I miss David so much!

stating something obvious , but bro coughing kinda started to get funny 👐

It’s not that “everything we know is wrong” it’s that what we know was designed by crooks no different than scientists the picking and choosing of what caters to them or business or govt etc and “the people” merely take the ride

At about 9:50 Graeber says Algonquins refused to use kayaks, and then that inuits refused to use snowshoes "[because of their grudge as neighbors]". Can someone please tell me Graeber's source for that?

Ummm!! Ahh hail!

Is there any transcription of these conference?

Very enjoyable and encouraging! I honor this man’s work

Professor Steve Keen rediscovered the distinction between public and private debt, which can be analogous to the application of "moral" Gold-Silver social balance Diplomacy, and responsibility for people and property, a self in Self defining of our ecological circumstances in a "Balance of Nature" circumstance. What is Exogenous Debt? Professors of MMT Provisioning strategies suggest that Government debt is National, divided and allocated by politico-social standards, but Professor Keen has identified Bank Lending institutions as a direct Causality by inverting responsibility for ownership of governance responsibilities, ie Democracy isn't working because Financial Capitalism rules economics. All this is an accompaniment to the interpretation of the chaos of Anarchy prelude that preceeds a democratically Informed Public, David Graeber alludes to.

This lecture was amazing David you are sorely missed ❤️

Hello! I will be releasing a defense of Graeber in soon time on my channel since I am from nomadic traditions. Thanks!

At what point does a person or person's and or groups of person's become considered to be indigenous? I was informed once during a legal battle with an employer, who for the reason of being mandated by the government to promote the indiginious humans referred to as NATIVE AMERICAN's because I was birthed in the U.S.A. and not somewhere else, declared myself to be. And thus qualified to apply for the promotion, which is what they disagreed with. The issue was finally resolved and I did indeed get promoted, when because my employer's legal team stated that it isn't the fact that I was birthed in the U.S.A. it was based on my liniage that determines one being considered indigenious. After which I agreed and stated that I was incorrect in my regarding my self as a Native American, and wish to change it to being African American aka in the U.S.A. as black. Because if and when it depends on ones lineage, and the fact that everyone alive today lineage can be traced back to the Middle West Coast of Africa. I'm actualy African who now resides in the U.S.A.

Anyone could figure who he is talking about around the 10.40 mark? hokin bay? can't find his name^^

When we need to rewrite our future, first we have to rewrite our past. Thank goodness anthropologists & archeologists are on the job.

some great ideas, hard to hear with the atrocious audio and his coughing. Still, a rare gem from a force for good....

RIP, David. This man was a total badass

The book with Wengrow is now out and called The Dawn of Everything. It is amazing!

The New Green History of the world by Clive Pointing, explains in great detail, the last 10,000 years of human civilisation and colonisation. And why it keeps collapsing every time...

Yes! We were *totally different species* pre-civilization -- we wouldn't even recognize them as humans. Tho they would recognize us Wetiko's (p-Zombies in modern terms). The watershed moment happened around 3,000 ago during the Bronze Age Collapse (BTW love the sirens in the background ;) A Brief History of Us: yuri-z7.medium.com/a-brief-history-of-us-4a48f0d02428?source=friends_link&sk=406d26be077097466a73bbf73320b751

David Graeber / How social and economic structure influences the Art World kzbin.info/www/bejne/jXSpXmuFhs9jiKc&lc=UgzvMJ466VoGhVSdY7d4AaABAg&feature

15:55 I've been in a few leadership roles in my day, and this was basically how I felt most comfortable leading, even before I became an anarchist. This anecdote is one of the things that always has me coming back to this video. RIP David Graeber.

They didn't separate into separate classes where the few owned the social product of labour of others e.g. slaves, peasants and/or wage-slaves. Four Levelling Mechanisms discovered by Christopher Boehm (1993) ‘Egalitarian Behavior and Reverse Dominance Hierarchy’, Current Anthropology, Vol.34, No. 3, pp. 227-254) : Boehm identifies four significant mechanisms operating in the societies included in his comparative survey. He provides ethnographic evidence to illustrate each of them: Public Opinion: leaders may be highly sensitive to group disapproval and give way to others in response to negative public opinion about their behaviour. Criticism and Ridicule: followers may also sharply criticise leaders and ridicule their behaviour, if they feel that the powers of leadership have been abused. Disobedience: another way to teach a prominent man a lesson is through simply disobeying his commands. Extreme Sanctions: the final and extreme mechanism is to terminate a person's leadership role through an act of violence. This is often an assassination that might be condoned by (and sometimes be undertaken by) a whole community or clan. There are two other extreme sanctions identified by Boehm: (i) the deposing of a leader and the appointment of another and (ii) desertion with a whole community moving away from a leader. Further Characteristics of Egalitarian Societies Boehm identifies what seems to be something of a rag bag of additional characteristics of egalitarian societies: Ambivalence towards leaders: within the egalitarian ethos of these societies, there is an expectation that leaders should be strong and brave, whilst at the same time being unassuming and with an absence of self-aggrandizement. At the heart of this ethos is, thus, ambivalence about the appropriate role of leaders. Anticipation of domination: Boehm suggests that in those societies where evidence of explicit levelling mechanisms is absence, the simple threat of individuals using these mechanisms might nevertheless generate levelling effects. In this respect, Boehm writes ‘As long as followers remain vigilantly egalitarian because they understand the nature of domination and leaders remain cognizant of this ambivalence-based vigilance, deliberate control of leaders may remain for the most part highly routinized and ethnographically unobvious.’ Was intentional levelling universal? Given the strong evidence in support of some form of intentional levelling in many societies, Boehm explores the extent to which it is a universal characteristic of human development. Whilst he acknowledges that the evidence is difficult to interpret, he concludes by saying that ‘as of 40,000 years ago, with the advent of anatomically modern humans who continued to live in small groups and had not yet domesticated plants and animals, it is very likely that all human societies practised egalitarian behaviour and that most of the time they did so very successfully.’ Social scale: the operation of successful levelling mechanisms has, according to Boehm, restricted the size of social groups. This is because, when leadership is weak, it is possible to leave a group, thereby ensuring that it remains small. He writes that ‘egalitarian behaviour ensures that leadership will be weak and, as a side effect, that fission will take place readily and communities may remain small. In turn, these communities may remain too small to develop important factions. Therefore, ordinary people, who are used to decision making by consensus, remain in a good position to form one large coalition and thereby control their leaders.’ Phylogenetic considerations: if it is accepted that there is human tendency to dominate others, then it might be assumed that it is difficult to square with Boehm's evidence on the operation of several levelling mechanisms in egalitarian societies. According to him, this is not the case. The employment of these mechanisms is evidence of an explicit and deliberate attempt by the rank and file of a social group to dominate those individuals who that attempt to dominate them. Here's a long quote that summarises Boehm's thesis: 'In small-scale societies that exhibit very limited hierarchy, potential victims deal with their ambivalence by setting aside their individual tendencies to submit and forming a coalition to control their more assertive peers. As a result, prudent...leaders set aside their own tendencies to dominate and submit to their groups even as they lead them. I have said that the social result of this interaction is...a group that cooperates well and that remains small because in the absence of strong leadership it so readily subdivides. Its small size in turn tends to keep major factions from forming and stabilising. The resulting unity of purpose makes it possible for all or most members of local communities to unite against leaders and, by threat of disapproval or active sanctioning, circumscribe their role.' egalitarian.wikispaces.com/Reverse+Dominance+Hierarchy+-+Boehm

<3

Conflating the people of Teotihuacan with hunter-gatherers is either unspeakably ignorant or a bald-faced deception. Same-sized houses surrounding massive public-works projects, on top of which HUMAN BEINGS WERE SACRIFICED (probably including many belonging to the class of people whose labor was conscripted to build these preposterous piles of rock) by an oligarchy of politicians and priests, does NOT sound like evidence of large-scale egalitarianism. It sounds like forced sameness and subjugation. This whole lecture is either intellectually dishonest or plainly moronic. Graeber is doing gymnastics of the mind to defend destructive forms of agriculture and project a tired dream of collectivist utopianism onto hunter-gatherers who undoubtedly made a living, in cases of close proximity, of fleeing this same ancient, evil empire with which he erroneously draws some sort of fuzzy parallel. Graeber would be the first one to drag you from your modest abode (same as your neighbor's, of course) for committing thoughtcrimes and rip your still-beating heart out with an obsidian blade atop one of these sick temples while preaching the gospel of the common good. Once you get over the assumption that a despot or despotic cadre of power-thirsty, central-planning devils necessarily HAVE to preside over a captive, centralized population? Why don't we instead get over the assumption that small-scale bands of hunter-gatherers organized themselves into the same patriarchical nuclear family-units that are in fact the hallmark and foundation of modern industrial society, NOT of "prehistoric" people occupying the sane and regenerative ecological niche that rightfully belongs to human beings? "Inequality comes from below"?!? Sounds like a convenient, Hobbesian justification for top-down social control. What a load of doublethink. He's right about one thing though. Egalitarianism is not one-sidedly innate, nor is it necessarily an evolutionary default. It does not exist amongst hapless, "child-like" people who have simply failed to "advance" and don't know any better. It is a CHOICE, one that has to be consciously and perpetually maintained by autonomous people who actually place a mutually-reinforced value on each other and refuse to tolerate conditions of servitude (based on degraded value) under the tutelage of superfluous parasites. Egalitarian values HAVE in many cases been informed as a reaction to the oppression and inequality of neighboring societies, since the times when those societies began to organizing and scaling up. I'll give him that.

what's the book on the origin of social inequality? would love to read that.

alexander the great's curly locks vs. the beady rat eyed, straight black hairs of those living in his place of origin now. who is the indigenous person?

i suspect there's something about the syntax of the syllables 'in-di' that automatically inspires contempt. the only truly 'in-di' people were the ones that began the foundations of civilization in the first place, and the rest of humanity exists as sort of subhuman malcontents placed there intentionally as civilization's failure to rule and structure itself wanes.

His analysis is weak and the way he romanticizes Indigenous people is concerning. Centre Indigenous voices and get real.

Good talk - I wonder if Graeber has read James C. Scott's "The Art of Not Being Governed" ...