David Graeber? James C. Scott?

Regarding "Seeing like a state" is an excellent read, highly recommended, even more so than "the art of not being governed". The same goes for "weapons of the weak", which I now realize could be an even better read if you combine it with some like the texts of groups like [url= ( http://libcom.org/library/proletarian-management-informal-workplace-organization-k%C3%A4mpa-tillsammans ]texts by groups like Kämpa tillsammans![/url] - it's always exciting to read a good book about peasant resistance in Southeastern Asia which one really feels is stuffed with ideas & strategies you can profitably bring home (or rather to work!) in it

I don't really like the Graeber stuff I've read (I've not read the book on debt though). He seems to take an a-historic approach to a lot of stuff and so on. But he is certainly a 'legit anarchist' in the sense of being anti-state and meaning it. But he's a shit communist, though from what I've read of him he tries to be communist. I got the impression he's a 'liberal communist'*, though this was a while back, so I don't want to claim my conclusions are anywhere near decisive.

*as in, to simplify, he thought various types of economic interaction existed in all societies and we should try and maximise the communist types of interaction (out of conscious social choice) and minimise the exchange and exploitation types of interaction. All seemed like bollocks to me, but maybe I'm way off.

His Anthropological Theory of Value is pretty good (as well as a few other anthro articles), though that's for its academic value. He is actually a well respected anthropologist. His Elements of An Anarchist Anthropology was meh, however. Like RedEd, the impression I've got of him (mainly through interviews) is that he's basically a liberal with radical overtones.

I think other than quite a few interviews this is mainly what I'm basing my impressions on, so if you think he's done better stuff (which I've not read) people should probably not take too much notice of my quite critical opinion and pay attention to your more balanced one instead. (having said that, I still don't think I'll be coming back for any more )

I agree with RedEd about Graeber to an extent. There is a degree of reification and idealism in his work that is highly liberal. Then again the Debt book, which I have read in full, is really brilliant; one of the best books I have read in a while. It is a very well researched and historical account of the development of the money form. As well as other forms such as capital and slavery. I think he is worth reading as long as you've got your libcom hat on and take what is useful. I even helped set up an author page for him on this libcom.org. He has some useful stuff to say, but also a lot that is worth critiquing. The value form book I have read bits of too and he actually has some useful material on the theory of praxis as well.

Probably not as I believe I was exaggerating a bit in hindsight and haven't read one of his books in a while.

He came up with the 99% concept.

I thought that was AdBusters?

Nope, he is to blame for it.

No he says he is to blame but it is [url=http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/david-graeber-on-playing-by-the-rules-–-the-strange-success-of-occupy-wall-street.html] generally credited[/url] to "David DeGraw of Amped Status". Personally, I don't have a major problem with the 99% thing.

99% necessarily includes cops, landlords, bosses; it is a cross-class category. That's the major problem.

I'm not sure what to make of Graeber. I've not read much of his work but geographic coincidence led to me and him crossing paths quite a lot over the last few years.

He seems like a bit of a fickle type, tbh. I've heard him depict organised, class struggle anarchism as "the other side of anarchism to us" (yet he's in the IWW?), as well as being very critical and patronising towards the work we were doing (not that it was perfect but hey). Another time he likened maintaining a physical, direct university occupation (ie shutting down a university library) to terrorism, but I suppose that's pretty consistent with the #Occupy stuff.

That said, I've heard good things about his literature.

James Scott is cool but has kinda fallen out of favour in anthropology and Latin American studies a bit over recent years as various people critique 'weapons of the weak' as fetishising covert unorganised resistance in the face of loads of tangible, organised resistance movements - I don't think he was wrong but obviously loads of shit has happened since he wrote that book, so a focus on covert/unorganised resistance might not be so relevant now. And for me his focus on covert resistance is really interesting because it shows how widespread tiny acts of sabotage and resistance are - even if they may end up being counter productive, it's still kinda hopeful to think about how common, if not articulated or expressed very well, resistance to capitalist domination really is. Reminds you that most people will rebel given the chance maybe.

I don't know huge amounts about Graeber and was maybe put off by his earlier crimethincyness but so many people are in love with his book on debt, both within the anthropology academy and 'the left' in general I'm gonna have to give it a read.

I like Graeber's work. This is a good article:
"The New Anarchists"
http://newleftreview.org/A2368

Trying to reduce the pile of books next to my bed I found this in a 2 year old issue of Mute magazine:

http://www.metamute.org/en/content/debt_the_first_five_thousand_years

I'm guessing that it's effectively a short version of Graeber's book on debt.

Graeber was apparently involved in setting up the decision making procedure used by the General Assemblies in Occupy Wall Street. I have a hard copy of issue #3 of the Occupied Wall Street Journal dated Oct. 22, in which there is a short article by him entitled "Enacting the Impossible: On Consensus Decision making". I don't know if it is online anywhere. Here is the opening paragraph of that article:

I think, he was also fired from any Ivy league university for giving support to a student who went out on strike.

Yeah he was kicked out of his last post prior to being at Goldsmiths.

That article from mute is also here and of course there's the David Graeber tag

I was in a couple of his courses while I was doing my M.A. and heavily based my undergrad dissertation on his work on value. I think most of whats been written about him here is decent. He's not your standard "libcom" type, but that doesnt mean he is devoid of decent ideas.

If I recall rightly from one of my conversations with him his farther was involved in the IB's so I dont think he's ignorant of anarcho communism as it is, just that I think he is much more on the american "liberal" side of that. Theres various reasons as to that I'm sure but he's not hostile to libertarian communism.

A bit like James Scott I think think that he has some very good theortical insights. Seeing like a State is a great book for anyone interested in that kind of thing, I love it but I do wonder of its actual value in terms of real political action, but then maybe thats the challenge.

"Occupy and anarchism's gift of democracy" - Graeber's CiF piece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/nov/15/occupy-anarchism-gift-democracy?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038

lol, he'll probably post here soon, you know he googles his name regularly, right?

Has anyone read the Debt book yet?

Nope, I want to though. I've heard nothing but good things about that book.

If you want to hear a bad thing the introduction talks about how great the anti-globalisation movement was. I've also heard a lot of very good things about the book and have got a copy but haven't got round to reading it properly yet.

While I've not got a very high opinion of Graeber's politics, he does a good job of radicalising students and I was impressed to see him on a picket line early in the morning on J30 supporting workers on strike when he wasn't out officially himself.

I got half way through 'Debt' and got distracted by other commitments. I'm not well versed in anthropology but it's so far much better than the other stuff of his that i've read (the online chapter from the 'Theory of value' book, and 'Fragments'). Historically it's very interesting and a useful counterpart to the fairy tales of economics (which are partly reproduced in Marx via his immanent critique). I think in a sense any communist perspective needs to be anthropological (i.e. concerned with human relations) as opposed to simply economic or political. For example, if we want to get rid of the commodity form, looking at various gift-based societies is informative (though not a source of blueprints). So I want to finish the book, and get stuck into more anthropological stuff after. That said, from what i've read elsewhere i suspect the conclusion is basically going to be a sort of rewarmed Jubilee 2000.

I remember reading 'Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology' and liking it. Although it was back in mid 2008 when I first started identifying as an anarchist. I guess I saw it in the vein of Kropotkin, trying to combat some of the basic assumptions of people that say a horizontal society is impossible.

I think his politics are mixed, but I think we also have an automatic expectation of people in the public eye or writers or whatever to have perfect politics. I think he's reflective of a lot of people who identify as anarchists and he has some of the baggage (consensus, revolution as a decision making process, counter-institutions, etc) but some of the strengths, such as pushing some of his work towards aiding what he see as the movement.

From everything I've heard, Graeber is a principled activist and professor, and even lost his job over principles.

I am enjoying the Debt book. Mainly because a) it really debunks the notion of barter as being the origin point of money b) I am learning lots about Indian and Chinese history. Not sure about its bigger theoretical claims
cheers
Dave

"Another time he likened maintaining a physical, direct university occupation (ie shutting down a university library) to terrorism, but I suppose that's pretty consistent with the #Occupy stuff..."

oh for God's sake - how does this shit get circulated?

what happened was we were already occupying the library and someone proposed that in order to further pressure the administration we should go on to prevent students from using library facilities. I said that pressuring the authorities by acting against innocent third parties is the logic of terrorism - which is the logic that the authorities themselves were using against us (threatening to fine the Student Union, which had nothing to do with the occupation, if we continued) - so I proposed that an approach more in the spirit of direct action would be to occupy the administration building itself, and stop _them_ from working, not students,.

So I was proposing a more radical course of action, not a lesser one.

Okay?