the borrower to pay it back. So obligation and debt are considered the same thing; morality is just doing your obligations as paying your debts. On the other hand in almost every one of those traditions, money lenders are assumed to be evil. Well, it's kinda hard to square those. And sometimes in the same text they'll just be sort of jockeying back and forth trying to figure out who's the bad guy. There's a great Buddhist story from medieval Japan I use in the first chapter because just brings it home some clearly, it's kind of a case of premature reincarnation. There is a Buddhist monk telling this story about some book about strange events in Japan in my day, which is maybe like 700 A.D. There's some woman who's wife of the governor is notorious local loan shark and she terrorizes people and is always chasing them down and were fleeing the province in droves from her depredation. And she dies and after three days of saying prayer over the body something horror happened, the coffin opens and she jumps out but she's half an ox and this horrible monster sort of lingers for a few days and the family panics and is trying to give back all the money that they'd extracted from people hoping she'll just mercifully die and the whole episode will be over, which eventually she does. But the monk is reflecting on this and he says, "Well, you know it says in the Sutras that if you owe somebody money and you don't pay, well, now this is bad because you're in mortal danger you could be reborn as an ox in their barn." It's what happens to debtors a lot. But he says, "I guess, well, if somebody owes you money and you're really giving them a hard time then you could get reborn an ox in their barn." And that must be what was about to happen to her but she was so bad it wasn't even clear who's ox she was gonna be born in so she kind of turned into this monster. I thought about this and I thought, well, yeah, a perfect example like because nobody's, you're not gonna be shakin' somebody down unless they didn't pay. But if they didn't pay then they're in danger of being born an ox in your barn. So, like, who's gonna get, you can't both get born an ox in the other guy's barn. [chuckles] Somebody's gotta be worse so who decides? There's some sort of Karmic balance, its touch and go, either one could actually end up an ox. And I think that [chuckles] really brings home the problem you always have in debt: one party is in moral peril definitely, the other one probably. And when you imagine all human relations as exchange, that's what crops up. [pause] There's a terrible ambivalence there for about the very nature of human sociality. Yet sometimes people do it in a positive way. I should point out that one of the points I make in the book is that human relations are not all exchange, there are many different moral registers in which we interact with one another and exchange is just one. But when you have exchange, exchange is a relationship between two equal partners where they, based on reciprocity, they should actually give each other an equivalent, maybe on the spot, maybe over time. If the transaction is not complete, there's a debt, but once it is complete they're equal once again and they walk away. But the curious thing about that is it means that you only – [pause] if you're working on the level of exchange, then you only have relationships with one another when the exchange is incomplete in which case one party is definitely to blame because they haven't paid back what they owe, the other one might well be. It implies that sociality itself, human relations only exist when somebody's done something wrong. If you have deeply commercial philosophies of life often that's the conclusion. Other places debt becomes good, it becomes the basis of sociality. It's very, very common in a lot of places -- it's a great story always like sort of brings us home about these people called the Tiv who live in Central Nigeria and this anthropologist named Laura Bohannan who wrote up of her experiences when she first did field work there. So she shows up, gets a house, doesn't really know the language very well. People immediately start appearing with gifts and somebody'll bring a little basket of okra, somebody'll bring some fish, some grain, potatoes, and she doesn't know what to do, of course, she's an anthropologist, she gets out her little notebook and writes everything down; her living room gradually filling up with baskets and various types of goods. And eventually someone takes pity on her and says, "Okay, look this is the deal. Those are gifts but you have to give people something back. Figure out what they're worth, but the key is you can't give them back something of the exact same value of what they just gave you. So that okra's worth three shillings. Give them something worth two shillings or give them something worth four shillings. Never give them something worth three shillings because if you do you're saying, "I don't want to have anything more to do with you.'" So people have to be in each others' debt just a little bit and that way you always have an excuse to like, "Oh, by the way, I still owe you a shilling." So everybody has an excuse to see each other. So in a way, sociality is dead, everybody has to be just a little bit in debt to everybody else. And if you look at the way communities work over the course of history where they do have money very often that's what's like being a neighborhood means. Everybody's a little bit in debt to everybody else. Medieval England, I think somebody calculated that 97 percent of all transactions in a typical English village, and this is true through to at least the 1700's, were by credit. Partly there just isn't a lot of money floating around, partly people don't like to use it with neighbors. As we'll see actual physical money is associated with war, violence, soldiers, people you really don't wanna hang out with, criminals. People, nice people operate on credit and trust. So everybody's doing these credit transactions and everybody's keeping track in their heads, "Oh, I owe him five shillings, he owes him three," and every six months to a year they have what they call communal reckoning. So, everybody sits down in a big circle and they say, "Alright I owe you seven shillings, he owes him seven shillings, he owes him, he owes me, okay big circle we can cancel that one out." And they just do a bunch of loops and they gradually whittle it down until they figure out there's about three shillings left over between this guy and that guy, what is actually owed, and then somebody gives somebody a pig -- [laughter] some cheese [chuckles] whatever it might be and they settle it and go back to zero again and start. And that's community, community means everybody owes everybody something else, everybody remembers what they owe and eventually they all settle it and start over again. Now, so in that sense, debt isn't a terrible thing. But there's always that shadow, like sin, floating over it. [pause] And there's that terrible ambivalence, that way of saying one party's guilty and the other one might be. Where does that come from? And -- [pause] when I began explaining this one of the first things I looked at was the history of money itself. Because, we have to say, okay, what is a debt? A debt is essentially a promise which you can phrase in exactly quantifiable terms, because you can quantify it it's impersonal, if I, because it's impersonal, it's transferable. So if I promise you that I will meet you at five o'clock, you can't actually transfer that to someone else normally speaking, I guess, in some circumstances you could. But a promise which is quantifiable, "I promise to give you exactly this amount of things," you actually can turn over to someone else and in way, according to many theories, that's money actually is is a transferable promise to render a certain amount of goods. [pause] One of the great questions is how that comes about, why the need to quantify promises happens or quantify them precisely. And we've had a story about why this happens, that you're readin' your basic Economic 101 textbook actually invented by Adam Smith in 1776, The Wealth of Nations, is the first time you see someone really making the argument in detail. [coughs] And it continues to be the story that everybody knows and learns and they pick up somewhere or another, that becomes common sense, it's, and if you're, as an anthropologist, I must say, that I have a kind of a pet peeve in this respect because, well it's a professional pet peeve on the part of anthropologists, because this story was told over 200 years ago -- [pause] almost immediately, we started going out in the world trying to find examples of people who do it and we couldn't. It's not true. [laughs] But they never changed the textbooks. We just can't get them to come up with a different story. But alright here's the story, you've all heard it before. Once upon a time people lived in villages and they used to swap things, there was barter. Say I wanted somebody's cow; well, I said, "Alright hey I need a cow, tell you what I'll give you 30 chickens for that cow." And the guy's like, "Well, I don't know, 30's not much, 40 chickens, 45, alright sold." So you come to some sort of arrangement, swap, go home. But the problem is maybe the guy doesn't want chickens, maybe you don't happen to have anything he wants right now. What happens? Well, you can't make a deal, right? So the only way out of this problem, as it crops up more and more over time, is to settle on something that everybody usually wants, like gold for some reason; shiny metal but it's kind of handy and it's pretty. And there's a virtuous circle the moment you start using it as a general equivalent, everybody needs it all the time, it turns into money. So barter's inconvenient, you get money, government gets involved and starts stamping the stuff, through uniform weights and quality, although it started cheating all the time and debasing the currency because governments are bad in this version. Gradually, you invent credit systems and it's an evolutionary series: barter, money, credit, securitized derivatives of whatnot are just sort of the last link of the chain, it follows logically. Alright, so that's the story. As I say there's one big problem we've been scouring the world for over 200 years now and we have never found a single community where everyday transactions take the form of "I'll give you 40 chickens for that cow." They don't exist. And Adam Smith himself had no way to know this he was just speculating, but now we do and they keep on telling this story. I mean if you look at contemporary economic textbooks, the old ones used to say, "Well primitive people do this," and now that they kinda know it's not true they don't wanna stop so instead they say, "Well imagine you didn't have money what would you have to do? How would you get breakfast? Well you'd have to barter wouldn't you?" And they tell this story as a kind of parable which is basically what it is. There's an obvious reason, if you think about it, there's obviously problem with this story, why it wouldn't happen, which is you're taking a Neolithic village here a bunch of people who are neighbors and you are assuming that they will only deal with each other with what economists like to call the spot trade. "Here, I'm gonna give you this, you're gonna give me that," we walk away. But, of course, why would they do that right? I mean, they're neighbors. If the guy doesn't want my chickens he knows I'm gonna have something he wants because I'm his neighbor, in fact, it's rather nice to have your neighbor in your debt, it's useful for all sorts of things. So even if you take this imaginary scenario here these two guys in a Neolithic village, one wants a cow, what would really happen? Well, in fact in many human societies it is the case that if you praise somebody else's possession it's almost impossible not to give it to the person who praises it. This is another one of those things which has a very, very strange moral power; so much so that you really can't break out of it. I mean there's a great story I always tell from New Zealand, a Maori story about a guy named Te Ringa who is a sort of a notorious glutton. He rarely did much fishing himself, everybody else in the neighborhood was a fisherman, he would sort of walk up and down the beach lookin' for people coming back from fishing and check out their catch and say, "Oh looky that's squid, oh I love squid, that's my favorite." Or, "Wow that's a beautiful fish," and they would be like, "Okay, here's a fish, okay, here's a squid." So [chuckles] they just have to give it to him. After about two years of this people got fed up so they formed a war party and they killed him. [chuckles] [laughter] It was actually easier to just bash the guy's head in than to say, "No, I'm not gonna give you the fish." So, such is the moral power of some customs. At any rate, so here you have so if you praise someone's, I have a friend from Lebanon where she grew up it was the same thing somebody praises your scarf or piece of jewelry you just have to say, "Take it." There's only one way out actually which is to say, "Oh you like, it was a gift." [laughs] [laughter] At any rate, so alright here you have this situation so I wanna cow, I go up I say, "Wow that is one magnificent cow, that's a really beautiful cow you got there." So the guy there's only one thing he can do he says, "Oh, you want the cow, well, please take the cow it's a really stupid cow but if you like it you should really have it. No, no don't even think about giving anything back, it's a gift of course, we're neighbors, we love each other just take the cow." Now, he owes you one. [chuckles] [laughter] And everybody knows that, nobody'll say it. But what does he owe? He owes you something roughly like a cow. And that's what you get in communities like this you get this sort of rank type system of types of things. So a cow, a canoe, a very nice necklace are roughly the same, or you could give one back for the other. Or it's not necessarily bad because you could give something back to him or he could just show up because you owe him one and he could just say, "Well, wow, that's a beautiful necklace you have.” Or he could say, “You know, my son is deeply in love with your daughter.” It could be a lot of things, doesn't necessarily a material good, “I really need help with something”. So, but you have this sort of quantified rank system. And there's all sorts of ways you can head it off. You can play games you could like say, "Oh, I hate owing that guy a cow, I know, I just got a whole bunch of yams, I'll give them to him. I'll be off the hook," and he'll be like, "Oh, yams; great, thanks." [chuckles] [laughter] But so he might mock you as a cheapskate which is a devastating thing in a small community. But here's the thing, he's very unlikely to come up with a mathematical formula for exactly how cheap he thinks you were, right? And that's the problem: how do you get from like a cow is roughly like this to 27 yams equals one cow but not three, how many chickens equals a cow. In the barter story there's a mechanism but if there's this sort of rough credit system is what you'd actually have and what you actually do observe in places about money, well, how does that turn into something where you can figure out exact proportional equivalents? The answer to that seems to be when somebody's very angry. Now when people are being nice to each other there's really no need to calculate but occasionally it will happen that people, violence ensues. Say I am mocking someone for giving me these yams and he's drunk, I'm drunk, violence ensues, somebody's ear gets cut off. Well then there's numbers. Very often it is the case that even in places where you don't have markets for goods, you do have incredibly elaborate series of fines and penalties for damaged limbs, if you lose a finger it's worth this much, if you lose a thumb it's worth that much, if you lose an eye, if you have a gash like this large and they'll measure the gash, and how many chickens or heifers or silver plates or whatever it might be. What they call the Barbarian Law Code, seemed like every society in early medieval Europe wrote up a schedule of fines like this and some of them are incredibly detailed. The early Welsh and Irish ones are especially interesting because we know they didn't have markets, you couldn't buy or sell things, most things. But they did have prices on everything. In fact, they specified the exact value of every single object likely to be found in a person's house, ranging from the silverware to the roof beams, everything, the curtains. Why? Because you will end up in a situation often where the law says you owe me 27 heifers or this means war, swords are pulled, people are not willing to compromise, you killed my brothers, you insulted my mother, whatever it might be. You need to pay penalties and you don't have heifers. Well, then you actually need to figure out exactly what's equivalent to what. So in those circumstances and in legal situations, particularly where there's a danger of a feud or outbreak of violence, in fact people do need to quantify and it seems like that's the first circumstance where you have something like money emerging. That association then of money and violence is a constant, and it helps to explain a lot about why debt, particular tends to take on this incredibly powerful moral hold. One way I like to put it is that if you are in a situation of inequality – [pause] of violent inequality. Probably the more effective technique ever invented to make, not only make that seem moral but to make it seems like victim is to blame, is to frame it in the language of debt. Mafiosi understand this perfectly well, right? But sort of heads of conquering armies, you come in you say, "Alright, I've just conquered you guys," and it's actually important to bear in mind here that there's a famous line from Benjamin Franklin, "There's nothing certain in life but death and taxes." That's not actually true, it's only death. In many societies they did ancient Sumer communities didn't tax themselves, taxes were just placed on conquered populations. The same was true in Athens, in fact, they had negative taxes in Athens, the government gave you money, you were paid to vote, just gave periodic handouts from government resources, Rome had bread and circuses. So citizens didn't actually have to pay taxes, taxes was tribute placed on people who'd been conquered. But the general excuse was debt, "You owe me your lives. Why do you owe me your lives because I coulda killed you and I didn't so -- [pause] of course, I expect payment for this, compensation. I'm a nice guy; I'm gonna let you off the hook for six months and if you're in trouble we can negotiate something but I do expect payment." Voila, you've turned a relationship of violent inequality into a relation where the victims are running around feeling inadequate all the time, making terrible apologies for themselves and you get to be the magnanimous nice guy. It happens over and over again in world history and it's very, very effective. The problem is it tends to blow up in your face because from the prospective of power there's that little worm in the bud which is this is you're translating things into the language of the business deal which implies that you should be equal, you are equal on some level if you owe a debt to someone, there's a contract here, but one party has failed to live up to their end of the contract. [pause] Now if you think about it there's a real explosive potential there and if you look at world history, in fact, the vast majority of rebellions, revolutions, insurrections, peasant revolts that you see are not about the kind of thing you'd probably think it would be. They're not about slavery, I mean, slave revolts happen but they're pretty rare, they're not about caste systems, they're not about serfdom, absolute declared systems of inequality. They're always about debt. Moses Finley, the great classicist once said that there was basically one revolutionary program throughout antiquity: just cancel the debts and redistribute the land; in that order. When peasants, like, take over a town the first thing they do is they find the debt records and burn them. After that they go after the land registers and maybe the tax documents. And this remains true throughout history. I mean, I was actually going through just recently some of the writings of John Adams and others of the founding fathers, their reflections on democracy, which, of course, they were totally against; those guys hated democracy. And John Adams has this quote saying, "Well we can't have majority vote. If we had majority vote then we'd have two million people with property, nine million people without property, you know what's gonna happen? The moment we allow everybody to vote first thing that's gonna happen is they'll cancel the debts, after that they'll redistribute the land." [laughter] It's just common sense. So this is the program and why debt, why does debt mobilize people in this way? Because it implies that you're equal. So if you say you are inferior, you're a peasant, you're a serf, I'm a lord, well, it's not gonna make people very happy but you can live with that. But if you say, "Well, you're supposed to be my equal but you messed up. You are morally inadequate." Well, it's kind of hard not to take that and say, "Now wait a minute if we're equal like why are you saying I messed up? I mean who owes what to who here really?" And that is, of course, what people have said for the last 5,000 years when confronted with that almost invariably the response is who owes what to who. But once you do that, you're using the language of debt, right? You are saying that debt is morality, you're saying, "Well, wait a minute we make your food. In terms of any reasonably morality, I'm the guy, you should be owing me rather than me owing you." But suddenly the language of debt does become all pervasive 'cause you have to use the master's language. And I think that's what we're dealing with with all this religious text, with all this philosophical text which start by saying debt is just morality and then say except actually it's not. You're stuck with the language of debt as a way of arguing about politics. We don't know if this is 2000 D.C. in Mesopotamia and two guys are sitting around the tavern arguing about politics what kind of phrases and language they're using. But we can be pretty certain that debt is a big one in there. And we can also be pretty certain that when we're reading all these great religious texts that language of ordinary, everyday, political argument is in there. The thing is we don't have this anymore so we're probably reading all these sort of Mesopotamian equivalent of “it's the economy stupid” or all these various catch phrases that everybody knew at the time that we just don't know anymore. So they're just throwing them around in this lodge and this is why all this moral language becomes this financial language and you talk about redemption and reckoning, and so forth and debt and sin and so forth and so on. So you're stuck with this language of debt except it periodically blows up. Next, when I started looking the broad sweep of history I thought, "Well, you can look at social movements and organization of society in those terms and perhaps one of the most revealing ways of doing that is looking at the history of money itself." Remember we have this paradigm: first there is barter, then there's money, then comes credit, and that's wrong. Not only it is wrong, it's actually backwards; credit comes first. Somehow or other, by the time the sort of curtain comes up around 3500 B.C., in Mesopotamia you already have very elaborate credit systems. Actually the very first document we have which talks about interest rates is a political document by a King [inaudible ] I believe his name is, a Sumerian King who's complaining about his neighbors like occupying a stretch of territory which is rightfully his and he says, "Well you know, they've been occupying this land for 20 years. If we calculate the rent we would have charged them had they been renting this same land and then add a compounded interest rate, I calculate that they would actually owe us 13 trillion shekels or whatever, [chuckles] some insanely sum that no one could possibly pay. Obviously this means war. [chuckles] So you've already got compounded interest rates and so forth going on in the very, very first records that we have people have expense accounts, bar tabs. It seems like almost all everyday transactions are on credit. And the evidence for that is scales, because they were denominating debts in silver but they didn't actually make scales accurate enough to weigh out the tiny amounts of silver that would have been required to buy like a shirt or a hammer or something like that in the marketplace. I mean, they had the technology to do so they just didn't bother. So clearly, people weren't actually using silver to buy this stuff they were running up a tab. Alright, so you've got the Sumerian situation, but the same King you know what he does after he declared war on Legash or the rival place wins, and what does he do after that he declares a debt cancellation – [pause] for everybody in the kingdom because it seems that the problem when you have these credit systems, money is basically in a set of IOU's, denominated in silver unless you're merchants dealing with large transactions rarely actually changes hands. The problem is in bad years people fall into debt – [pause] because also the silver and grain are fixed in relation to each other; that's what money actually is but that a pretty problem if you, if there's a bad harvest, the price doesn't go up. You're stuck, the farmers fall terribly into debt. As a result people start taking away their flocks, taking away their fields, taking away members of their family. Debt peonage becomes a huge phenomena, they start running away joining nomad bands outside the city, society seems to be breaking down so kings will normally come in and sort of declare a clean slate. "Alright, commercial debts can stay on the books usually but consumer debt, we'll wipe them out and start over again." This becomes a habit and become systematized in the Biblical Jubilee every 7 to 49 years depending on your reading. Debts are wiped out; everybody gets to go home. In fact the first recorded word for freedom in any human language is the Sumerian word "amargi" which literally means return to mother because that's what happens. They declare debt cancellation, all the debt peons get to go home. [pause] So, this virtual money systems comes first which is always very entertaining because people have this tendency to write about virtual money as a new phenomena; we're in this brave new world. Actually it's the original form of money. Coins come later. Barter, incidentally, tends to only really show up when you have people who are used to using money but actually can't get their hands on any. So you do have documented places where people do say, "I'll give you 20 chickens for that cow," but in almost every case it's something like Russia in the 90's where the economy falls apart where the money supply vanishes and people are trying to carry on as if they had money without money. Or in a prison, they turn cigarettes into money because they're all used to using money. [pause] Now, here's the interesting thing: coins are invented nearly simultaneously, it happens first in Lydian in the Eastern Mediterranean, but shortly thereafter at least in broad historical terms it happens in the Ganges Plain in Northern India and in the plains of Northern China, Ganges Valley, I'm sorry. And -- [pause] in every case there were different physical techniques; in one case stamped, in one case cast, but – [pause] social situation seems to be the same which is that money, in the physical sense, currency, is actually invented to pay soldiers. And it makes perfect sense if you think about it because gold and silver are what money's denominated with and you can use it for exchange but it just isn't usually done. But soldiers are exactly the sort of people who are most likely to be doing this, first of all from the perspective of a soldier, gold and silver has a huge advantage over a credit arrangement because you can't actually steal a credit arrangement; you can't run off with it. On the other hand, gold and silver it's kind of your equivalent of the suitcase full of hundred dollar bills and nobody knows where it's from, nobody asks, anybody'll take it. So for soldiers that's very nice, you can also melt it down whatever, divide it up into small portions. So soldiers are likely to be carrying around loot. And second of all, if you have elaborate credit arrangements as the major way of transacting, well, a heavily armed guy who's just passing through is probably the person you'd least like to extend credit to if you can possibly avoid it, if he's carrying around little bits of gold and silver, well, good. So cash markets insofar as they seem to first emerge will tend to emerge right around where ever armies are parked or where they have recently looted things and are trying to get rid of the little bits of gold and silver and acquire the wine, women, and song, and various other things that they like. [pause] Governments very quickly get in on the deal and, in fact, one interesting thing is, by the Adam Smith account, if money just sort of emerges from the need to get over the inconveniences of barter, well it would be very hard to understand why governments demanded taxes in money. It might seem self evident but the moment you think about it it isn't because if gold and silver are just money well why not just grab the gold and silver mines? And in fact governments would do that. I mean, ancient kings would normally grab the gold and silver mines and, in theory, you have all the gold and silver you want, you've got all the money. Why would you then take the stuff, stamp your picture on it, give it to people, and say, "Okay, everybody in the kingdom has to give me one of these back again?" Think about it, it's kind of odd. But it makes perfect sense if you're trying to feed an army. Here you have this army of 100,000 people, they're sittin' in a town on the border, well, how are you gonna get food to them? Under ancient conditions unless they're next to the ocean where it's easy, relatively easy to move stuff around, it's extremely difficult to move around large amounts of grain, they're gonna eat everything within walking distance in a matter of weeks. So what are you gonna do? Either you have to employ another 100,000 people just bringing them stuff or you can give them all tiny little pieces of metal with your picture on it and say, "Okay, everybody in the kingdom has to give me one back." Voila you've just employed your entire population getting soldiers things they want. [laughter] And that's [chuckles] essentially what taxation systems have done throughout world history. I mean, colonial empires did this very, very self consciously like in Madagascar where I was, first thing the French did they said, "Okay we've just conquered you, that was very expensive outfitting an army, you're going to have to pay us back for the cost of having conquered you. We will issue paper money and you will have to give 10 of those back to us every year." It was a way of creating a market. Somehow or another you're gonna have, they actually called it the moralizing tax to teach people the value of work. So money and taxes have been used throughout the centuries as ways of creating markets which is very interesting because we have this assumption that markets and governments and particularly war-making governments are opposed principles and that political choice for the last century or so has largely revolved around which one we're gonna slant to. Are we gonna go more on the government side, more on the market side? Those are the two sort of logical human possibilities. Ever since people like Herbert Spencer early 19th century we've always assumed there's an opposition between these things, historically in fact no. Markets tend to be created by governments as a side effect of military operations. They sometimes take on a life of their own but the origins have very closely linked. So to go back to these periods of history: so you have this first period of virtual money, coinage is invented around 600 B.C., Karl Jaspers, the German existential philosopher who coined the phrase, "the Axial Age" for this period and he pointed out that almost all major schools, both of world philosophy and the great world religions, crop up in a relatively short period of time. If you extend it from 600 B.C. to 600 A.D. it's exactly, it starts happening exactly the times and places where they invent coinage; uncanny. It's even in the same city, it's in Greece, Miletus, which is a place where they, the first Greek city, where they're using coins in everyday transactions, is where they invent Greek philosophy at exactly the same time. In China it happens, in India it happens, world religions arise. World religions arise largely as peace movements against these empires that are using the coins and people have talked about Axial Ages as being characterized by a military coinage slavery complex, actually they say military coinage, but I'll throw in slavery because the chattel slavery which isn't a major institution either before or after, in Indian and Chinese history, for example, becomes really big in just in this little slice of time. People take these standing armies, they pay them in cash. Alexander's Army for example I think it took half a ton of silver a day to pay the army. Where did they get the silver? Well the armies would besiege cities, take lots of prisoners, enslave them, send to the mines, and they made more metal to feed the army again. So, it became this giant cycle. So, coins are actually found pretty much where armies are throughout the ancient world. In Rome it was in Italy, I mean, 90 percent of all finds of Roman coins are in Italy and along the border where the armies were stationed. Alright, so Axial Age you have this rise of world religions, they start as peace movements, there's this kind of mutual division of social territory in a way because before you don't really have impersonal markets, you have credit markets. When you have impersonal markets based on cash the idea is well, it's almost like saying, "Well, here's a space where, well just think about material goods and getting as much of them for yourself as possible." And it almost makes sense that if you do that someone else will also say, "Alright and here's a space we'll call it religion where we think about why material things are not important and why it's better to give than to receive," and charity and things like that always crop up as an idea that never really existed before as a conception in human history, exactly the same place as you get these impersonal markets as part of these religions. So you get that but gradually the empires come to a crisis, they start crumbling, they adopt the world religions, Confucianism in China, Ashoka adopts Buddhism, Constantine goes for Christianity at exactly the moment the empire's starting to fall apart, doesn't really work, empires dissolve. And you get the Middle Ages where once the armies, standing armies dissolve, all the gold and silver basically gets put back in churches and monasteries, people go back to credit systems and the world religions take over the regulation of these large, elaborate credit systems. And so, for example, in the Middle East checks are invented and widely used. Already in Basra around 800 or 900 people were reporting majority of transactions in the marketplace are by check. Check is actually an Arab word meaning check. [chuckles] [laughter] Yeah, I always like to point out to people when they talk about financial globalization as if this is somehow a new phenomena. Like, think about the terms "cash" and "checks," cash or a check, like, check is an Arab word meaning check and cash, well, has a double etymology but one of them apparently is originally a Tamil for Chinese money. How did that happen? Alright, so you have this world where people are going back to use of credit and we say, "Oh, in the Middle Ages, the Europe reverted to barter." Not true. In fact, if you look at the records they're not bartering things they're actually using money but they're using money that doesn't physically exist. So, they're still using Roman currency and denominating everything in Roman currency until Charlemagne and then they're using Carolingian currency. But the Carolingian currency only actually exists for maybe 20 years and some of it doesn't exist at all. It's like pounds, shillings, and pence originally come from Charlemagne's system. He never actually made pounds, he never got around to it, but they were using it to measure things and they actually called this imaginary money. So whatever the king was actually putting out that was one thing, but you had this sort of ideal system which spanned Europe, everybody knew what it was so you could trade and do it on the basis of this money that didn't actually exist. And they even had a phenomena they used to call crying up or crying down the currency. So a king could say, "Alright, whatever we're using right now, it used to be 17 of these pennies were a shilling; I'm gonna change it, now it'll be 13." If he--, so he could inflate the currency if he was in debt or if he wanted to raise taxes he lowered it. So, he just rearranged whatever the currency was being used which was only used for occasionally things because again most transactions were on credit in relation to, or they could recall it. I mean, the king said, "Okay let's recall the money and I'll give it back again next year." And commerce would not stop because everything was based on credit systems. Similarly in China they invent paper money which originally comes out of the government taking credit instruments that people are using and adopting it themselves. That's what they do in China anytime there's innovation first they try to suppress it and they say, "Okay, okay we'll do it for you." So it's all privatized in the Islamic world and it becomes public in China. Actually they are very opposite principles but – [pause] in Islam, in particular, in this period, you get the first real free market ideology. And this is a fascinating thing I mean a lot of people will be very annoyed to learn this, but Adam Smith actually got most of his best ideas and best lines from medieval Islam. Like the pin factory actually comes from al-Ghazali in 1100 he had a needle factory. Okay. And it's made possible by what? By Sharia, because [chuckles] Sharia is civil law that operates outside the purview of state, and, as a result, you can have markets and since they get rid of usury, that's the other thing that happens, instead of debt cancellation, which has continued in China but in other places they, instead, just get rid of interest taking, it's illegal, debt peonage becomes illegal. And so in Islam, since they don't have that, they can these markets that operate completely outside of the purview of the state and you could write a check in Mali and cash it in Indonesia and it's all civil courts that take care of it. So it's the first time you really get an idea that markets run by themselves and don't really need governments. But since they had a real free market which isn't enforced by the state, they don't assume it's all about competition, that's like a minor element. The assumption is that it's all really an extension of mutual aid. Alright, so be this as it may you get that world in the Middle Ages which looks surprisingly good, slavery largely disappears. I mean it's kind of rough in Western Europe but Western Europe is kind of a barbarian backwater anyway. [chuckles] Alright, so what happens? Around 1450 it starts to go bad, then by 1492 you get the all this gold and silver coming in from America. As you go back to gold and silver currency, slavery comes back in a big way, standing armies and giant empires come back in a big way. And that's the period that's ending now; [pause] 1971 is the date that most people set for when we go off the gold standard and Nixon sort of takes the dollar off the gold standard as this sort of key point of transition. And very rapidly after that you see a whole series of changes. Of course, we get credit cards which hardly anybody's using in '71, very quickly taking over so that you had cashless transactions become the rule within a generation or two. You have financialization of capital, most profits for American companies no longer come from making or selling anything, but largely from financial speculation. You have credit's gonna save the world, microcredit will save the Third World, 401k's and mortgages, all that stuff that blows up in 2008. And the question is why? Why it seems to have gone so horribly wrong? Because we have a series of terrible debt crises, first the Third World debt crisis, now the debt crisis that's hitting everybody other than the Third World right now -- [pause] have happened ever since. And the reason, I would say, is because in a way we're doing things backwards. If we do look at this in broad historical perspective what we learn is that whenever you have a system of virtual money where people don't assume that money is a thing but assume it's a promise, it's an IOU, it's a social arrangement such as in ancient Mesopotamia, such as in the Middle Ages, well, you have to set up some sort of mechanism to make sure the thing doesn't go crazy. Usually that means, invariably that means, setting up some mechanism to protect debtors. So you could have periodic debt cancellation, you can have anti-usury laws where interest taking is banned entirely and instead you have profit sharing, there's a number of things you can do. Usually it's some giant overarching, cosmological system beyond the purview of any state, whether it's sacred kings or biblical prophets, or the world religions, canon law, Sharia. Be it as it may it has to be something big. Now we do set up giant, overarching institutions like that nowadays but what do we do? We set up the IMF to protect creditors against debtors. Basically, we did it backwards. S&P all these other institutions like that they come up with this idea that nobody should ever default which is absurd. And sure enough we have endless series of debt crises. In fact, I like to say I mean when I'm being provocative, which is often, I like to say that that sort of idea that people had in most of world history of the worse case scenarios everybody falls so deeply into debt that they start having to sell themselves into slavery. It's like nightmare scenario, this is what we always wanna prevent and that's why we have all these laws. Well, you know if Aristotle were here today he would probably think that the distinction between being so indebted that you are selling yourself to work for others all day long, 12 hours a day, or being so indebted that you are renting yourself to work for others all day long, 12 hours a day, as something of a legalistic distinction. He would think this is it, this is the nightmare debt trap and most people in the world are falling into it. But if you look at this in broad historical terms, you'll also see that 30 years or 40 years is nothing; we're talking about 500 year cycles here, and people are beginning to wake up to this. We still have time to get it right. And I think the social movements that are coming out since 2008 around issues of debt are precisely recognizing that. If we're moving into a period of virtual money, money is just a promise that we make to each other, it's just a set of IOU's and social arraignments, arrangements; those can always be rearranged. Make a promise to someone, circumstances change, you negotiate and the big players always do that with each other as we've discovered in 2008 when trillions of dollars of debt was made to disappear by the waving of various types of magical wands. [chuckles] [laughter] So what people are saying is if democracy is to mean anything now it means that everybody gets to weigh in on what sort of promises are made, what sort of promises are kept, and when circumstances change what sort are renegotiated and I think that's the political moment that we're in right now. [pause] [applause] [pause] Ah, a question, yes. >>Male #1: So when this, I have to say it's fascinating and along the same lines, in this era if you have currency with runaway debt explosions what, if I can ask you to speculate, what do you think would be a good way to look at, what would be a good rate of risk, what would be a good pre-rate of return on investment as an adjustment to? >>David Graeber: Risk free rate of return, go on. >>Male #1: If we had a fair society -- >>David Graeber: Um-hum. >>Male #1: if you could define a fair society by edict -- >>David Graeber: Okay, I'm now the dictator. >>Male #1: how, we used to have, you say we used to have jubilees and cancel debts -- >>David Graeber: Um-hum. >>Male #1: so short of having a jubilee, debt is a strange thing, somebody mentioned exactly if you have idle grain and it gets eaten by rodents and slowly diminished and rots -- >>David Graeber: Um-hum. >>Male #1: but debt is funny because it accumulates over time rather than -- >>David Graeber: Yeah, um-hum. >>Male #1: diminishing over time. Would you argue for us having a negative free rate of return on investment? >>David Graeber: I would argue actually -- >>Male #2: David, could you please repeat the question? >>David Graeber: The question, what's that? >>Male #3: [unintelligible] >>David Graeber: Oh I understand, yes. So the question is if I could dictate my own economic policy what sort of rate of return would I dictate? A negative one such as occurred through natural spoilage equivalent rather than imposing an idea that money necessarily has to grow. That's an interesting question. I mean it's interesting that our entire sort of perspective on what money should do and has to do goes back to arguments about this in the Middle Ages. Since usury was illegal the way they got around it was to come up with the notion of interest which was originally a late fee. So the idea is you're not paying interest, you're not renting money which is wrong, you're just charging people for failure to return it on the basis of the idea that money would grow because this is all between merchants at first, if you were investing it. So you can ask for five percent rate of return because money would normally, you'd get about a five percent investment rate. And that five percent number has kind of stuck with us, in a way, because it's about the number that like any economy is expected it really ought to grow, if it doesn't there's a problem. And it's interesting it is exactly the amount of the originally stipulated rate of return. And there were usury laws until quite recent, I guess 1980 they actually got rid of them, which held it down to a fairly reasonable rate or what was considered so at the time. I mean, myself, I actually do think a Jubilee would be reasonable [chuckles] so in a way I would jump forward from this. I end the book by throwing that out and I'm a radical so I'm not gonna be like stipulating rates of return. I'm gonna say like we just need to wipe the slate clean conceptually altogether and come up with a new way of thinking about the system. So I think a Jubilee is useful as an idea because it, not only would it be nice because a lot of people could really us debt forgiveness right now, a lot of the big players got it and everybody else didn't. But because it would allow us to reconceptualize what we're doing here and realize that money isn't what we thought it was. So what kind of system we'd come up with in the wake of that, I've got a lot of ideas but I wanna leave that as open as possible so I just sort of ended the book by saying rather than come up with a plan like that, we just sort of create this sort of cataclysmic event which will sort of allow us to start asking those questions. I've heard recently, I didn't know this, somebody told me that the Boston Consulting Group which is guess if Jeffrey Sachs' people, ran a model to see what would happen if they actually did a Jubilee. And they said that it would cause severe economic disruption but rather less than you would get if you don't have a Jubilee. [chuckles] [laughter] So either way we're screwed but you'd be a little less screwed if we did it that way. So it turns out that it might not be a bad idea. I mean I think that we should start thinking about completely radically different forms of money entirely. Interest free systems would be possible. The reason why things like Islamic banking don't work is because not everybody's doing it. If you force people to do profit sharing rather than interest taking, if everybody did it, it would work. [pause] >>Male #3: One, two, three. Is money [unintelligible] amount to the debt we're seeing today, governmentally and personally in America and how it's all over the globe at sometime [unintelligible]? >>David Graeber: Yeah it's really odd because -- >>Male #4: Could you repeat the question? >>David Graeber: Yeah, okay me repeat the question: is there any precedent for the sheer amount of debt? I would say probably not but I mean unless you wanna count the South Sea bubble or something like that. You do have these speculative crises that crop up periodically, but the mystery is just how many people owe things to each other and you have to start asking yourself, "Well, who's it all owed to? Everybody seems to be in debt, this is sort of puzzling in a way." And I would say, no, and one reason why is because there seems to be this feeling since the 70's that basically all social problems can be solved through debt. One theory I saw, which is kind of interesting, it's the autonomist reading, Midnight Notes Collective, it's a group of Italian autonomist Marxists. But they had this very interesting reading of the two phases of post-war capitalism. What they basically said is that after World War II they kinda gave a deal to the North Atlantic white working class and they said, "Okay, if you guys don't become commies we'll give you free education, free health care in most places anyway, we'll give you social benefits of various kinds." And social struggles between 1945 and 1975 where more and more people asking in on the deal. And there is a tie between productivity and wages. So whenever, and the lines go up together, increases of productivity are met with increases of wages. Since the 70's the deal is clearly off and one reason is because they reached kind of crisis of inclusion that you can't actually give that deal to everybody without fundamentally changing the nature of the system. So first minorities, so you have the Civil Rights Movement, other people who've been left out of the deal want in, people in the Global South want in, women want in, feminist movement. It reaches a point where it just sort of snaps and you have this fiscal crisis, oil crunch, ecological crisis and they say, "Alright, deal off, we'll give you another deal. No longer will wages be connected with productivity, you can all have political rights because political rights don't necessarily give you any economic benefits, but you can have credit." So the credit solves everything, everybody's being, that's why you have microcredit saves the Third World, why you have 401k's and mortgages and there's this huge extension of credit. And you could say the same thing happened, right? More and more people want in on the deal and more and more people are getting credit to the point where people they're just doing these crazy sub-prime scams and things like that are beginning to run the system. And when it cracks it looks almost exactly the same, you get the oil shock, you get the financial crisis, you get the visions of ecological catastrophe. It's the same thing all over again except at this point it's not clear what they're [chuckles] gonna come up with next. So, in that sense, yeah, you have this unprecedented series of bubbles, built on bubbles, built on bubbles. And I'm speaking as someone who's working the Global Justice Movement and we were like doing our studies for the G20 as part of like several intellectual collectives where they kind of, the activists kind of told us, "Alright, well, they're all meeting to come up with their evil plan and tell us what their evil plan is likely to do so we can oppose it." And so we figure it and I guess they're gonna have to do green capitalism, declare an emergency, we had various ideas for what would be a viable solution. And they kept not doing it; they just fight each other. In fact one of the reasons why the Global Justice Movement fell into such a problem is, like, at least in 2000 we knew what their evil plan was [laughs] and we could oppose it. And now they don't seem to be able to come up with one, we had better ideas for their evil plan than they did. [chuckles] So we were sitting around and saying, "Well, come on guys come up with your formula and we can fight you." And they wouldn't so they were sort of stuck on this credit like bubble system that fell apart and they haven't quite come up with what they're gonna do next. So I'm waitin'. [laughter] [pause] >>Male #4: So taking the other side of the coin [unintelligible] extra help why should anybody pay their debt at all? >>David Graeber: Why should anybody pay debt at all? Well, I mean you could say the same question of all those guys who were bailed out, the bankers, I mean, moral hazard works on both sides. [pause] >>Male #4: Well, I mean, it's the same case. >>David Graeber: Yeah, I mean -- >>Male #4: I don't think that they should have been helped either. >>David Graeber: Hum. Yeah I know a lot of people think that but it's interesting that they got helped because as a lot of people point out all this mortgage debt if they just paid off the mortgages that would have bailed out the banks in itself, but they chose to give it to the banks and not to the mortgage holders. And this is a pattern that you do see throughout world history is that debt means something totally different; depends on who it's between. When you have debt between two poor people like somebody wants to make a loan to their brother, it's usually because they wanna give them a gift but they don't wanna say that, save face, say it's a loan. If he can pay you back, he will. Between equals, between people who know and like and trust each other, debt is just a broad moral feeling that you should come through for somebody. And between the big players it's the same, too. I mean you see this all throughout history. Like, even the earliest Sumerian documents you have people saying, "Oh well of course you're not gonna charge me interest because we're both gentlemen," this sort of thing. And when the big players are in trouble, debt can always be renegotiated, too. What seems to be sacred or treated as if it were sacred is not debts between equals but debts between the people on top and the people on the bottom because all of a sudden it takes on a completely different color. So, yeah, I suppose you could come up with a morality saying like, "Even equals should treat debt as exact [ inaudible ] quantifiable and unforgivable." But it seems that you're not going to convince people who actually like each other to not forgive each other when they're in trouble. Instead it seems more reasonable to expect everybody to do it, apply that uniformly rather because that philosophy of debt as something that can never be forgiven, as something that is sacred, really only crops up in situations of sort of structural coercion of extreme inequality. [pause] >>Male #5: How much of our sense of debt is biological, how much of it is from society and how much of it is regulatory? >>David Graeber: Okay, so the question is how much of our sense of debt is biological and how much of it is from society and how much is regulatory. By regulatory you mean just sort of imposed by -- >>Male #5: In order to make everything work right. >>David Graeber: Right, I see. Well I mean in terms of biological, my argument in terms of biological instincts is it's not like they don't exist, clearly they do. I think it's pretty naive when people say, "Oh we're just Tabula Rasa," written on by society. No, we're not, we have all sorts of urges, but that I would emphasize the all sorts. Generally speaking in any situation we have biological drives like making us do a thousand different contradictory things. So freedom is deciding which one to act on. In the book, I sort of map out three different sort of ways of thinking about the morality of giving and taking of things, one of which I call communism from each according to their ability to each according to their needs; one of which I call exchange; and one of which I call hierarchy. Exchange is based on principles of reciprocity, but hierarchy is based not, on the opposite. It's like if you do something you're expected to do it again. And all of these things are operative at any moment and you could, like, call, and usually what you're doing is kind of a mix of these different types of principles. So biologically and even that kind of fundamental sociality, yeah, there is a degree to which you're always gonna be able to think of things in terms of debt, but it's never the only way. So you're always playing around with all these sort of different ways you could frame it. And in terms of regulation – [pause] well, what's interesting is when you try to justify things in the big picture very often that's when you fall back on language of debt and reciprocity. You see this all the time dealing with feudal lords in the Middles Ages. If you give somebody a gift you're expected to do the same thing again next year. In fact you need a special document, like, if I give a gift to a king I have to make him sign a paper saying I don't have to do that next year because anything you do between unequals the precedent, you have to do it again. However, then when they wanna talk about what is justice, why is our society just, they'll say, "Well it's all reciprocity, lords fight for everyone and priests pray for everyone and peasants make food for everyone and it's all this sort of equal swap." It's a completely, it has nothing to do with the way things actually operate on the ground. Somebody might call this a sort of like overall social regulatory or justification level where people are saying, nobody actually says, "Well, you haven't really been fighting for me very much this year so I'm gonna give you less food" [chuckles] or "You're prayer level is down or you've been praying more so we're gonna give you more." It's nothing to do with the way people actually interact but they like to think of this idea of debt and reciprocity as a language to justify social relations that often operate on completely different principles. [pause] Uh, yes. >>Male #6: I live in San Francisco and there's 14,000 people since 2008 who have either had their houses foreclosed or are in the process -- >>David Graeber: Um-hum. >>Male #6: as a [unintelligible] houses [unintelligible] mortgages paid. >>David Graeber: Um-hum. >>Male #6: and in Northern California. Are there historical precedents or what would it look like to build a movement for a Jubilee to relieve our debt instead of bankers? >>David Graeber: Well there's a huge history of that. Peter Linebaugh has -- >>Male #7: Could you repeat the question? >>David Graeber: Oh I'm sorry, the question is, there's massive foreclosures going on here in California including San Francisco, people are being kicked out of their homes by banks that have themselves been bailed out by the public including those people who've been kicked out from their homes and what would it take to create a mass movement? Are there historical precedents for that? The answer is yeah. As I say the vast majority of social movements that have existed in history have been about debt. There have been debt strikes, there have been seizing and destroying the records which of course electronically is now harder to do. In the Depression there was a systematic policy of disrupting sales when they'd foreclose on farms all the farmers in the neighborhood would show up at the auction with guns and somebody would bid one dollar [chuckles] and no dared to say anything else and they'd give it back to the farmer again. So there is a [chuckles] huge amount of precedent for that sort thing, but you can never do it the same way twice. The problem with organizing debtors politically is that debt is very alienating; it's must easier to organize people when you have a bunch of farmers in a neighborhood they know each other. But what we have now is most people who have student loan debt, mortgage debt, don't actually know people in the same situation or people are even ashamed to admit it. There's really no forum in which people can compare notes and come up with common strategies. So one strategy that people have been using has been some sort of pledge, some people are doing a student loan project where they're saying, "Alright, if we get a million signatures we'll all stop paying simultaneously." But it has to be something like that because it's very, very difficult to build, you're taking such a risk when you default or when you threaten to. You're taking such a risk that it's very difficult to do that based on trust of other people you don't know. [pause] So that's the question how you organize people to be and what to do. Um -- >>Male presenter: commentator: Let's take one more question and then we have stuff to do. >>David Graeber: Okay you can decide who then. [laughter] >>Female #1: Is there [unintelligible] how debt is handled for those who are [unintelligible] and those who are not such parents and children, such as very traditionally men and women? >>David Graeber: Okay, the question is in traditional societies or other societies are their differences between how debt is handled in the paid labor force and unpaid relations like -- >>Female #1: Like the debt between those two groups. >>David Graeber: Debts, oh, oh, how debt between. So you're talking, give me an example. >>Female #1: What children owe their parents -- >>David Graeber: Which I thought you meant that. >>Female #1: or before you could only work inside the home you couldn't really [unintelligible] go outside of that [unintelligible]. >>David Graeber: Right so how do you deal with the relationship between, right, debts between people within a household or where there's a community of property between you and outsiders? It's an interesting question because, in fact, it's a perfect example of what I was talking about how we try to frame everything in terms of exchange or some need to do so, even things that don't work that way at all. And the other point that I was making about how we try to frame things morally in terms of debt. 'Cause you'll often find people saying, "Well, this is how we repay our parents for the pains of childbirth and what they do." But in almost every case it's a metaphor, it has nothing to do with how people actually related to each other. So often when you see how people are actually interacting it's on a principle that has nothing to do with debt, you're not calculating equivalents at all. But then when you want to think about it in a bigger picture, suddenly you're trying to figure out some way to say it's all about debt. So I actually use this story about this famous Canadian naturalist whose father presented him with a bill for everything he owed him up to the age of 21. He said, "Okay, here's how much it cost to pay the doctor to deliver you, here's your primary education." He had it all worked out and he gave him the bill and the guy paid it and said, "Fine, the hell with you, I'm never going to speak to you again," and walked off. But that's what it basically means because when you're paying a debt it implies we need have no further relations. So the idea of actually paying a debt between people that you love is utterly insulting; you'd only do it if you really wanna have nothing further to do with each other. But nonetheless people like to frame it in those terms. One of the most fascinating concepts I discovered when researching this was the notion of the milk debt. This is a medieval Chinese Buddhist concept. What they did was they calculated what they thought was the exact number of pecks of milk you absorb from your mother [chuckles] in the first years of your life and that's a fundamental debt you owe to your mother and said, "Okay, you owe exactly 37 pecks of milk." But then they would say, "Alright, to pay back even like one day's worth of milk would in fact take 400,000 years of feeding her off your own personal flesh. [laughs] I mean so it was a way of saying, "You could not conceivably pay this debt." So why are they calculating as a debt at all? It's again that same tension if you wanna frame debt as morality and they say they're the same thing, but as soon as you do you say, "Except not really, it's completely ridiculous isn't it?" So that tension like the need to pretend that it's a debt but then once you say it, like, it's actually not a debt at all. It's absurd to even think of a debt, why are we saying this, recurs over and over and over again. And it's because commerce gives us this idea that we wanna frame everything in commercial terms, that we really ought to, that we start doing that and then we say, "No, actually, we can't." [pause] >>Male Presenter: Let's thank David. [applause]

Early life and education

Graeber's parents, who were in their forties when Graeber was born, were self-taught working-class Jewish[6] intellectuals in New York.[7] Graeber's mother, Ruth Rubinstein, had been a garment worker, and played the lead role in the 1930s musical comedy revue Pins & Needles, staged by the International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union.[7][8] Graeber's father, Kenneth, was affiliated with the Young Communist League in college, participated in the Spanish Revolution in Barcelona and fought in the Spanish Civil War.[9] He later worked as a plate stripper on offset presses.[7] Graeber grew up in Penn South, a union-sponsored housing cooperative in Chelsea, Manhattan,[10] described by Business Week magazine as "suffused with radical politics."[7]

Graeber had his first experience of political activism at the age of seven, when he attended peace marches in New York's Central Park and Fire Island.[11] He was an anarchist from the age of 16, according to an interview he gave to The Village Voice in 2005.[12]

Graeber graduated from Phillips Academy Andover in 1978 and received his B.A. from the State University of New York at Purchase in 1984. He received his master's degree and doctorate at the University of Chicago, where he won a Fulbright fellowship to conduct 20 months of ethnographic field research in Betafo, Madagascar, beginning in 1989.[13][14] His resulting Ph.D. thesis on magic, slavery, and politics was supervised by Marshall Sahlins and entitled The Disastrous Ordeal of 1987: Memory and Violence in Rural Madagascar.[15][16]

Academic career

Yale University (1998–2005)

In 1998, two years after completing his PhD, Graeber became assistant professor at Yale University, then associate professor.[15] In May 2005, the Yale anthropology department decided not to renew Graeber's contract, preventing consideration for academic tenure, which was scheduled for 2008. Pointing to Graeber's anthropological scholarship, his supporters (including fellow anthropologists, former students and activists) said the decision was politically motivated. More than 4,500 people signed petitions supporting him, and anthropologists such as Marshall Sahlins, Laura Nader, Michael Taussig, and Maurice Bloch called on Yale to reverse its decision.[15] Bloch, who had been a professor of anthropology at the London School of Economics and the Collège de France, and a writer on Madagascar, praised Graeber in a letter to the university.[17]

The Yale administration argued that Graeber's dismissal was in keeping with Yale's policy of granting tenure to few junior faculty. Graeber suggested that Yale's decision might have been influenced by his support of a student of his who was targeted for expulsion because of her membership in GESO, Yale's graduate student union.[15][18][19]

In December 2005, Graeber agreed to leave Yale after a one-year paid sabbatical. That spring he taught two final classes: "Introduction to Cultural Anthropology" (attended by more than 200 students) and a seminar, "Direct Action and Radical Social Theory".[20]

"Academic exile" and London (2005–2020)

On May 25, 2006, Graeber was invited to give the Malinowski Lecture at the London School of Economics. Each year, the LSE anthropology department asks an anthropologist at a relatively early stage of their career to give the Malinowski Lecture, and only invites those considered to have made significant contributions to anthropological theory. Graeber's address was called "Beyond Power/Knowledge: an exploration of the relation of power, ignorance and stupidity".[21] It was later edited into an essay, "Dead zones of the imagination: On violence, bureaucracy and interpretive labor".[22] The same year, Graeber was asked to present the keynote address in the 100th anniversary Diamond Jubilee meetings of the Association of Social Anthropologists.[23] In April 2011, he presented the anthropology department's annual Distinguished Lecture at Berkeley,[24] and in May 2012 he delivered the second annual Marilyn Strathern Lecture at Cambridge (the first was delivered by Strathern).[25]

After his dismissal from Yale, Graeber was unable to secure another position at an American university.[26][27] He applied for more than twenty, but despite a strong track record and letters of recommendation from several prominent anthropologists, never made it past the first round.[27][28] At the same time, a number of foreign universities approached him with offers.[26][28] In an article on his "academic exile" from the United States, The Chronicle of Higher Education interviewed several anthropology professors who agreed that Graeber's political activism could have played a role in his unsuccessful search, describing the field as "radical in the abstract" (in the words of Laura Nader) but intolerant of direct political action. Another factor suggested by the article was that Graeber had acquired a reputation as being personally difficult or "uncollegial", especially in light of allegations of poor conduct made by Yale during the dispute over his dismissal.[26] Graeber himself interpreted his exclusion from American academia as a direct result of his dismissal from Yale, likening it to "black-balling in a social club", and arguing that the charge of "uncollegiality" glossed a variety of other personal qualities, from his political activism to his working-class background, that marked him as a trouble-maker within the academic hierarchy.[28] Laura Nader, reflecting on Graeber's case amongst other examples of "academic silencing" in anthropology, speculated that the real reasons could have included Graeber's growing reputation as a public intellectual,[27] and his tendency to "write in English" rather than jargon.[26]

From 2008 to 2013, Graeber was a lecturer and a reader at Goldsmiths College of the University of London. In 2013, he accepted a professorship at the London School of Economics.[26][29]

Graeber was a founding member of the Institute for Experimental Arts in Greece. He gave a lecture with the title "How social and economic structure influences the Art World" in the International MultiMedia Poetry Festival organized by the Institute for Experimental Arts supported by the Department of Anthropology of the London School of Economics and Political Science.[30]

Scholarship

Graeber is the author of Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology and Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. He conducted extensive anthropological work in Madagascar, writing his doctoral thesis, The Disastrous Ordeal of 1987: Memory and Violence in Rural Madagascar, on the continuing social division between the descendants of nobles and the descendants of former slaves.[31] A book based on his dissertation, Lost People: Magic and the Legacy of Slavery in Madagascar, was published by Indiana University Press in September 2007.[32] A book of collected essays, Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion, and Desire was published by AK Press in November 2007,[33] and Direct Action: An Ethnography appeared from the same press in August 2009.[34] Moreover, the aforementioned publisher printed a collection of essays by Graeber – co-edited with Stevphen Shukaitis and Erika Biddle – called Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations/Collective Theorization (AK Press, May 2007).[35]

In December 2017, Graeber and his former teacher Marshall Sahlins released a collection of essays entitled On Kings, outlining a theory, inspired by A. M. Hocart, of the origins of human sovereignty in cosmological ritual.[36] Graeber contributed essays on the Shilluk and Merina kingdoms, and a final essay that explored what he called "the constitutive war between king and people".[37] He was working on a historical work on the origins of social inequality with David Wengrow,[38] published posthumously as The Dawn of Everything.

From January 2013 until June 2016, Graeber was a contributing editor at The Baffler magazine in Cambridge, Massachusetts, where he, too, participated in the public debate about futures of technology.[39] From 2011 until 2017 he was editor-at-large of the open access journal HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, for which he and Giovanni da Col co-wrote the founding theoretical statement and manifesto of the school of "ethnographic theory".[40]

Charles Kenny, writing in the political magazine Democracy, claimed that Graeber sought out data that "fit the narrative on the evils of neoliberalism" and challenged or criticized data which suggested otherwise.[41]

Debt: The First 5000 Years

Graeber's first major historical monograph was Debt: The First 5000 Years (2011).[42]

Karl Schmid, writing in the Canadian Anthropology Society's journal Anthropologica, described Debt as an "unusual book" which "may be the most read public anthropology book of the 21st century" and noted that "it will be difficult for Graeber or anyone else to top this book for the attention it received due to excellent timing".[43] Schmid compared Debt to Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel and James C. Scott's The Art of Not Being Governed for its "vast scope and implication".[43] However, Schmid expressed minor frustrations with the sheer length of the book, and the fact that Graeber raises many claims and examples which he does not go on to develop in full.[44]

J. Bradford DeLong, an economic historian, criticized Debt on his blog,[45][46] alleging mistakes in the book. Graeber responded that these errors had no influence on his argument, remarking that the "biggest actual mistake DeLong managed to detect in the 544 pages of Debt, despite years of flailing away, was (iirc) that I got the number of Presidential appointees on the Federal Open Market Committee board wrong".[47] He dismissed his other criticisms as representing a divergence of interpretation, truncation of his arguments by DeLong, and mistakes in the copy editing of the book.[47]

Bureaucracy, managerialism, and "bullshit jobs"

Much of Graeber's later scholarship focused on the topic of "bullshit jobs", proliferated by administrative bloat and what Graeber calls "managerial feudalism". One of the points he raised in his 2013 book The Democracy Project—on the Occupy movement—is the increase in what he calls bullshit jobs, referring to forms of employment that even those holding the jobs feel should not or do not need to exist. He sees such jobs as being typically "concentrated in professional, managerial, clerical, sales, and service workers".[48] As he explained also in an article in STRIKE!: "Huge swathes of people, in Europe and North America in particular, spend their entire working lives performing tasks they secretly believe do not really need to be performed".[49]

Because of the article's popularity, Graeber then wrote the book Bullshit Jobs: A theory, published in 2018 by Simon & Schuster. Writing for The New Yorker, Nathan Heller described the resulting book as having "the virtue of being both clever and charismatic".[50] Reviewing the book for The New York Times, Alana Semuels noted that although it could be criticized for generalizations about economics "Graeber's anthropological eye and skepticism about capitalism are useful in questioning some parts of the economy that the West has come to accept as normal."[51] The Guardian gave a mixed review of Graeber's Bullshit Jobs, accusing him of having a "slightly condescending attitude" and attesting to the book's "laboured arguments", while referring to aspects of the book's thesis as "clearly right".[52] Bullshit Jobs spent four weeks in the top 20 of the Los Angeles Times' bestseller list.[53] The book was awarded "Book of the Year 2018" by each of the Financial Times, New Statesman, and City AM.[54]

Activism

Graeber (left) at a rally for immigrant rights at Union Square, New York City in 2007

In addition to his academic work, Graeber was directly and indirectly involved in political activism. He was a member of the labor union Industrial Workers of the World, protested at the World Economic Forum in New York City in 2002, supported the 2010 UK student protests,[55] and played an early role in the Occupy Wall Street movement. He was co-founder of the Anti-Capitalist Convergence.[56]

Graeber became a strong advocate of the democratic confederalism of the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria after visiting the region in 2014, often drawing parallels between it and the Spanish Revolution his father fought for in the 1930s.[57][58][59]

On October 11, 2019, Graeber spoke at an Extinction Rebellion protest in Trafalgar Square[60] about the relationship between "bullshit jobs" and environmental harm, suggesting that the environmental movement should recognize these jobs in combination with unnecessary construction or infrastructure projects and planned obsolescence as significant issues.[61][62]

Occupy movement

In November 2011, Rolling Stone credited Graeber with giving the Occupy Wall Street movement its theme: "We are the 99 percent". Graeber wrote in The Democracy Project that the slogan "was a collective creation".[63] Rolling Stone said he helped create the first New York City General Assembly, with only 60 participants, on August 2.[64] He spent the next six weeks involved with the burgeoning movement, including facilitating general assemblies, attending working group meetings, and organizing legal and medical training and classes on nonviolent resistance. A few days after the encampment of Zuccotti Park began, he left New York for Austin, Texas.[7]

Graeber argued that the Occupy Wall Street movement's lack of recognition of the legitimacy of either existing political institutions or the legal structure, its embrace of non-hierarchical consensus decision-making and of prefigurative politics made it a fundamentally anarchist project.[65] Comparing it to the Arab Spring, he claimed that Occupy Wall Street and other contemporary grassroots protests represented "the opening salvo in a wave of negotiations over the dissolution of the American Empire."[66] Writing in Al Jazeera, he noted that from the beginning the Occupy movement was about a "commitment to answer only to a moral order, not a legal one" and so held meetings without the requisite permits. Defending this early decision of the Occupy movement, he said, "as the public, we should not need permission to occupy public space".[67]

Graeber tweeted in 2014 that he had been evicted from his family's home of over 50 years due to his involvement with Occupy Wall Street. He added that others associated with Occupy had received similar "administrative harassment".[68]

British politics

In November 2019, along with other public figures, Graeber signed a letter supporting Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, calling him "a beacon of hope in the struggle against emergent far-right nationalism, xenophobia and racism in much of the democratic world" and endorsed him in the 2019 UK general election.[69] In December 2019, along with 42 other leading cultural figures, he signed a letter endorsing the Labour Party under Corbyn's leadership in the 2019 general election. The letter stated that "Labour's election manifesto under Jeremy Corbyn's leadership offers a transformative plan that prioritises the needs of people and the planet over private profit and the vested interests of a few."[70][71] Graeber, who was Jewish, also defended Corbyn from accusations of antisemitism, saying that "What actually threatens Jews, the people who actually want to kill us, are Nazis", and that the allegations represented a "weaponization" of antisemitism for political purposes.[72][6]

Graeber advocated for a boycott[73] of The Guardian newspaper by fellow left-wing authors after alleging that the paper published distortions against Corbyn for years.[74] He denounced what he claimed was the weaponization of antisemitism for political purposes,[75][76] and The Guardian's alleged role in undermining Corbyn in the 2019 election, which, according to Graeber, resulted in a landslide victory for Boris Johnson and the Conservatives.[77][78][79][80] He asserted that The Guardian only publishes progressive authors in order to gain credibility with its readership, but its editorial policy is at odds with socialist politics.[81] He was a vocal critic of the Labour centrists who attacked Corbyn, stating their disdain for socialist movements was due to their previously selling-out: "If those activists were not naive, if this man was not unelectable, the centrists' entire lives had been a lie. They hadn't really accepted reality at all. They really were just sellouts."[79]

Influence and reception

Kate Burrell wrote, in the journal Sociology, that Graeber's work "promotes anarchist visions of social change, which are not quite believed possible by the Left, yet are lived out within social movements every day" and that his work "offers poetic insight into the daily realities of life as an activist, overtly promotes anarchism, and is a hopeful celebration of just what can be achieved by relatively small groups of committed individuals living their truth visibly."[82]

Hans Steinmüller, reviewing On Kings in the Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, described Graeber and his co-author Marshall Sahlins as "two of the most important anthropological thinkers of our time" and considered their contribution to represent a "benchmark" for the anthropological theory of kingship.[2]

As stated by Penguin Random House editor Tom Penn, "David was a true radical, a pioneer in everything that he did. David's inspirational work has changed and shaped the way people understand the world... In his books, his constant, questing curiosity, his wry, sharp-eyed provoking of received nostrums shine through. So too, above all, does his unique ability to imagine a better world, borne out of his own deep and abiding humanity. We are deeply honoured to be his publisher, and we will all miss him: his kindness, his warmth, his wisdom, his friendship. His loss is incalculable, but his legacy is immense. His work and his spirit will live on."[83]

Personal life

After a relationship with anthropologist Lauren Leve,[84] Graeber married artist Nika Dubrovsky in 2019.[85] The two collaborated on a series of books, workshops, and conversations called Anthropology for Kids[86] and on the Museum of Care, a shared space for communication and social interactions nourishing values of solidarity, care, and reciprocity. According to Graeber's website, "The main goal of the Museum of Care is to produce and maintain social relationships."[87] The concept "museum of care" was coined by Graeber and Dubrovsky in their article "The Museum of Care: imagining the world after the pandemic", originally published in "Arts of the Working Class" in April 2020.[88] In the article, Graeber and Dubrovsky imagine a post-pandemic future, where vast surfaces of office spaces and conservative institutions are turned into "free city universities, social centers and hotels for those in need of shelter". "We could call them 'Museums of Care' – precisely because they are spaces that do not celebrate production of any sort but rather provide the space and means for the creation of social relationships and the imagining of entirely new forms of social relations."[89]

Death

Graeber died suddenly from necrotic pancreatitis[90] on September 2, 2020, while on vacation with his wife and friends in Venice.[91] Graeber died during the COVID-19 pandemic and instead of a funeral, his family organized an "Intergalactic Memorial Carnival" of livestreamed events that took place in October 2020.[92] His wife, Nika, attributed the pancreatitis to COVID-19, pointing to his prior good health, strange symptoms they both had for months beforehand, and the connection scientists have found between COVID-19 and pancreatitis.[93]

Selected publications

References

  1. ^ Cain, Sian (September 3, 2020). "David Graeber, anthropologist and author of Bullshit Jobs, dies aged 59". The Guardian. Archived from the original on September 3, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  2. ^ a b Steinmüller, Hans (2019) Book review: on kings by David Graeber and Marshall Sahlins. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 25 (2). pp. 413–14.
  3. ^ Roos, Jerome (September 4, 2020). "The anarchist: How David Graeber became the left's most influential thinker". New Statesman. Retrieved February 11, 2021.
  4. ^ Graeber, David (May 4, 2018). "'I had to guard an empty room': the rise of the pointless job". The Guardian. Retrieved February 11, 2021.
  5. ^ "David Graeber Memorial Lectures". California Institute of Integral Studies. Archived from the original on May 13, 2021. Retrieved May 13, 2021.
  6. ^ a b Stuart Jeffries (March 21, 2015), "David Graeber interview: 'So many people spend their working lives doing jobs they think are unnecessary'" Archived September 9, 2020, at the Wayback Machine, The Guardian. Retrieved April 12, 2019.
  7. ^ a b c d e Bennett, Drake (October 26, 2011). "David Graeber, the Anti-Leader of Occupy Wall Street: Meet the anthropologist, activist, and anarchist who helped transform a hapless rally into a global protest movement". Business Week. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  8. ^ "Paid Notice: Deaths: Graeber, Ruth R." The New York Times. April 20, 2006. Archived from the original on July 29, 2018. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  9. ^ "Kenneth Graeber". Abraham Lincoln Brigade: Spanish Civil War History and Education. Archived from the original on January 7, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  10. ^ Roberts, Sam (September 4, 2020). "David Graeber, Caustic Critic of Inequality, Is Dead at 59". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Archived from the original on September 7, 2020. Retrieved September 5, 2020.
  11. ^ Lateu, Jo (January 1, 2014). "David Graeber on acting like an anarchist". New Internationalist. No. January–February 2014. Archived from the original on August 20, 2020. Retrieved September 5, 2020.
  12. ^ Mamatas, Nick (May 31, 2005). "Take It From the Top: Speaking with anarchist professor David Graeber, canned from Yale". Village Voice. Archived from the original on June 29, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  13. ^ Fischer, Molly (November 9, 2021). "David Graeber's Possible Worlds". Intelligencer.
  14. ^ Berrett, Dan (October 16, 2011). "Intellectual Roots of Wall St. Protest Lie in Academe". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on April 7, 2014. Retrieved February 19, 2013.
  15. ^ a b c d Arenson, Karen W. (December 28, 2005). "When Scholarship and Politics Collided at Yale". The New York Times. Archived from the original on March 23, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  16. ^ Graeber, David (2004). "David Graeber". Yale University Department of Anthropology. Yale University. Archived from the original on February 22, 2004.
  17. ^ Bloch, Maurice. "Letter from Maurice Bloch, London School of Economics". Solidarity with David Graeber. Archived from the original on October 27, 2009. Retrieved October 27, 2009.
  18. ^ Epstein, David (May 18, 2005). "Early Exit". Inside Higher Education. Archived from the original on January 12, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  19. ^ Johansen, Bruce E (2007). Silenced!: academic freedom, scientific inquiry, and the First Amendment. New York: Praeger. pp. 110–112. ISBN 978-0-275-99686-4.
  20. ^ Marsden, Jessica (December 9, 2005). "Graeber agrees to leave University". Yale Daily News. Archived from the original on August 30, 2017. Retrieved May 5, 2015.
  21. ^ Graeber, David (May 26, 2006). "Beyond Power/Knowledge: an exploration of the relation of power, ignorance and stupidity" (PDF). London School of Economics. Archived (PDF) from the original on March 27, 2009. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  22. ^ Graeber, David (December 19, 2012). "Dead zones of the imagination: On violence, bureaucracy, and interpretive labor. The 2006 Malinowski Memorial Lecture". HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. 2 (2): 105–128. doi:10.14318/hau2.2.007. S2CID 145007192. Archived from the original on August 13, 2014. Retrieved August 13, 2014.
  23. ^ Graeber, David. "There Never Was a West: Democracy as a form of interstitial cosmopolitanism". Association of Social Anthropologists. Archived from the original on January 12, 2012. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  24. ^ "Anthropology Department Distinguished Lecture 2011: "Utopias of Debt"". Department of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley. Archived from the original on July 24, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  25. ^ "The Strathern Lecture". Department of Social Anthropology. University of Cambridge. November 28, 2017. Archived from the original on September 9, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  26. ^ a b c d e Shea, Christopher (April 15, 2013). "A Radical Anthropologist Finds Himself in Academic 'Exile'". Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on April 17, 2013. Retrieved April 17, 2013.
  27. ^ a b c Nader, Laura (January 22, 2019). "Unravelling the Politics of Silencing". Public Anthropologist. 1 (1): 81–95. doi:10.1163/25891715-00101006. ISSN 2589-1707. S2CID 213081453. Archived from the original on September 9, 2020. Retrieved September 5, 2020.
  28. ^ a b c Graeber, David (January 22, 2019). "It Wasn't a Tenure Case – a Personal Testimony, with Reflections". Public Anthropologist. 1 (1): 96–104. doi:10.1163/25891715-00201009. ISSN 2589-1707. S2CID 214299282. Archived from the original on September 9, 2020. Retrieved September 5, 2020.
  29. ^ "Occupying Democracy". The Brian Lehrer Show. WNYC. April 16, 2013. Archived from the original on July 11, 2013. Retrieved July 10, 2013.
  30. ^ Graeber, David (September 4, 2019). "How social and economic structure influences the Art World". Youtube. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  31. ^ Graeber, David (1996). The Disastrous Ordeal of 1987: Memory and Violence in Rural Madagascar. Vol. 3. University of Chicago, Department of Anthropology.
  32. ^ Graeber, David (2007). Lost People: Magic and the Legacy of Slavery in Madagascar. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253219152. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  33. ^ Graeber, David (2007). Possibilities: Essays on Hierarchy, Rebellion and Desire. AK Press. ISBN 9781904859666.
  34. ^ Graeber, David (2009). Direct Action: An Ethnography. AK Press. ISBN 9781904859796. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  35. ^ Shukaitis, Stevphen; Graeber, David; Biddle, Erika, eds. (2007). Constituent Imagination: Militant Investigations/Collective Theorization. AK Press. ISBN 9781904859352. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 19, 2020.
  36. ^ Sahlins, Marshall; Graeber, David (2017). On Kings. Hau Books. ISBN 9780986132506.
  37. ^ "Front matter of On Kings" (PDF). Hau Books. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  38. ^ Graeber, David; Wengrow, David (March 2, 2018). "How to change the course of human history". Eurozine. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  39. ^ Schuessler, Jennifer (September 21, 2014). "Still No Flying Cars? Debating Technology's Future". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
  40. ^ Giovanni da Col; David Graeber (2011). "The return of ethnographic theory". HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory. 1 (1). Archived from the original on September 24, 2016. Retrieved September 23, 2016.
  41. ^ "It's Not As Bad As All That". Democracy Journal. March 26, 2018. Archived from the original on July 6, 2019. Retrieved July 6, 2019.
  42. ^ Habash, Gabe (December 2, 2011). "Melville House Finds Hit for the 99%". Publishers Weekly. Archived from the original on December 5, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  43. ^ a b Schmid, Karl (January 1928). "Debt: The First 5,000 Years by David Graeber (review)". Anthropologica. University of Toronto Press. 56 (1): 244–246. ISSN 0003-5459. Archived from the original on September 4, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.(registration required)
  44. ^ Schmid, K. (2014). Anthropologica, 56(1), 244–46. Retrieved September 4, 2020, JSTOR 24469657
  45. ^ "The Very Last David Graeber Post..." Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality. Archived from the original on July 29, 2020. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  46. ^ "David Graeber April Fools' Day Post: Cheaply Manufacturing Extended Trollage via Sub-Turing Evocations: Threat or Menace? Weblogging". Brad DeLong's Grasping Reality. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved August 9, 2019.
  47. ^ a b "Brad DeLong reply – David Graeber Industries". David Graeber Industries. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 15, 2019.
  48. ^ Yves Smith (August 13, 2013). "Has Anyone Noticed That Most New Jobs Suck?". Naked Capitalism. Archived from the original on March 18, 2014. Retrieved September 3, 2013.
  49. ^ Graeber, David (July 17, 2013). "On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs". STRIKE! Magazine. Archived from the original on December 11, 2019. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
  50. ^ Heller, Nathan (June 7, 2018). "The Bullshit-Job Boom". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  51. ^ Semuels, Alana (June 26, 2018). "Are More and More People Working Meaningless Jobs?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  52. ^ Anthony, Andrew (May 27, 2018). "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory review – laboured rant about the world of work". The Observer. ISSN 0029-7712. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved August 10, 2019.
  53. ^ "Bestsellers". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  54. ^ "Bullshit Jobs". Penguin Books. February 7, 2019. Archived from the original on September 10, 2020. Retrieved September 3, 2020.
  55. ^ Rayner, Gordon; Roberts, Laura (November 12, 2010). "Student tuition fee protests: security guards were powerless to act, then riot ringleaders". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  56. ^ Fries, Jacob H. (January 28, 2002). "Anarchy Has an Image Problem; In the Face of New York Police, Taste for Conflict Wavers". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 17, 2012. Retrieved February 15, 2012.
  57. ^ "Why is the world ignoring the revolutionary Kurds in Syria? | David Graeber". the Guardian. October 8, 2014.
  58. ^ "An Everyday Anarchist: David Graeber, 1961–2020". Novara Media.
  59. ^ "David Graeber pushed us to imagine greater human possibilities | Rebecca Solnit". the Guardian. September 8, 2020.
  60. ^ "Writers Marathon by Writers Rebel | Theatre in London". Time Out London. October 10, 2019. Archived from the original on October 12, 2019. Retrieved October 12, 2019.
  61. ^ Graeber, David (May 7, 2019). Bullshit Jobs: A Theory. Simon and Schuster. p. 18. ISBN 9781501143335.
  62. ^ Steullet, Alex (July 22, 2020). "Don't Judge People For Slacking Off―They May Just Have a Bullshit Job". Kintopia. Archived from the original on September 26, 2020. Retrieved September 4, 2020.
  63. ^ Graeber, David (2013). The Democracy Project. Spiegel & Grau. p. 41. ISBN 978-0812993561. As a matter of historical record, since there is so much discussion of the origin of the slogan "We Are the 99 Percent," the answer is that—appropriately enough—it was a collective creation.
  64. ^ Sharlet, Jeff (November 10, 2011). "Inside Occupy Wall Street: How a bunch of anarchists and radicals with nothing but sleeping bags launched a nationwide movement". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on December 5, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  65. ^ Graeber, David (November 30, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots". Al Jazeera. Archived from the original on November 30, 2011. Retrieved December 4, 2011.
  66. ^ Graeber, David (September 25, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street Protest". The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. Archived from the original on September 19, 2013. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
  67. ^ "Occupy Wall Street's anarchist roots". Al Jazeera. November 30, 2011. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved February 2, 2019.
  68. ^ Sutherland, Ali. "It's not what you know. It's not who you know, either. It's who knows what about you". Making Light. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved July 10, 2018.
  69. ^ Neale, Matthew (November 16, 2019). "Exclusive: New letter supporting Jeremy Corbyn signed by Roger Waters, Robert Del Naja and more". NME. Archived from the original on November 26, 2019. Retrieved November 27, 2019.
  70. ^ Gayle, Damien (December 3, 2019). "Vote for hope and a decent future". The Guardian. Archived from the original on December 3, 2019. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  71. ^ Gayle, Damien (December 3, 2019). "Coogan and Klein lead cultural figures backing Corbyn and Labour". The Guardian. Archived from the original on September 11, 2020. Retrieved December 4, 2019.
  72. ^ Liphshiz, Cnaan (September 7, 2020). "David Graeber, anarchist anthropologist who defended Corbyn, dies at 59". Cleveland Jewish News.
  73. ^ Graeber, David [@gavidgraeber] (December 13, 2019). "I will never write a word for the Guardian ever again - well, unless they have a complete change of management and editorial policy, which isn't going to happen" (Tweet). Retrieved December 28, 2020 – via Twitter.
  74. ^ "Journalistic Representations of Jeremy Corbyn in the British Press". London School of Economics and Political Science. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
  75. ^ "The Weaponisation of Labour Antisemitism | David Graeber". YouTube. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
  76. ^ Graeber, David (April 14, 2020). "For the first time in my life, I'm frightened to be Jewish". openDemocracy. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
  77. ^ Graeber, David [@davidgraeber] (December 26, 2019). "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" (Tweet). Retrieved December 28, 2020 – via Twitter.
  78. ^ @zei_squirrel (September 4, 2020). "Thread of Graeber's criticisms on the Guardian" (Tweet). Retrieved December 28, 2020 – via Twitter.
  79. ^ a b Graeber, David (January 13, 2020). "The Center Blows Itself Up: Care and Spite in the 'Brexit Election'". The New York Review of Books. Retrieved December 28, 2020.
  80. ^ Graeber, David [@davidgraeber] (August 2, 2020). "we tried to warn you. But you knew what you were doing, didn't you, . @davidschneider et al? You pretended an anti-racist social democrat was an antisemite so that actual Nazis and White Nationalists could seize the reigns of power" (Tweet). Retrieved December 28, 2020 – via Twitter.
  81. ^ Graeber, David [@davidgraeber] (July 25, 2019). "future historians will see the post-2015 Guardian as a priceless resource. Day to day, it documents of how the UK's middle-aged professional managerial classes, having allied themselves entirely with finance capital, collectively lost their shit as young people embraced socialism" (Tweet). Retrieved December 28, 2020 – via Twitter.
  82. ^ Burrell, K. (2014). Book Review: David Graeber, 'The Democracy Project: A History. A Crisis. A Movement'. Sociology, 48(5), 1066–167. doi:10.1177/0038038514543129
  83. ^ "'Inspirational' activist author David Graeber dies". September 3, 2020.
  84. ^ Fischer, Molly (November 9, 2021). "David Graeber's Possible Worlds". Intelligencer. Retrieved November 19, 2021.
  85. ^ David Graeber (April 25, 2020). "I've never been married before. Even though the proper ceremony is later in London & Berlin, I have never been more moved that someone who actually knows me would want to be with me forever". Archived from the original on September 3, 2020. Retrieved September 12, 2020 – via Twitter.
  86. ^ "About Us – Anthropology For Kids". a4kids.org. January 28, 2017.
  87. ^ "About Museum of Care – Museum Of Care". Retrieved June 10, 2022.
  88. ^ Graeber, David and Nika Dubrovsky, "The Museum of Care: imagining the world after the pandemic", Arts Of The Working Class, April 2020 (Issue 11), pp. 45-46
  89. ^ Graeber - Dubrovsky, David - Nika (2020), ""The Museum of Care: Imagining the world after the pandemic"", Arts Of The Working Class, no. 11, p. 45, retrieved June 10, 2022
  90. ^ Noah, Timothy (December 26, 2020). "David Graeber: The Anarchist Anthropologist-Provocateur". Politico.
  91. ^ Matt Schudel (September 5, 2020). "David Graeber, scholar, anarchist and intellectual leader of Occupy Wall Street, dies at 59" (obituary). The Washington Post. Archived from the original on September 8, 2020. Retrieved September 17, 2020.
  92. ^ "Memorial Carnival eng — David Graeber Industries". David Graeber Industries.
  93. ^ Nika Dubrovsky (October 16, 2020). "My opinion on David's cause of death". Anthropology for All. patreon.com. Retrieved September 5, 2021.

Further reading

External links

This page was last edited on 26 February 2024, at 04:29
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.