Bruh 😂

most people seem like "dummies" because we arent taught to think, discuss, do democracy. we are taught to be subs to capitalism. ofc we dumb

1:44 Graeber discusses human initiative when it is not impeded by violence and coersion. what are the "free volentary associations we would form if we had the possibility to?" is a question he often asks in other lectures. yes capitalism does claim people have freedom of choice but the fact of poverty (your needs not being met) and the police (a violent, armed wing of state power) make that choice null. so yes we have to rip off the mask of peace. just bc its similar words doesnt mean he doesnt use them in a different paradigm :)

5:06 Graeber has repeatedly pointed out that the beginning of banking as we know it began with a loan taken from the English royal crown which isnt to be paid back or else the banking system would collapse. and from there such loan systems between govt and banks that they created can essential bolster any industry they please. and a second point to consider is the govt in america further props uo corporations bc bribery has been legal there since 1984

what is your question here? his assumption is that capitalism is a system of explotation (defined in the openinf minute as such); and then he assumes if people make free voluntary associations without physical force organized overtop of them, thrn they probably wont exploit each other or others but would far more likely try to use their abilities to meet the needs of themselves and their society / community (which Graeber says is communism). perhaps there are some groups that would voluntarily engage in some violent game to create hierarchy in their free association and have a top down exploitative structure based essentially on some Hobbsian model. and Graeber isnt necessarily against such choice, he believes in the freedom to choose your politics and economics. so his main thing would ve, sure associate that way but dont do so in a way that tries to violently take over and subordinate the anarchist collectives that are engaging in direct democracy and communist form of economics :)

@@rainbowmonkMC The question you are actually asking is actually very structurally dissonant, it basically translates to "what are the free volentary associations we would form under capitalism if we didn't have capitalism". Sure, "not impeded by violence and coersion" but still of the same form. By asking this question you presuppose this very narrow meaning of the individual initiative under capitalism as universal. If people somehow managed to make a non-hierarchical system where they make free voluntary associations without physical force organized overtop of them, then inevitably a new ruling class would rise on top and the hierarchical system would prevail again. The world didn't manifest itself from the void.

@@grivza you assume a Hobbesian view of the world that is not consistent with archeological or anthropological evidence of human societies. we are not biologically hardwired to form hierarchies through violence. this is a conservative, white supremacist talking point to maintain the current order.

could u be explicit about what u mean with this phrsse "even as d g creatived a lot of fantasy on top of the given anthropology"? what is "the given anthropology?" what "fantasy" does he relay? and finally, how do you mean the word fantasy?

@@rainbowmonkMC I have the same questions. I'm fairly new to Graeber. I haven't heard a lot of what I would consider fantasy.

@@waywrdsun from a materialist pov i heard that DG was probably lacking but yeah, i don't know how does this invalidate his thesis

I am currently reading The Dawn of Everything, and it is loaded with scientific evidence that proves this really is not just a fantasy. I live in Syria, so I have very low tolerance for optimism 😆 but this I can chew on

@@salmaal-hafi5565I am reading the dawn of everything too and his examples do seem credible at first until you realise that his and Wengrow’s arguments are really rather flawed, by merely looking at the rare exceptions to the dumbed down anthropological consensus of egalitarian human societies they neglect how material conditions dictate the organisation of the societies they talk about, rather, they use the reasoning of “experimentation” and “hierarchical theatrics” to explain shifts in human organisation. I do think the book has a lot of interesting ideas and does get a few things right. Personally I would suggest you listen to WorldWideScrotes’ podcast called “What is Politics?” Where he breaks down TDOE, it’s very comprehensive and he uses similar if not the same examples that Graeber and Wengrow use in their book

Sigh....

hahahaaha 😂 true

She likes that brain. She's mesmerized by that...strange David Graeber charm.

you already know

REAL 😂

I think he'd be embarrassed by that focus on the individual. all the best in him is accessible to all of us. we don't need thinkers like we need mines, we need thinkers like we need farms.