Is Capitalism Part of the Answer? - 04 - David Graeber speaks

[@tormunnvii3317]

Rest in Power.

[@geoffgriffiths3381]

Capitalism as a term disappeared during the 80s when the word was replaced with democracy as in capitalism vs communism became democracy vs communism. Then Reaganomics appeared which was in truth a return to 1920s style corporatism, which continues today, and even the term capitalism has been rehabilitated as a good word that avoids the term corporatism.

[@dickhamilton3517]

"Reaganomics" = "Thatcherism" = "Neoliberalism", the current version of Capitalism, created from the previous version ("Keynesianism") by a change in the rules.

[@me700gnomes]

Well said

[@comebackkid44723]

There’s no such thing as corporatism, it’s a part of a capitalism and its tendency to monopolize.

[@user-gz4ve8mw9l]

The most democratic system to date that humanity has devised is arguably communism. Capitalism is incompatible with democracy and thus devoid of democracy.

[@TheLokiBiz]

It's so frustrating too - because many varieties of communism (anarcho-communism, luxemburgism etc.) are all about direct democracy. if anything, we ancoms would argue it's "democracy vs. capitalism"

[@kneeblock]

That vest and shirt open to the 4th button combo with the breakdown of capitalism making homegirl sweat

[@user-gz4ve8mw9l]

Sigh....

[@amp9672]

hahahaaha 😂 true

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

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

[@miscellanea3104]

you already know

[@PJ-qx5yt]

REAL 😂

[@whateverimtold9872]

Is that the outfit that Han Solo was wearing...? I don't mean that in a bad way...either...

[@guillll]

"These are people who are at the head of enemy ... er, energy companies". Even Graeber's mistakes told the truth !

[@HistoryforThinkers]

Bruh 😂

[@duncanmckeown1292]

Brilliant! RIP David...sparkling presentation...The Mozart of economics!

[@amp9672]

we all miss this man so much...

[@kforest2745]

His intuition is excellent

[@Dionysus_333]

What an absolute G. David was and is the top G. Settled. Cheers fam we’re all gunna make it.

[@polkatolka]

Does anyone know where to find that letter to Bush from the oil CEO's? I'd love to see that.

[@coolfrog23]

+I. Michael Anderson Maybe this page? Not entirely sure, only gave it a skim, but looks like it's a CEO of a nano-tech firm, so?? Pretty funny nonetheless. www.rense.com/general58/demand.htm

[@webzetetic]

www.motherjones.com/politics/2007/01/ceos-scold-bush-global-warming/

[@Stret173]

@@webzetetic бял спасибонька

[@DaveE99]

We always think drug companies do a bunch of cutting edge research, but where most money goes to, is making more versions of drugs they already have, known as “me to drugs”. He is spot on about goverment doing research.

[@arofhoof]

Well the fault is government and stupid patent law

[@JonathanLaliberte1]

holy shit this guy is SOO damn intelligent.

[@elizabethbennet4791]

yep!!

[@kyivstuff]

The best!

[@CalamityInAction]

I want him back 😫😖

[@kayvan-ev0]

Why are most pple SOO dumb?

[@winstonsmith-ministryoftru1609]

Damn, I miss this dude!

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

What an interesting contrast to Mark Goyder's earlier pro-capitalist talk, which was really just trotting out the same old arguments that capitalists make without seriously addressing it's problems other than to hide meekly behind the 'no true scotsman' fallacy. David dismantled Mark's presentation beautifully.

[@user-gz4ve8mw9l]

I've yet to encounter or discover someone anywhere in the world who has a valid argument in favor of capitalism. As the reality is what capitalism entails is criminally against humanity. Arguing in favor of it is arguing against the betterment of every single human being. Save for the benefit of a select few of the ruling class at the expense of the overwhelming majority. Most capitalist cattle or capitalists themselves are incapable of conversing in a cogent civilized manner.

[@FreeXenon]

Where can I find this letter from the CEO's of energy companies asking for more regulation?

[@ericeaton2386]

I couldn't find the letter itself, which I would very much like to read, but I did find this news article that I'm pretty sure is about the letter: www.oklahoman.com/article/3002434/ceos-ask-bush-to-back-climate-protection

[@deskryptic]

The lady next to him is feeling him...or laughing at him.

[@BiniTheG]

I was watching her the whole video instead of him. She's definitely feeling him! 🤗

[@adampeters7947]

That's Ann Petifor, author of the Green New Deal. She's definitely feeling him.

[@acobster]

@@adampeters7947 I believe that's Amrita Bhohi, not Ann Petifor. But yeah. Definitely the feels.

[@settamit]

@@acobster it certainly is her

[@settamit]

@@adampeters7947 that’s not Ann Pettifor. @acobstet is right in pointing out that it is Amrita Bhohi ( www.amritabhohi.co.uk )

[@david8157]

The success of capitalism was based on the application of the scientific method...not on capitalism itself....which as David rightly points out has progress and knowledge limiting factors built-in. The corporatization of research and knowledge means essentially the patenting and privatization and eventual shuting down of knowledge growth.

[@nthperson]

The other major problem is that the system of law that established private property in nature doomed societies to an oppressive hierarchy under which a rentier class would gain more and more power over time. Rentiers used their unearned rents to acquire industries and financial institutions, then used the profits therefrom to gain increasing control over nature, while ensuring the political officeholders would ensure that rents -- which by right are societal property -- are not publicly collected; rather, public goods and services are paid for by the confiscation of legitimately earned income and material assets.

[@david8157]

Edward Dodson Yes. Excellent points. The rampant privatization under neoliberal ideology of what remains of the public commons will eventually destroy what is left of the nation state. On our current trajectory we are exiting the era of the nation state, and entering into a new transnational world order dominated by private global empires - transnational corporations. That is, unless enough people of good will can wake up from their media induced trance and see what is happening and call a halt to it.

[@nthperson]

David Walsh In one sense we are (as Thomas Paine declared) citizens of the world, that borders between peoples are artificial barriers. Unfortunately, we still behave as tribal societies did in the distant past. We claim sovereign control over some portion of the planet, enforced by military strength, and by the same force of arms serve notice on the people of other societies that their own claims to territorial sovereignty will be respected only if sufficient tribute is delivered. Today, that tribute is primarily in the form of natural resource extraction and the exploitation of people as workers. What is needed will be extremely difficult to accomplish. We need to establish a world people's assembly, a level of citizenship outside of the nation-state. Moreover, the selection of representatives to this assembly should be made by lottery and not by elections involving the raising of funds to campaign for office. Specifics of how the lottery would operate around the globe would need to be worked out during a people's convention.

[@david8157]

Edward Dodson Interesting lottery idea; but not sure it would be adequate. That could have problems; after all not just anyone has the capacity to manage a world.

[@TheBold1994]

+Edward Dodson right on, you are correct. ... I think this is a proper platform to play as an anarchist according to the legal system, I'd how I see it. check out: world service authority

[@cdzlink7115]

We have cooperatives now and they are successful.

[@nescius2]

I believe that even quite big cooperatives existed from before second world war in Spain. We used to have housing unions which were building houses and even an entire section of a city where I live now, but only remnants still exist and they don't build anything new any more..

[@jojbenedoot7459]

@@nescius2 is Mondragon not doing well anymore?

[@nescius2]

@@jojbenedoot7459 dunno, find it out and tell me.

[@riziop3469]

We really should have cloned this guy 😭😭

[@voltcorp]

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.

[@PhilosopherArns]

So many people in the comment section have differnt deffinitions of the terms they are using and the terminology they are using is too obtuse to explaining the detail of their actual ideas.

[@philipganchev2306]

Then let's explain loaded language when we use it, if we want to actually communicate ideas.

[@billyoldman9209]

It's the tyranny of the signifier! A dead rat's ass suspended from the ceiling of the sky!

[@munnypoltric]

important point. And they say humans are special because of their marvellous language ability. lol

[@yatuyoga7980]

this guy is just the best

[@ManfromuncoolBlogspotstars]

Late to the party, but I love the lucidity, brevity, and accuracy of D.G.'s argument here.

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

What a loss. RIP david.

[@shawnsmith6310]

The wife killed him for his money 💰

[@carbootstudios2459]

What is the right answer to anything?

[@LenBappin]

Is there a longer talk that he's responding to or a debate that follows this that anyone has seen?

[@ericeaton2386]

If you search "Is Capitalism Part of the Answer?" a playlist by this channel should be the top result, it includes the whole debate, but with speakers separated into their own videos. It's quite good, I enjoyed hearing the context.

[@LenBappin]

@@ericeaton2386 thank you sir, much appreciated!

[@richardzellers]

Why is he dressed like Thomas Jefferson, LMAO!!

[@borisyeltsin6293]

or peter pan

[@aerobique]

@@borisyeltsin6293 han Solo

[@Tab-uj4mm]

3 years later this gave me a much needed HEARTY laugh. thank you

[@AlexandraofUnusualIdeas]

2:52🤔😲😌

[@tonywilliams8291]

So intelligent

[@nanoaged1]

The Answer he states, and I agree is...No.

[@nanoaged1]

@Allen Svensson I disagree. Even in Natural Selection the reality of Mutualism exists. Revolutionary Socialism isn't just economic, it encompasses ethical equity, were competitive Bourgeois philosophies push competitive equality.

[@nanoaged1]

@Allen Svensson NO!!! I feel that your mind has been inundated in Capitalist thought processes as you seem to miss the point that Revolutionary Socialism is about EQUITY while Capitalism is about EQUALITY. You use them interchangeably.

[@nanoaged1]

@Allen Svensson Secondly, I like that you use the analogy of capitalism being a virus because carrying the metaphor Revolutionary Socialism would be the anecdote to the virus. Lastly, fact is economic or material inequalities will always exist even in a Classless Society because neurologically human intelligences are distributed innately unequal. In a Classless Society Private Property wouldn't exist but Personal Property would. Thanks for stimulating my thoughts, be well and good luck.

[@HistoryforThinkers]

Graeber is the king. RIP 👑

[@NameLess-ks4fi]

Find you a girl who likes at you like this Indian smoke show looks at chad economist.

[@zac491]

DAO structure?

[@tigerstyle4505]

Ffs 😂 Comments sections like this one are where my love of my fellow humans is truly put to the test lol Yes! Pretty person sits next to good ol Dave and is almost a constant presence due to the camera angle, why is that your main takeaway from the actual content of this video? Not to take anything from her, I'm sure she has plenty of great insight too and I'm personally interested in hearing it if I can find it, even if I disagree. But that was not the point of the video at all and I think what was said is far more interesting than hyper focusing on who's sitting next to the speaker as they speak, regardless of who either party is. Its creepy to see that as the big draw and when it's mixed in with armchair economists and pedants it's almost unbearable lol If they were in a seemingly random Santa outfit or dressed like a comic book character I might see the point. But nah, just chillin and listening. Fuck!

[@deskryptic]

yeah...the human factor

[@nkenchington6575]

yeah, but she is fit, so...

[@rainbowmonkMC]

@@deskryptic the patriarchy factor

[@markcorrigan3930]

8:50

[@dellmoney6369]

RIP

[@smhsophie]

Bruh who is she

[@muhammaddawood4382]

Amrita Bhohi

[@smhsophie]

@@muhammaddawood4382 you dropped this 👑

[@muhammaddawood4382]

@@smhsophie My Honour , Comrade

[@AudioPervert1]

Even as David Graeber created a lot of fantasy on top of the given anthropology ... His books are inspirational to divest from this dumb ass dominant culture 🙋🏽‍♂️ ⚰️

[@rainbowmonkMC]

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?

[@waywrdsun]

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

[@Itsmespiv4192]

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

[@salmaal-hafi5565]

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

[@willkanggo]

@@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

[@kavvayistories]

Adieu David

[@elizabethbennet4791]

just wnderful

[@jcolwill]

Beautiful lady ❤️

[@keenankramer7989]

she's perty

[@cody9419]

Glad the cameraman included the beautiful woman in the frame the whole time!

[@FreeBrunoPowroznik]

I'm not. She's too damn distracting 😂

[@6Diego1Diego9]

Amrita is beautiful

[@Amateur_Pianist_472]

That time keeper had a massive crush on him.

[@erichuang7524]

Amrita is a work of art, wow

[@ttrons2]

But what about the dummies in society. They want to be guided and told what to do.

[@rainbowmonkMC]

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

[@armaliteprifle]

9:09 She`s like "Wait, he`s talking shit."

[@TheGodlessGuitarist]

or not

[@patchadams4439]

beautiful girl, is she Indian?

[@Erosistheonlyreal]

Yes.

Would any of these professors actually move to a non capitalist country ? Does the university of Caracas have their applications ?

[@paulweber686]

I think that Maduro is for the moment focusing on increasing the literacy rate, to the chagrin of your masters, the neoliberal toadies of the so-called "business class".

[@Xakslied]

Ashok Hegde notice how the first thing socialists always do is wipe out illiteracy and the first thing neoliberals do is build up the structure for fascism

[@munnypoltric]

what non capitalist country?

[@FlauFly]

@ Every country which has sweatshops is part of the global neoliberal system.

[@BiniTheG]

@Ashok Hegde I hope you managed to read one left-wing book in the 2 years since you made that comment. His book Debt would be a great start if you haven't!

[@AlineSanchezRamirezBaruc-xm6qb]

Jesus Christ... they are so young I can't have them dying

[@battragon]

Phew, get a room you two.

[@Queen_roblox335]

overview of this vid: She's clearly in love with him....oh and he said some stuff

[@SketchyBack]

Orrrrr maybe men and women can listen to each other's words without seeing each other as sexual objects.

[@chimpman5584]

SketchyBack that is definitely possible, but in this case her facial expression and staring eyes say otherwise. she want the D

[@antieverything1]

She's clearly amused by how bad his cocaine sniffles are.

[@MrFeyerwire]

I know right ? she is cute though lol

[@billyoldman9209]

You guys are all ignorant philistines. Ever heard of Socrates? Every honest scholar knows that learning and knowledge starts with Eros - love, no matter what level we are talking about, be it primary school or PhD.

[@AssaultSpeed]

Something happened or someone deleted my comment.

[@chrisfowell267]

Depends on what you call capitalism to me private ownership of land, is the main problem the land should be free not owned by morons. free the earth and it will heal it self and us as we are part off it. it simple shit really.

[@YodasPapa]

People who own land have an incentive to care for it. There's a reason it's air and water that get polluted, no one owns them. The institution of property rights in general is a requirement for economic development as people can build a future that they don't think might be taken away from them on the whim of some corrupt official.

[@aerobique]

@@YodasPapa more generally, private property is theft land ownership = "incentive to care" nice meme bro 💅

[@YodasPapa]

@@aerobique Then I guess I'm in favour of theft.

[@AlineSanchezRamirezBaruc-xm6qb]

This is why I don't go to college You will give in

[@LudwigSauerteig]

Typic capitalisem and work everyday, less for your value.

[@artytomparis]

They were not asking the government to take more power. They were asking the government to change the law and their obligations as publicly traded companies.

[@PhilosopherArns]

+Tom J. Byrne < But it is a bullshit argument, the judcial system will never take them to task. They have more money, better lawyers and the power that being an Internatial Corpoartion gives.

[@omrismoopani3779]

What are you talking about. Direct action. No one expecting the gooberment to give us shit...thank you

[@celestialteapot309]

Did he say something?

[@gic9166]

😡

[@elizabethbennet4791]

No the answer is no it isn't

[@paulweber686]

The woman seated next to Graeber and prominent in the video is intellectually engaged, clearly an authority on the subject at hand, and a fine human female specimen, to boot.

[@munnypoltric]

There's no one who will disagree

[@AlineSanchezRamirezBaruc-xm6qb]

Naxalite

[@paulweber686]

A smarter, or more sober man, wouldn't have made the previous comment.

[@proveritate1205]

Capitalism is just "free market." Of course such a thing has existed for a considerable amount of time. Anarchism, by the other hand...

[@xenosuki]

0:55 - 1:15 she's infatuated :)

[@tharsisharmonia9316]

I was literally just about to comment asking if it was just me or is she like well into him?

[@bhr788]

Women can smile at people without being into them, you know.

[@richardlionheart8583]

The body lamguage gives it away

[@grivza]

1:44 Hmm debatable. What does individual initiative actually mean? Cause this actually sounds like the arguments that mask the instability of today's reality as the ultimate freedom, as your chance to truly be free. "Oh your boss calls you in on weekends and doesn't pay you? You are free to find a new job, isn't that wonderful? All the initiative is yours." Rubbish. 5:06 Ah yes, the good old "The government is to blame for the monopolies" lmao. 6:20 What?

[@rainbowmonkMC]

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 :)

[@rainbowmonkMC]

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

[@rainbowmonkMC]

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 :)

[@grivza]

@@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.

[@rainbowmonkMC]

@@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.

[@AlineSanchezRamirezBaruc-xm6qb]

We will watch a lot of suicide deaths I tried to prevent them

[@schadowizationproductions6205]

rip bueb

[@TheShowThatSUX]

I suppose the real debate would be how you define DEMOCRATICALLY. There are some things that should not be up for a vote but instead meritocracy in nature. A point he completely ignores when he claims STARTING A BIZ and LEACHING A PAYCHECK EVEN IF THAT BIZ IS LOSING MONEY is the same risk. One gets paid no matter what MOST entrepreneurs spend years not getting paid at all or paid last to make employees pay first. He also ignores that the EMPLOYEE decided to be the one ordered around instead of the one who takes the risk of NO PAY for being unproductive. So indirectly he is defining democracy as voting for how you make others your slave. Not exactly pro-human liberty as he infers, more or less self-defeating his own argument.

[@John-qi9cj]

David Graeber looks like he smells bad

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

NO!!!

[@celestialteapot3310]

Who's the young lady? (Sorry, l'm having a second adolescence). Incidentally, the answer is no, at least not in a world with finite rescources.

[@rossmilburn7838]

“Markets” are really just men and women creating value and trading, and without those activities, we could not have food, clothing or houses to live in. When people complain about “capitalism” they are not really complaining about the market, but about the corruption that occurs when the state intervenes for its parasitic purposes. For instance, people who love their jobs work out of passion, not primarily to get rich; but corporations with limited liability were created by the state to enable politicians and aristocrats to maximize their return on capital while passing the risk on to other people. Intellectual property rights (patents and copyright) were a criminal racket to make money for monarchs - later governments used them to retain technology in large corporations and powerful countries, to increase wealth differentials. Tariffs and quotas for foreign goods attempt to protect industries and prevent the equalization produced by free market trade. The division of society into “employees” and “employers” was primarily created by the state during the Industrial Revolution because politicians saw large corporations as essential to the economic and military competition between states. If humans could escape from their slavery to the political classes, and create direct democracy, the abuses that are mistakenly attributed to “capitalism” would disappear.

[@coolfrog23]

+Ross Milburn You should read Divd Graeber's book "Debt: The first 5,000 years" But also, a direct democracy in the workplace wouldn't be capitalism.

[@omrismoopani3779]

Did you even watch this? or just go on the same capitalist spew that confuses capitalism with markets?

[@charliespider7598]

yeah right. Humanity was waiting for capitalism to happen before they could feed and shelter themselves

[@mitzavor8468]

Ever heard of market Socialism before?

[@Kraisedion]

Capitalism, as originally defined, and as expressed by Socialists, has nothing to do with markets, and as such your response would have been a very eloquent socialist/anarchist explanation until the very end. Capitalism refers to the rule of those who own capital (companies that exploit workers). Traditionally this rule has been enforced by the state, as it is the state that grants the private property right to own and exploit the value created by workers. (Exploitation means Profits, i.e. taking all the surplus value created by the workers for yourself) However, it is not "the political class" we are enslaved to, but the owning class who in turn own the politicians. Removing this support-network from capitalists would help however, and I absolutely agree that direct democracy would further decrease capitalist power and that this is a direction we need to move towards.

[@nealtauss1715]

.... f#CK NO.... david.... WELL-regulated Capitalism is....

[@tungcaveusd]

the b next to him is flirty. i don't like her presence.

[@Will_Moffett]

Obviously capitalism does not have a large affordance for initiative, despite it's reputation for it. "Winner take all" is extremely toxic to individual initiative. So I agree partly, but fuck all this noise about individuals having no responsibility under capitalism. I've heard this asserted from Prominent Marxists as well as Chomsky and, I'm sorry, but it just isn't true. People know when they are creating one of these vortexes of suffering, when you implement policy X which is legal but hurts people and then your competitor has to do it or he won't be competitive. So just don't be the first to implement policy X- it's that simple. But if you do, you are responsible for that suffering.

[@briankoontz1]

The underlying conditions create an idea, not human consciousness. So if CEO #1 has an idea (created by changing underlying conditions that made it rational) and refuses to implement it due to his social conscience, not only can he be rightfully fired by the board of directors for not maximizing profit, but a rival will simply use that same or similar idea and gain the market share that would have otherwise been captured by the former's company. Whoever is the *first* to implement an idea in business is morally irrelevant.

[@Will_Moffett]

@@briankoontz1 That's the rationale of the subhuman. If you extrapolate your thinking then we should all be constantly trying to kill each other or something. But we don't because we I implicitly know, through norms, that our neighbor isn't going to kill us, aquire our belongings, and rape our wives. The alternative to norms is what happens when one bear wanders into another bears territory. The legal entities called businesses artificially protect us from norm violations, but I'm not sure that is an excuse when compliance to norms is ultimately voluntary.

[@briankoontz1]

@@Will_Moffett For bears, that's just their norm. Underlying norms also determine whether a business executes a hostile takeover or an alliance. Even though corporations are mandated to maximize profit, noone knows the exact details of profit maximization. If the CEO believes that something will increase profit, he will execute it - this doesn't mean that profitability is necessarily tied to brutalizing one's rivals. The underlying legal system, consumer values, and the like are important factors in determining what creates profit and therefore what is profitable. For example, becoming a monopoly is often viewed as a common path to maximizing profit, but if the CEO believes that the legal system is strong and will punish monopolies, he may intentionally remain with a couple (preferably relatively minor) competitors to avoid crossing the line into monopoly status, while lobbying to change the law and thus allow free monopoly reign. Your idea that norms are a kind of "natural check" on otherwise brutal behavior is rather strange. For centuries the norm for Europeans was colonization. In short, it was the NORM that was brutal and without it a good deal of human suffering may well have been avoided. Norms are not inherently civil or uncivil - it's just codified behavior based on complex underlying reality. Even bear norms vary greatly from context to context - trained circus bears don't kill whatever wanders into "their" territory, largely because their survival is being taken care of by humans and isn't threatened in the same way as it would be in the wild.

[@LowestofheDead]

If you don't implement policy X, your board of directors and shareholders can replace you with someone who will. That's Graeber's point about the Energy CEOs asking G. W. Bush to regulate them, because a market can't regulate itself.

[@Will_Moffett]

@@LowestofheDead Does the principle "if I don't do it someone else surely will" justify all wrongdoing or just when you get paid for it? R.I.P David Graeber.

[@borisyeltsin6293]

why's he dressed like peter pan?

[@philipganchev2306]

Graeber's comment about growth confuses the value with the amount of product. It's perfectly possible to continue growing the value of the total product while keeping the amount of product ecologically sustainable. But, this requires incorporating environmental costs into product costs, which is not possible under pure market economies, and only imperfectly with government regulation. Also, his use of 'capitalism' is confusing. First he argues that what we have is not capitalism, then he uses the term in the present tense.

[@rainbowmonkMC]

he is playing with the word capitalism to mock its ridiculousness. and you are promoting "Green capitalism" - take into account environmental destruction, do that less, but keep exploiting your workers. do u not see how if the bottom line of corporations is being squeezed by the govt forcing them to not kill thr environment, they will not want to have less profit margins? so what will they do? my guess, nd experinece working in factories is that they will exploit their workers more. less benefits, less pay, etc. capitalism is based inherently on exploiting people and extracting resources from earth without thought or care for the results on the workers or world. why promote such a system?

[@spider66isaac]

Yall fucking creepy in the comments

[@munnypoltric]

A good proportion of men who like women will be considering the lady and finding her of a high calibre. The fact that she is part of this thinkers gathering only increases her charms, and significantly. Of course, few of us would be of a calibre to form a big part of her life, but that is of no concern to us. It's good to keep in mind that ladies like this exist

[@Chief_Bill]

Okay Cornelius

[@uttaradit2]

LIstening to him but looking at her......capitalism yeah whatever but whose the babe?

[@munnypoltric]

lol

[@BroZap1]

This is really old jargon....

[@ElectricQualia]

Capitalistic methods are absolutely necessary. Market mechanisms and the profit motive are essential in any successful economic system. The only question, is how are we going to regulate such capitalist system so as to provide the best wellfare and subjective happiness without jeopardizing innovation and progress. Its a question of Mathematical optimization and social choice theory ...

[@TrotskysBeard1917]

the guilded free societies in Europe where cooperative and they succeeded for longer than capitalism will. those which fell to private control stagnated. the anarchists in Spain ended up producing arms for the capitalists republic during the cvil war.

[@ElectricQualia]

Grahamhg and the point is?

[@ElectricQualia]

Grahamhg I didn't ...but even if I was so what? It doesn't answer how this anarchist fantasy would work in the real world, does it?

[@ElectricQualia]

Grahamhg No it isn't, capitalistic methods are not capitalism, in the same way socialistic methods isn't socialism. Ever heard of a mixed system in which both are used? As for the Kurds, I wouldn't call a canton in the middle of a civil war a successful experiment. Lets see how it fares when they are an actual country, with a real economy and diplomatic relations.

[@ElectricQualia]

Grahamhg Welcome to reality, in which pretty much all countries are mixed systems. Throw your dictionary away and look at reality. Yeah so did the Kibutzzim movement which internally worked for decades until finally failing in the 2000's and turning full capitalist. It was far more utopian than Rojava and worked wonders so long it lasted. If it doesn't stand the test of time, it doesn't work. An experiment in progress is not success... Ever heard of confirmation bias?

[@munnypoltric]

I'm not a fan of the lady to his left (our right). Not because she is older and less immediately striking than the lady on his right, but because of her twitching mouth. That irritating mouth (perhaps a twitch from her own irritation or thought process).

[@Muzikman127]

What on earth possessed you to think it appropriate to just comment on whether you're "a fan" of the appearance of a stranger in a recording of a conversation online. Did your mother raise you to be this obnoxious and rude?

[@antieverything1]

He talks about how capitalism is "clearly failing" relative to 30 years ago...and yet in that period over a billion people have been lifted out of absolute poverty, largely due to market reforms, and living standards and social stability is much higher than in the 60s and 70s. You can't win an argument with neoliberalism without first acknowledging that it has largely succeeded where "real, existing socialism" has failed.

[@laserprawn]

The question you need to ask yourself is: Why is it that with the coming of capitalism 300 years ago, some people were lifted out of the relative state of poverty that persisted for all of history, and the rest are left to be "lifted out" of it just now - with the majority of humans on the planet still living near that poverty level? Could there be a relation between those with their heads above the water, and those pressed against the ocean floor?

[@murraymadness4674]

ok, but then YOU must acknowledge that the communist USSR lifted its population from poor farmers into a wealthy industrial nation that put man in space...of course it then collapsed from corruption...just like how the USA is about to collapse from corruption..

[@antieverything1]

@@murraymadness4674 I happily and enthusiastically acknowledge that. My point is that we can't simply wait for capitalism to collapse on its own. People have been asserting capitalism is on the verge of collapse for over 150 years. It is a statement of religious faith, not an observation of reality.

[@murraymadness4674]

@@antieverything1 have you seen the graphs of wealth inequality in the usa? that is not the same for 150 years. and btw the usa just spent more on the military than in the history of the world. we call that corruption, not lifting others up

[@ofacid3439]

We should thank capitalism for all good it's been done, scrutinise its systemic flaws and move forward for something new

[@rustyreview]

one thing leftists fail at....is audio

[@melissakruse480]

David Graeber always fails because he never defines his terms! If he would simply state the definition of capitalism that he is using, and then use it consistently, he would actually be coherent.

[@ThePhuzz]

Read his book then -- If he's only given 10-15 minutes to discuss during a panel, he's not going to define his terms. He eloquently defines his terms in his books if you cared to dig into him more. Graeber is one of the most intellectual minds of the current era.

[@Graeberwave]

Lmao she said “he never”

[@selwynr]

I think we know what capitalism is. If you don't, you are simply exposing your ignorance.

[@rainbowmonkMC]

he literally states at :30 how capitalism was originally defined by socialists to describe an exploitative form of labor practices

[@RyanMcCready-wx2ii]

He also seems like he’s on the autism spectrum, and talking to a group of people and not KZbin. His argument is easy to follow for people like me who only found this video after seeing almost every KZbin about pirates and really liking what he said in a vid about releasing a book on the subject. I understand capitalism enough to follow his arrrrgghument. Given me thoughts arrrgh !

[@magiccarpetmusic2449]

Dave was massive. Brilliant, way on target about so much, including the ongoing current horrors of Thatcherist TINAism. Sorry he's gone. Read 'Dawn of Everything'.

[@RM-dt7kg]

RIP

[@AntonioGarmsci-cy5vt]

NO!