David Graeber Interview - Charlie Rose (On Debt, Occupy, Democracy, and Capitalism)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 20 гру 2021
- Anthropologist and activist David Graeber interviewed by Charlie Rose. This is Graeber's 2nd interview with Rose. I had to dig to find this so I reuploaded it, hoping to make it easier for everyone to find. Cheers.
Which year is this from?
I believe late 2011/early 2012 since his book Debt had released in 2011 and Occupy was underway in late 2011 as well.
@@TheBardPlays Thanks for clearing that out!
sheep@@MereAYT
18:25
Graeber: "There is not enough metal in the crust of the Earth for everyone in China to have a car."
Rose: "Then use plastic."
Graeber: "That is still a petroleum product."
Such a poignant flaw in large-scale consumer capitalism.
Prof. Graeber is definitely missed. He continues to inspire even without being with us.
David- “Generally speaking when math and violence come together bad things ensue.”
Definitely a founding father of whatever comes next if there is a next.
I like sitting here retired in Cambodia with my bicycle and watching people like Dave Graeber. There is probably enough metal in the Earth for everyone to have a bicycle. Let's invest in bicycles.
There's definitely enough carbon
Anarcho-cyclism
Thanks for posting. Hadnt seen this.
Thank you for this upload - absolutely LOVE listening to Graeber's perspective
Thanks for sharing this, I hope more people get turned onto these ideas.
love graeber
a lot of respect for Charlie Rose having him on even if he's not always getting it haha
Charlie Rose is the epitome of mediocrity. This was a terrible interview---but not because of Dave.
Thank you for posting this.
Thanks for digging this up!
This has turned out to be quite prescient.
What an amazing man. he is missed. Who has taken up the torch from him, Chomsky are there no lions out there ?
Very different but since David's passing I've found a lot of inspiration from Charles Eisenstein!
Chapo Trap House
This is awesome, thank you for uploading this.
it's crazy that charlie rose is such a well-regarded interviewer. he looks like he's barely listening here. same in the other graeber interview from 2006
That’s his way of discrediting people. Tired old trick
“The question is, why did they have to start with that if they don’t really believe it? *giggle*” beautiful.
17:45 they obviously had to cut there (18:00)
wow
Thanks for the reupload. Would be great to add the actual date of the interview in the description.
Apologies, I pulled this off of another site, so I'm not too sure. I mention in another comment this interview likely happened around late 2011 or early 2012.
Charlie missing the point hard with the not enough resources understanding, sadly I am not sure if it was intentional.
Was this recorded in 2011 ? Seems he's wearing a Red Square, the symbol of Student strikers in Quebec...
Interesting cut @18:00 ...
wow
Democratic decisions are made in individual consensus, ("it'll never work""), unless and until individuals are willing to learn, (built in), and willing to teach, with mutual respect, as often happens. More, and continuous, research is required, that is how the sausages are made.
Graeber was right about green capitalism. It just took a bit longer than he predicted.
18:50 green capitalism didn't happen at the time, but they did eventually do it
How many times did Charlie Rose interrupt David or ask a stupid question? 15, 20?
I love that thumbnail haha
When did this first air?
2011 to 2012 ish, according to the guy that uploaded the video, he said that in a different comment thread.
* after being asked loaded questions about "democracy" and "anarchism" *
"Charlie... can I call you 'Charlie'? You don't seem to know what any of these terms mean. Have you considered that maybe capitalists like that you're so ignorant?"
south europe? where?
Peaceful anarchy seems like it might work.
Peaceful Anarchy is a redundant phrase.. Anarchy means no rulers. Nothing more and nothing less. It is inherently peaceful.
Charlie Rose demonstrating that deliberative democracy doesn't work because there is always someone who doesn't stfu and let the other person answer a question
Charlie Rose is insufferable with his constant interruptions and immediately trying to knock down Dave's researched argument that the US is a kleptocracy. Rose is such a corporate tool. This is unwatchable.
Although he had the stereotypical perspectives on both the definition of American democracy, what a "free society" is in a world of an anarchic international system, the concept of lobbying, capitalism and democracy, and the founding documents with its relations toward democracy, but it still doesn't degrade his work within the field of anthropology or sociology.
Charlie rose is so annoying and he’s always interrupting people.
Graeber is basically lying here. He knows why debt has the moral force it does. Not paying a debt means living off the labor others without their consent.
That’s not true. Medical debt is incurred not because of the price of medical care is tied to a market force but instead because some account can just charge an arbitrary price.
If you listen to his talk at Google, it is clear he both understands and agrees with your point. However, Graeber suggests that debt isn't quite so simple and straightforward in all cases. That it is has never been that simple. Indeed he speaks approvingly of punishment of the person who is essentially living off another's labor by shirking his debts. Obviously if a person fails to repay then that person doesn't get more loans... if the rule was it is totally OK to never repay then it follows no one lends $$...
That's a made up narrativ to get people in believing in the concept of debt. To be a quiet servant of your master, not think about a different way of how to organize society.
"Graeber is lying" really marks this comment out as from a thoughtful, balanced and judicious interlocutor with deep respect for his counterpart.
I might contract a debt that I agree to pay back by marrying the lender's daughter. If the contract clause says, "agrees to marry the bearer's daughter", then if that lender sells the debt, as he is entitled to do, I find myself bound to marry someone I know nothing of. The resulting morality of demand to pay by the debt-purchaser bears no resemblance to the morality of the original debt I incurred.
The premise under capitalism of a transferrable promise is that the ethical dimension, such as in the IMF example of debt forgiveness, is legalistically isolated from the general morality of human existence. If you prioritize that kind of brutality, then you not only lose your humanity, but deny others theirs. A debt for the lender is a risk calculation: it should be expected to be sometimes go sour, particularly under the influence of time. Capitalism is, by definition, living off the labour of others without their giving meaningful consent. Bad debts are something different altogether: they are costed into the background profits of exploitation.
The morality of repayment, which is generally controlled by the indebted, who can demand repayment and bring legal suit (where the debtor cannot) is not constant, but contingent.
Living off the labor of others seems to describe the owner class.