David Graeber on Debt, Service, and the Origins of Capitalism 

This is the first time I’m hearing of him, so sad to hear that he’s already passed.. Rest In Peace David Graeber and Michael Brooks.

@@BlakeZeb Me too ... Discovered him today; heard he'd died today :'(

@@BlakeZeb same, suggested his book for our family book club this month and learned he had passed a few months ago. Oh Michael Brooks... Two inspiring souls.

Both of them passing in this political atmosphere makes one wish they believed in conspiracy theories

I miss him so much :(

‘Bride price’ ruling may align UK legislation with sharia law Is bride price supported by UK law? Women married under UK civil law are unable to demand bride price or mahr in full on divorce, but they can apply for partial payment of the money as part of the overall financial settlement under section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. However, courts can only intervene in cases involving written bride price contracts. What will the family court rule on? As reported by the Guardian, the family court must rule on whether a former wife is entitled to a payment of £55,000, promised in an oral - rather than written - contract. It is the first time an alleged oral contract has been heard by a UK court. Nazma Quraysha Brishty says the oral contract was made in the presence of her father and another witness. If the Judge rules in favour of Ms Brishty, the judgment could pave the way for similar bride price cases to be heard in UK county courts for breach of contract and in the family court as part of a financial settlement. Solicitors are awaiting a family court ruling that could align an element of UK legislation with sharia law. The case, reported by the Guardian newspaper, concerns the UK’s position on ‘bride price’ payments and how they should be considered in financial settlements. Here’s what you need to know. What is ‘bride price’? Bride price - also known as “mahr” in Islamic marriages - is a gift, or a promise of a gift, to the wife by the husband or the groom’s family. In Sharia law, the wife has the right to ask for her full mahr at any time during her marriage or upon its dissolution. Bride price is also practised in Sub-Saharan Africa, Thailand, China, and Papua New Guinea, among other countries. Bride price not supported by some women’s charities SBS, a women’s charity, said it does not support any element of sharia law being introduced into UK law. “We urge the courts and policymakers to do more to address what is a major gap in protection and justice for many black and ethnic minority women when they seek financial settlements in courts following the breakup of their marriage, over issues such as dowry and bride price, using principles of family, contract and civil law,” said Pragna Patel, the founder and director of SBS.

Yeah he was a very nice man. We need him today.

Capital is defined as anything of value. That is perpetual. Prostitution is recorded to be 5000 years old. Is Prostitution not "paid labor" ?

I agree but he never actually takes a sip ...

everyone but me gotta learn ur cringe

Drinking coffee myself as his voice fills the room, I lament his untimely absence. Checking the comments and seeing yours welled me up. ✊

Buying.underprice.and.selling.dear.curmrrshall .exploition.

And here’s the deal. Taking to heart his insights has actually made my life in the material world easier. This almost never happens for women in the real world when realists pontificate and seem to make sense but Always it wasn’t about feminism. So for sure the issue of debt has to do with women explicitly as it has been the subjugation of women which has created profits.

@@jacquelineleitch7050 YES! I HIGHY recommend "Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center" by bell hooks. It really gave me an understanding that hierarchy, the idea of power being control over others/ how we maintain this power through violence, and how this plays a roll in capitalism, are at the root of all group oppression, like sexism, racism and classism. It made a lot of ideas connect for me and gives such good context for our history and how it's relevant in todays culture(s) She doesn't go as far back in history as he does, but it's all connected and lines up perfectly with his points Literally can't recommend it enough it changed my life

Now I'm sad...

Is that the lecture with the fully drunken cup?

45;05 I do drink some

ROFL

i came down to the comments section specifically to see who mentioned the cup. I have not been disappointed.

So much tension at 26:35 - this man is a master of suspense.

The professor needs to travel the world and do real research.

@@RIZFERD A, he did his research in Madagascar. B, he's dead.

@@jamesbuchanan1913 David Graeber, scholar, anarchist and intellectual leader of ... www.washingtonpost.com › obituaries › 2020/09/05 Sep 5, 2020 - David Graeber, an anthropologist and self-proclaimed anarchist who was an ... “We are waiting for results of the autopsy,” she added, “in order to establish ... most recently as a professor at the London School of Economics.

I'm sorry. I couldn't. I tried. *Mouth smack*

@@jamesbuchanan1913 only Madagascar is not really the world. Madagascar was part of our kingdom Minangkabau Indonesia. www.linkedin.com/posts/rizki-ferdian-rizferd-75537056_fibonacci-sequence-and-nikolatesla-in-me-activity-6719943334762311680-SHRo

:((((

Minutes?

@@haritsarrazie413 38:36

there are a couple of those moments, this is the most heartbreaking one for sure :((

😔

Why are we saying "rest in power" instead of "rest in peace"?

Protestants still use this version.

Why not just scrap religion and thereby relieve ourself of mental slavery. The lack of tolerance in some religions are a curse on humanity to carry round on their Shoulders for their life. It might Even encourage us as he is doing To question the whole slave set up Of our society throughout the world .

That's due to the Latin's use of debitoribus etc. which better translates to the "trespasses" that Catholics use

@@eoghanmccarthy9324 Because that would actually require using one's brain for critical thinking. Religion is opium for the masses. Some people's brain seem predisposed to believing in a "man in the sky".

@@lesleykramer7207 You're getting the pagan Jupiter/Zeus/Dyeus Piter/Thor/etc. mixed up with the Jewish God, which is the same as the Arab Allah and the Father of the Christians (I, for the record, am none of these); these latter are more akin to the Neoplatonic One than to a childish superstition. Atheists always go too far in their arguments, but they serve a purpose. When they overstep, their arguments are easy to destroy. If you want to argue, please be respectful and dignified. I do not mean this sarcastically: be careful before you end up in an anti-religion cult, blind to the hypocrisy of revering human intelligence.

"All that was expected of you was to perform your role and contribute to the community what you are able to contribute." in capitalism people are essentially brainwashed into contributing to the economy, what ever that is, because people today are so brainwashed that they never question if price is neccessary, so instead we have a brainwashed populace that really only works to get money to pay for the price put on food, housing, clothing, water.

It did exist before money was even invented. Learn some anthropological finance and history of economics.

​@@edwardkasalovitz7186he didn't say it wasn't. And also recommend some readings instead of saying "learn some..." it's not helpful its just you taking an opportunity to talk down to someone else.

helllll yeah

Nice

Good for you!

All forms of Anarchy turn into Feudalism the moment some men want more wealth and power than others and other men want a leader to follow. The fact that Napoleon Bonaparte and Genghis Khan still have metal statues publicly displayed is proof of this.

Jordan B. Peterson's Pet Communist Lobster some do. I’m in my 30s and still entirely undecided about my political views. Sometimes I hear new information that really blows my mind and I say, wow I need to look into this more (ie the history of capitalism from people like Yanis Varoufakis was largely unknown to me and raised some concerning persistent doubts about the efficiency and effectiveness of markets, not to mention neoliberal destruction of the community etc) Similarly, when I started listening to Sowell, Jason Riley, Glenn loury etc, it made me have serious questions about whether anti-discrimination policies are up to the tasks they’ve been set and whether or not discrimination is the primary force effecting marginalized groups/communities. If you’ve never encountered anarchist philosophy or any anti-state philosophy, it has amazing intuitive appeal and can really make you think about whether you agree or not. I take OPs comment as the sign of an open mind and...just hope it’s not so open the brain falls out. That said, Maybe I’m just a product of my privilege where my political views are more like fashion choices than like genuine ethical/personal commitments (at least that’s the imposter-syndrome I frequently experience)

Marx talks at length about household labour in Capital Vol. 1??

​@@fredfairley7724prolly talking about Capitalist Economics

males also perform a lot of household labor, especially in various societies

Especially in various societies 😂 not this one​ though @@kensurrency2564

Sry but that’s nonsense. Household labor has always been priced in as a cost of opportunity of the stay-at-home spouse into the spouse who was working for a salary’s salary or as a career opportunity for the latter to spend more time working.

words inform us. It's only direct action that can bring about a better world.

@Todesbewusstsein What's wrong with it? It's hilarious... and also sorta cute lol

I’m just seeing these replies now... I’m guessing that’s referring to my anarchist and communist interracial homosexual lovers? I love that pic, and so do you.

I don't think it's an issue of a lack of political evolution or anything like that. We keep returning to these old imbalances because some humans will always have an innate greed for resources and power. And since money will always corrupt people, any form of democracy or progressiveness can always be undermined and then destroyed by those with power and money. I guess what I'm saying is: the rich will always want to be in charge and they will always want more, more, more. That has an inevitable consequence - people with less money and power will always end up being subjegated by those with more. Even if we outlaw excessive wealth and corporate lobbying, someone in the future will always come along and find a way to change that law back. There is no way to permanently win this battle. We have to accept that we will always always have to fight and struggle just to maintain our current situation. The rich will always be trying to take more from us.

for hundreds or thousands of years humans were "communists" the _territorial hunter/ gatherers controlled together a certain area that they needed to make a living. (that only changed recently = 12,000 years ago with the invention of agriculture. Then slavery, private property, patriarchy and inheritance (and the virginity of the women) and war became a thing. Then they could have standing army / guards that also policed the peasants, and socities split up in the few that ruled and had a lot of wealth and power, and the many that had little, were serfs or slaves. And could be forced to work on the fields and forced to go to war. And if they dropped dead it did not matter anymore (very different in tribal societies where people know each other). Agriculture is more productive and the land can feed more people. that means that they could afford to have men that were only warriors (not hunters and maybe sometimes warriors). They reproduced a lot but they were not doing well, we see that in the skeletons, and the age when they died. The hunter / gatherers had almost our size, body height dropped once agriculture was introduced. People ate less meat, obviously there were a lot of problems with infectious diseases, as soon as many people lived in close proximity and there was more long distance trade. Most societies were territorial even before agriculture became a thing (primates usually are). Not the inuit though. And the Bushmen and the aborigines of Australia handled it amically resp. found a solution on faith based grounds. If every tribe has their ancestors tied to the land (also in form of landmarks) and needs them and revers them, it does not make sense to take the land of some other tribe or drive them off the land. That was in enviroments that were harsh, and reproduction numbers were stable AND the random stranger could be asked for help. The harsher the living conditions the higher the level of cooperation. (the inuit for instance had to give if they were asked by strangers in an ermergency. They did not have much personal possession to begin with (furs, food, a good sledge dog was valuable. That made sense, the giver may be alive because his grand gandparents survived a very rough time because of the culturally granted generositiy. And they did not get into quarrels over hunting grounds. If anything they cooperated if they met. Not time or resources for war and conflict.

@@TheStarBlack I guess that makes sense as long as you maintain that there is "us" and "the rich". My question is why do we continually accept that the rich are not us. I believe it's a human limitation. We haven't yet been able to stop tolerating the intolerant. For example, limiting those who insist on denying even basic material well being to a vast majority because they cannot tolerate being equal to anyone.

@@xyzsame4081 The fossil record provides a wealth of evidence for much of ancient humanity particularly pre literate groups but it often breaks down where social relations are concerned; particularly in our understanding of power relations. We don't know for certain if there were prehistoric conflicts over resources in pre European North America. Slave relations and the stratification of society is strong amongst groups based on the religious world view. This is universal and shows up in the pre historic West in mezoAmerica where there was a well established religious elite and even royalty (i.e. kings). A key element that consolidates this kind of power is fear. Fear of god, fear of priests, fear of kings, and fear of punishment for acting independently. This doesn't mean that in the North, first nations people didn't have a more equal society, but social egalitarianism is an exception, not a rule. But again power relations are not clear. If you know of any writing about the societies in the North I'd love to read them! Best regards.

@@TheStarBlack Ergo my comment on "how old and primitive our brains really are..."

Indeed. I guess the world just loves its bought-and-payed-for sexual dignity and just can't get enough of indentured servitude. And if someone points it out, it becomes a scandal that must be buried and ignored.

www.businessdictionary.com/definition/commoditization.html I think this commoditization of labor is the result of the interchangeability of the laborers. If you have scarcity of artisans, then artisan labor is differentiated and valuable. If you have laws protecting the rights of individual workers, then the workers are differentiated by their relative integrity as compared to each other and a hard worker is valuable. If the work is simple and employers can extract the same value from a conscientious worker as from someone who just shows up, then scarcity disappears and the workers become a commodity with no pricing power.

@@nicolasallen8072 It is also the result of how little we value he products we consume, which, in turn, is the result of the loss of memory/experience of the high quality goods' appearance, beauty, functionality, and durability. The latter is not valued at all. Ex: textiles, furniture, construction materials, even art. We are surrounded by crap.

I hope it brings you some solace to know that I saw David give a lecture in Hollywood on his book Bullshit Jobs, and it was a packed house. I stood in line for 30 minutes to get my copy signed by him.

Start your own courses. University is already poisoned enough by wokeism

"Don't teach us about maths, we want to learn about the patriarchy" "This is a wendy's"

@@carbon1255 this is NOT a wendy's tho. this is the humanities department of a university. where else are we supposed to learn about the patriarchy?

It's being promoted. This is about the third time. Until he discusses what Dάνος/the ωεf does to the world and similar groups, it will always be a shallow analysis.

It strikes me as eminently ludicrous that people who are living in the freest of all societies in all of mankind's half a million year history are complaining that they are being subjugated. Can you fools even hear yourselves whining all the time?

@@lepidoptera9337 How do you define freedom? And is absolute freedom good?

@@lepidoptera9337 cry

@@lepidoptera9337 I can't hear my whining over the sound of the wind whistling through the chasm inbetween your ears

@@lepidoptera9337 it's both funny and sad that you claim that people living in the immensely hierarchical societies defined by liberal "democracy" (and thus capitalism) are the freest ever. It shows both your lack of knowledge of anthropology and a very Western-centric view of human history. Humans have lived, and some small communities still do, in (libertarian) communist societies, which are much more free than any capitalist system can ever be. Economic freedom and democracy are very important, something that capitalism doesn't really offer. Educate yourself.

" How Can You Tell Your Peasants Not Working Hard Enough ?." " He's Still Breathing "

The rich could not exist without the poor. That is a simple fact.

@@TheStarBlack The rich can't exist without money. Money is a tool.

@@Crabbadabba money isnt everything, but everything needs money.

@@Crabbadabba They could be rich if they control the resources, which is what money is, an information tool that tracks the flow of resource wealth.

I agree there

I would just differentiate that slavery is more defined by the control prohibiting a person from using their agency to just leave and go to another area/situation of their own free will.

​@@genossinwaabooz4373 by today's standards it's classified as sexual slavery

​@@genossinwaabooz4373and or human trafficking

lol

😂😂 it's Dufresne though.

GME? Can someone elaborate?

@@poonamsvideoblogs they’re referring to the time in early 2021 that the internet pumped up a failing stock to an insane value. People like to talk about it as if it was some revolution of democratized stock trading but in reality only a handful of people got rich and big hedge funds never lost any power

what's a service economy?

@KLJF nah I think greed is the problem. Capitalists can never have enough money. They will take from everyone around them for as long as they can get away with it.

Perhaps we could all become lollipop men and women - you don't start work till you are 65 !

wage-slavery is a misuse of the word slavery. Under socialism however you have real slavery where you are forced to work under the threat of violence.

It shouldn't really be a conversation in my opinion, and I assume yours. The simple answer is, nothing should be a commodity. It's insane and incredibly sad how impossibly difficult it is to think of a society beyond capitalism, where there are no commodities barred by some level of monetary prosperity.

Either David Graeber owns a beet farm or you have been watching a lot of office clips to bury the isolation you feel during the long hours of the pandemic.

I don't know if what he's reading from was published, but he's put out multiple full books ("Debt: the First 5000 Years" and "Bullshit Jobs" being probably the most well-known)