
David Graeber has died - frabbit
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/sep/03/david-graeber-anthropologist-and-author-of-bullshit-jobs-dies-aged-59
======
samizdis
This is a real blow. I've been reading his stuff for years. Here's a link [1]
to his stuff in The Baffler from 2012 to 2016, but there's much more available
- I've .pdfs of his writings that I saved from many sources. I'll update this
later if I can find the original, live links.

[1} [https://thebaffler.com/authors/david-
graeber](https://thebaffler.com/authors/david-graeber)

Edited to add: Actually, Wikipedia has a pretty good linked list of his
articles, and a quick title check with mine _seems_ to suggest that it is
comprehensive.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber#Articles](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Graeber#Articles)

Further edited to add: A short (180-page) book by Graeber, _The Utopia of
Rules_ , is a lovely example of his thoughtful writing style. It's nicely
summed up in Wikipedia [1].

It is available to buy from many good book stores, and it is also at Amazon.
However, you can download it as a .pdf here [2].

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Utopia_of_Rules](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Utopia_of_Rules)

[2] [https://b-ok.cc/dl/2643480/a4be9e](https://b-ok.cc/dl/2643480/a4be9e)

@dang - please delete this comment if it breaks any HN rules.

------
input_sh
Really saddened to hear this.

I've only recently started digging into his work and I can only imagine how
it'll impact my worldview for years to come.

For those unfamiliar with his work, here are some essays I recommend as a
start:

1\. On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs: [https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-
jobs/](https://www.strike.coop/bullshit-jobs/)

2\. What's the Point If We Can't Have Fun?
[https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-
hav...](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-hav..).

3\. How to change the course of human history (at least, the part that’s
already happened) [https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-
history/](https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/)

~~~
marmaduke
buy and read Debt: the first 5000 years. It is an eye opening perspective on
world history.

His Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is also one I always wished to read
a follow up on.

~~~
TheTrotters
But also be sure to read critiques of Debt written by economists.

Here’s one by Noah Smith: [http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-
review-debt-...](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-
first-5000-years.html?m=1)

~~~
specialist
From that reply:

 _" While markets are one thing, capitalism is quite another, though, as it's
marked by the power imbalances of wage labor, something not found in all
previous incidences of commerce..."_

Upvote for dissembling markets from capitalism.

But I really wish the peanut gallery would also separate corporatism from
capitalism.

There's nothing about capitalism (dogma, theory, practice) which prohibits the
surplus (profit) from being shared with labor.

~~~
aabhay
That’s like saying there’s nothing inherently about dictatorships that makes
them oppressive. While yes you can invent a hypothetical situation where the
capitalists give all their money to workers, the overwhelming empirical
history is that capitalists don’t share their profit with laborers.

~~~
gnusty_gnurc
It's just that living conditions and average wealth has skyrocketed over the
past couple hundred years.

Deirdre McCloskey refers to it as the Great Enrichment:

> The rise in the liberal nations has been a stunning 3,000 percent at the
> least—or if one allows properly for improvements in quality, such as better
> medicine and better housing (and for that matter, better economics), more
> like 10,000 percent. A factor of 100. Goodness.

[https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-
enrichment](https://www.mercatus.org/bridge/commentary/great-enrichment)

~~~
jessaustin
I also enjoy cherry-picking. Here's a different time period to consider:

[https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/](https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/)

~~~
creddit
A couple hundred years isn’t exactly cherry-picking wrt capitalism...

------
atdrummond
David saved my academic career, if not my life. When I faced expulsion from
the LSE, having already left the University of Chicago due to the health
issues, he wrote a compelling letter on my behalf when there was no reason for
him to do so. I wasn’t even in his department.

Although he and I disagreed about a number of things, I will forever
appreciate him sticking his neck out for me when there was little evidence to
suggest it was worth doing.

Thanks David.

~~~
just_testing
Glad you shared this anecdote. I've only had contact with him online and it's
good to see he was such a great person IRL.

------
heydenberk
I had some interesting interactions with him (and former deput asst secretary
of treasury DeLong) on this site.
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163449](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17163449)

He certainly got the better of that interaction and he was patient enough to
continue the conversation on Twitter later. He was one of those intellectuals
(like Noam Chomsky) who is accessible and engaging with members of the public.
I wouldn't say I knew him, exactly, but we became internet acquaintances, and
I appreciated his thoughtfulness whenever we interacted. I can only imagine
how many other people had such opportunities to talk to him and will miss him
like I will.

~~~
fergie
Wow- what an odd exchange. So eye opening to see senior academics from
repected institutions carrying on like that.

~~~
mleonhard
People in all parts of society get health problems, including mental health
problems. I hope the person can recover soon.

------
jimnotgym
I came across him in a radio series he did about the debt book. 20 minutes
later I was questioning everything I learned as an accountant about money and
debt. Everything he said was calm and reasoned. I was awestruck. RIP. Far too
young

~~~
mempko
Any links to the radio series?

~~~
DanBC
Possibly this?
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b054zdp6)

------
sbuccini
dang pointed out that Graeber has posted some pretty interesting comments on
this site[0], which unfortunately I cannot find right now.

I had heard of, but not read, Bullshit Jobs so his HN comments was my first
exposure to him. Honestly, I just remember being impressed by his willingness
to engage. I'm sure it was painful and exhausting for him, especially his
repeated skirmishes with DeLong, but so many authors shy away from challenges
to their work so it was refreshing to see someone come into the proletarian
trenches that are HN comments and do battle.

[0]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17904616](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17904616)

~~~
huac
his username was davidgraeber. I really enjoyed reading Debt and it is really
a unique and useful perspective. RIP, he will truly be missed.

~~~
nickff
Direct link for the curious:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber)

~~~
MrsPeaches
Wow, this exchange between him and Brad DeLong is utterly bizzare.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707)

------
autosharp
Five days ago he was feeling "a little under the weather":
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrVKRhr1TA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsrVKRhr1TA)

Looking forward to that last book he just finished.

~~~
mcprwklzpq
I thought maybe he finished the book on origins of inequality with David
Wengrow. But he said it is a book about kings. He published the book "On
Kings" in 2017, it is in open access [1]. I assume he talked about another
book about kings.

David Graber wrote in his bio: «I am currently working with the archaeologist
David Wengrow on a whole series of works completely re-imagining the whole
question of “the origins of social inequality,” starting with the way the
question is framed to begin with.» [7]

With David Wengrow he published an article "Farewell to the ‘childhood of
man’: ritual, seasonality, and the origins of inequality" in 2015. [2] They
did a talk presenting the article. [3] They published an article "How to
change the course of human history (at least, the part that’s already
happened)" in 2018. [4] And "Are we city dwellers or hunter-gatherers?" in
2019. [5] They talked about their work again in 2019. [6]

I wonder if they planned to do more. It seemed as something of an even bigger
scale than the Debt if turned into a book. But maybe it always was going to be
a series of articles.

1 [pdf] - [https://haubooks.org/on-kings/](https://haubooks.org/on-kings/)

2 [pdf] - [http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62756/](http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62756/)

3 [video] - [https://vimeo.com/145285143](https://vimeo.com/145285143)

4 - [https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-
history/](https://www.eurozine.com/change-course-human-history/)

5 - [https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-
dweller...](https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5409/are-we-city-dwellers-or-
hunter-gatherers)

6 [video] -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvUzdJSK4x8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EvUzdJSK4x8)

7 -
[https://davidgraeber.industries/contact](https://davidgraeber.industries/contact)

Edit: It was going to be a book. In his 2018 cv Graber writes: «As Co-Author
or Co-Editor in Preparation Beyond Inequality, or The Dawn of Everything, or
maybe something else. Monograph currently in preparation with David Wengrow
(Institute of Archaeology, University College London): a radical rethinking of
existing narratives of the origin of social inequality from 40,000 CE to the
present. As currently imagined, this is most likely to be the first volume of
a subsequent trilogy that will easily outsell the Lord of the Rings.» [8]

8 [pdf] - [https://davidgraeber.industries/s/DG-
spring_summer-2017_18-C...](https://davidgraeber.industries/s/DG-
spring_summer-2017_18-CV-PUBLISH.pdf)

~~~
crotho
He was talking about the children's book version "What are Kings?" by Nika
Dubrovsky and David Graeber
[https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32177115](https://www.patreon.com/user?u=32177115)

------
k1m
As this is published in the Guardian, it's fair to point out that David
Graeber was very much outspoken against the Guardian in the last couple of
years and refused to write for them again.

> as for the Guardian, we will never forget that during the "Labour
> #antisemitism controversy", they beat even the Daily Mail to include the
> largest percentage of false statements, pretty much every one, mysteriously,
> an accidental error to Labour's disadvantage -
> [https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912](https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1210322505229094912)

> these venues only allow people like me on to legitimate themselves; i.e.,
> the Guardian would systematically refuse to allow me to say anything about
> the Corbyn antisemitism charges, but simultaneously beg me to write about
> trivial matters like Black Friday. I finally was forced to face up to the
> reality: they wanted the name of prominent intellectual lefties associated
> with them so their systematic attacks on the political left would be taken
> more seriously. We were being used. -
> [https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1256291019542401024](https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1256291019542401024)

> oh I'm definitely not writing for the Guardian again -
> [https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1214619782991040512](https://twitter.com/davidgraeber/status/1214619782991040512)

~~~
dang
And what a classic "journalistic" cheap shot they're taking at him with that
photo
([https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9e901f036a105724595e106ace3d6...](https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/9e901f036a105724595e106ace3d67e5bf65e525/0_1233_3123_1873/master/3123.jpg?width=605&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=3c819c1017308ddbadfb349c488fd927)).
I was going to ask if anyone could suggest a better article, but the text
itself is quite good. No doubt the photo was chosen by someone other than the
author.

A pity to lose him. Graeber was unusually fresh, with a talent for provoking
interesting discussion, whether one agreed or not. He also got into flamewars
on Hacker News:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber](https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=davidgraeber).

~~~
KineticLensman
The photographer was Frantzesco Kangaris. His portfolio [0] has several posed
portraits of famous people that might be considered less than flattering but
which were clearly posed with their agreement. Kangaris has produced work for
news sources across the political spectrum including The Telegraph
(diametrically opposite from the Guardian).

It's certainly possible that the author didn't choose it but it is possible
that Graeber himself didn't object.

[Edit - totally agree about the sadness of his loss]

[0] [http://www.fkphoto.co.uk/](http://www.fkphoto.co.uk/)

~~~
fkangaris
I am the photographer who shot his portrait. Sorry to hear he has passed. He
was a lovely and friendly man as far as I recall from the few mins I had with
him many years ago. He was very keen to pull some “quirky” expressions, his
own choice. Other more “flattering” ones were also taken and provided to The
Guardian. There’s no stitch-up intended here and it’s a shame that’s what’s
being interpreted from his expression.

~~~
KineticLensman
Great reply, thanks. I personally really liked this portrait and wanted to
suggest to other commentators that it was intentionally quirky and not a
stitch-up

------
mxwsn
A tremendous loss. I would highly recommend Debt: The First 5000 Years to
anyone here.

~~~
TheTrotters
Here’s a good critique of Debt by Noah Smith:
[http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-
debt-...](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2014/11/book-review-debt-
first-5000-years.html?m=1)

~~~
yarrel
You've provided the wrong link. That's a link to a bad critique of Debt by
Noah Smith. Can you edit your comment to point to the good one?

~~~
LudwigNagasena
I don’t like Noah but I agree with his point that Graeber’s book, which is
named Debt, is actually not about debt and doesn’t explain debt much and even
misrepresents modern economics. It is just a topic that lets Graeber go on
tangents and moralize.

~~~
tacheiordache
Modern economics is twisted in such ways that Graeber attempts to demistify
it. Honestly, have you read the book?

~~~
LudwigNagasena
Economics is a complicated topic (though I wouldn’t use the word “twisted”)
that consists of many things and people get a PhD to specialize and understand
a small part of it (some type of macro, micro, labor, industrial organization,
econometrics, etc).

Making factual errors that economic historians have to point out doesn’t help
to demistify it, unfortunately.

I also wouldn’t expect someone who probably wouldn’t be able to pass the
Ideological Turing Test to “demistify” the opposite view. Graeber didn’t know
much modern economics and can’t adequately engage with the economic
literature, he made foolish claims like “ economists still teach their
students that the primary economic role of government—many would insist, its
only really proper economic role—is to guarantee price stability.”

I am not saying there is nothing to criticize in economics, but to criticize
something you need to understand it, so naturally some of the best criticisms
of economics come from economists and adjacent professions, and that’s how the
field keeps changing and developing. Just like any other academic discipline.

~~~
pydry
>Making factual errors that economic historians have to point out doesn’t help
to demistify it, unfortunately.

That's exactly what he was doing. The fallacious story he debunks about money
appearing naturally via barter was one I first read in an economics textbook
(Mankiw I think).

~~~
LudwigNagasena
I ctrl+f'ed "barter" in Mankiw's Principles of Economics and couldn't find any
topic on the origin of money. I think the modern theory on the origin of money
economists generally support is a tad more complicated than a strawman Graeber
builds and destroys in his book.

~~~
pydry
It's usually an offhand story used to introduce the concept of money that
economics textbooks don't spend a lot of time on. It is mentioned in Mankiw
(mentioned under "double coincidence of wants"), but again, not as a core of
its analytical framework, but rather as a "just so" introduction to the topic.
I don't think it was even cited.

Modern economists really don't tend to spend a lot of time on historical
analysis. That includes the default theory on the origin of money. This is a
point that this example was supposed to illustrate. It is far from the only
one but it has the benefit of being fairly clear cut.

They do tend to spend their time on polemics (driven by the way politics has
driven the profession and the monetary incentives therein) or building
elaborate mathematical models instead (driven by what i'd call 'hard science
envy').

It wouldn't be the only academic profession to have intellectual blind spots,
of course, and Graeber wouldn't be the first person to point out this one.
Niall Ferguson, a more right-leaning historian/economist, has also made this
point.

~~~
LudwigNagasena
No, you are wrong, it is not mentioned in Mankiw. You are also wrong that
modern economists don’t spend time on historical analysis, as there is a whole
discipline devoted to it and it is DeLong, the professor of economic history,
who spent a lot of time arguing against Graeber.

------
tosser0001
This was the first thing I had ever read by him about the time of the Yale
controversy.

Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology (2004):

[http://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf](http://abahlali.org/files/Graeber.pdf)

It struck me as some really original thinking

------
Mizza
Devastating news.

I just spoke about his work (and what to do about it) during my recent keynote
at PyConJP, I was just about to send him the video of it, now I can't. A
horrible feeling.

I met David after a reading one time, a very kind and intelligent man.
(Weirdly enough, Peter Theil was also there. He is a lizard creature). If he
was an asshole at times, he was an asshole in the good kind of way. The world
lost a gem today.

~~~
tome
> Weirdly enough, Peter Theil was also there. He is a lizard creature.

That sounds strange. What do you mean?

~~~
Ar-Curunir
I’m not the OP, but pretty sure the implication is that Peter thiel is a
terrible person

------
ideals
"Bullshit Jobs" had a profound change on my outlook in the tech industry.
Perhaps it was because I was on the heels of leaving Amazon at the time I read
it, but it changed my mindset on what I should be working towards in life.

Sad day

~~~
totablebanjo
What are you working towards now? How did your outlook change?

------
ashtonkem
That’s a real shame. “Bullshit Jobs: A Theory” really affected my world view,
we lost him too soon.

~~~
rsync
I enjoyed immensely _Debt_ ... has anyone read both and can compare and
contrast the quality and depth of the two ?

I don't have a lot of room in my reading list, currently, but if _Bullshit
Jobs_ is comparable in quality, I could move it into the queue ...

~~~
Aeolos
Bullshit jobs is a bit more light-hearted and not as deeply researched as
Debt. It is based mainly on observations from hundred of replies to his
original article on bullshit jobs.

I found both books insightful and enjoyable to read and would highly recommend
them to anyone.

~~~
ashtonkem
I don’t think I finished reading Debt; it was both less light hearted as you
said, and I don’t think I had anywhere near the economical, historical, or
anthropological background to understand completely.

------
rektide
World lost another real one. Such a real view of the bigger picture, such a
student of humankind.

Pour one out.

~~~
rhizome31
Yes, about one month after Bernard Stiegler passed away, this is a sad
succession of losses.

------
eruleman
"What is a debt, anyway? A debt is just the perversion of a promise. It is a
promise corrupted by both math and violence..." \- David Graeber

------
marricks
This article of his I found particularly profound:
[https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-
hav...](https://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun)

> Why do animals play? Well, why shouldn’t they? The real question is: Why
> does the existence of action carried out for the sheer pleasure of acting,
> the exertion of powers for the sheer pleasure of exerting them, strike us as
> mysterious? What does it tell us about ourselves that we instinctively
> assume that it is?

For anyone who was influenced by Dawkins in high school it's a breath of fresh
air, our world doesn't have to be bound to dogmatic religion or even dogmatic
selfishness.

~~~
bonoboTP
I suggest re-reading The Selfish Gene and not getting caught up too much at
the title, but actually paying attention to the content (as a high schooler it
may not be easy to grok, especially if your school taught evolution wrong,
even teachers often don't understand it). Dawkins never says people are always
selfish by necessity. He says genes (not individual organisms) propagate _as
if_ they were selfish, but this is just a metaphor, if the metaphor disturbs
you you can ignore it, the actual content of the evolutionary reasoning does
not require using words like selfish.

Also, that quote on playing just dodges the question. Why is what we call
"play" so pleasurable to animals? "Because they enjoy it" is not an answer.
Why don't animals do other things for pleasure? And there are very good
evolutionary arguments, but that's not the point now.

~~~
naravara
He covers all that in the article.

------
say_it_as_it_is
I had no idea how common slavery was used by patriarchs to settle debts until
I read "Debt: The First 5000 Years". Graeber's death is tragic.

~~~
thundergolfer
That stuff went off like a depth-charge in my brain. The idea that it would
only become possible for humans to be treated as property once they were
wrenched from their community and severed from their social context is
profound. Amazing, amazing book.

------
erikig
What a loss, I just finished reading Debt this week and even though I don't
completely agree with his conclusions I enjoyed the way he came to them.

He also had one of the best laughs I've heard.

He will be missed.

------
ricksunny
I also really enjoyed Debt: The first 5k years. The critiques outlined here
are interesting and I would like to understand them better. Whatever validity
those critiques might have, I feel ‘Debt’ adds much more to our understanding
of debt in historical economies than it obfuscates even if the critiques were
valid.

------
cbHXBY1D
Horrible. His writing affected me in so many ways and was a gateway to leftist
theory/thought.

------
thazework
A good talk by him about his book Debt: The First 5,000 Years

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZIINXhGDcs)

(avoid if OCD..)

------
fallingfrog
A terrible tragedy, he died so young, with so many books left unwritten.

------
NiceWayToDoIT
RIP. I had a luck to meet him in person and have a chat. Work in area of
economy, future of job ... I would recommend "Debt: The First 5000 Years"

------
guerrilla
I talked to David quite a few times online and always noticed how he somehow
managed to remain a real person if you know what I mean. A lot of people just
can't do that even starting at the smallest bit of fame, yet he did even when
being mobbed. Can't believe he's gone now. Really sad.

------
jahaja
So damn sad. Such an inspiration as a fellow anarchist (in the sense he meant
by it). Rest in peace my friend.

------
missedthecue
Surprised how many people here loved his books. I only read debt and BS jobs,
but found them to be shallow and poorly thought through, reading almost like
the ramblings of a stoned undergraduate philosophy student. Moreover, I
noticed that they were particularly full of motivated reasoning.

------
djsumdog
"Debt: The First 5,000 Years" is still my favorite non-fiction book. It shows
readers a really unique perspective on the history of debt, money and slavery.
Graeber was an incredible author. May he rest in peace.

------
einpoklum
May he live long in our memory. An inspirational and profound writer - of
whose work I have only tasted little so far, but enough to be very impressed.

------
stackzero
RIP. His book "Debt: The first 5000 years" really impacted my thinking about
how our economy works and how I might help it in the future.

------
uvesten
What an odd coincidence, I just started reading ”Bullshit Jobs” today :/

------
banmeagaindan2
Pity, a worthy opposition for sparring. I wish the debate with Peter Thiel had
worked out better - I think they were hamstrung by the format and something
like the Uncommon Knowledge conversational style would have bought the best
out.

------
DINKDINK
Graeber's writing offers many thought provoking left anarchist perspective
that's sorely missing in public debate.

I thoroughly enjoyed "Debt"'s perspective on social-economic collaboration,
money, credit, debt, and contract arbitration. It's a very informative and
thought provoking book.

"Bullshit" grossly misses some fundamental aspects about modern markets and
power structures and as a result turns into an insipid, meandering grievance
without substance. The commentary mistakes social-welfare states which have
monopoly enforcement on: credit repayment (legal tender), and authoritarian
control of the means of production (permitting) as capitalism (_private_
ownership and deployment of goods and services). As a result, the entire
subsequent criticism that follows in the book is misguided. If I had to
summarize it: "Economic (consumer's-goods) producers are supremely inefficient
in the deployment of labor, resources, time, production quantity which results
in a social malaise". It implicitly pathologizes the choices of people who
work in the "bullshit" jobs as unable to make nuanced, multivariable
decisions. Yes, it may be the case a security camera would be a more efficient
observer to an empty lot than paying a human, bored out of their mind, to sit
in a hut. But that critique denies the economic calculus the hut worker made,
that this job was the most ideal option out of the many different dimensions
available to them.

If the set of available options cannot be combined to produce desired results,
it's not possible to combine inputs among a further reduced set of options to
produce the desired results ("regulation"). The only option is to increase the
set of available options (liberalization, de-monopolization), to produce
different outcomes. The entire book fails to address to roll of
entrepreneurship, e.g. a speculative endeavor by an individual or group that
they can deploy labor, resources, time, production quantity in a more ideal
and enjoyable arrangement. The absence is a shame because instead of the book
being a diatribe, it could have been a powerful call to action to improve our
lot.

~~~
hnzix
How does one achieve de-monopolization without regulation?

------
jseliger
He is interesting but also wrong a lot:
[https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-
april-f...](https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-april-fools-
day-post.html)

If you'd like an antidote to his book _Debt_ , _Money Changes Everything: How
Finance Made Civilization Possible_ is useful. _Debt_ may be called "5,000
years of anecdotes:" [https://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/debt-the-
first-500-pages](https://jacobinmag.com/2012/08/debt-the-first-500-pages).

This: [https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/the-anarchist-and-the-
anthr...](https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/the-anarchist-and-the-anthropology-
journal/) also doesn't cover him with glory.

He did think differently and often intelligently, which is to be admired, but
"Different and also correct" is different from simply "different."

~~~
blueline
for anyone interested in some history between the author of the first link and
graeber, in his own words:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707)

~~~
samizdis
That was an informative read. Many thanks.

------
KKKKkkkk1
I didn't like the "We are the 99%." slogan. Traditionally in the US, protest
movements have been asserting their right to correct an injustice. In this
case, it was more of an assertion of power and a threat to impose the
majority's will on the minority. That was in breaking with the culture of
liberal democracy, which the anarchist authors of that slogan were not big
fans of.

~~~
Ar-Curunir
Lmao but it’s okay for the 1% to impose their unjustified authority on
everyone else?

(Also your criticism that the slogan is merely just changing the balance of
power is founded in an ignorance of anarchism. Anarchism does not aim to
redistribute power, it aims to eliminate it. As long as power exists, it will
be abused.)

~~~
KKKKkkkk1
I don't understand. Are you disputing my statement that anarchists are not
fans of liberal democracy?

~~~
jessaustin
Oh yes we forgot that all the cities are burning because of all the
anarchists. As always, invoking fears of actually-exceedingly-rare anarchists
is the last life preserver that totalitarian regimes drowning in their own
monstrous contradictions attempt to clutch.

Is "liberal democracy" in evidence anywhere?

~~~
jrochkind1
Much like "Western civilization", it sounds like it would be a good idea.

------
QuesnayJr
Graeber was a talented polemicist who had a loose relationship with the truth.
For example, in the first edition of his book, _Debt_ , he wrote

    
    
      Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages...
    

He gave conflicting explanations ([https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/01/the-
very-last-david-g...](https://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/01/the-very-last-
david-graeber-post.html)) for that quote, but at the very least it shows how
uncareful he was as a scholar.

~~~
consz
I would refer to this --

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17164707)

for a response to your point directly from Graeber himself.

I don't think there's any reason to listen to Delong's criticisms, he's
intellectually dishonest and a stalker to boot.

~~~
QuesnayJr
Brad DeLong is a distinguished economic historian who has a long-running blog
where he tends to the ascerbic. He's not gunning for Graeber. Graeber is just
one of many topics he has addressed over the years.

Graeber can't really defend his Apple quote, so he resorts to this kind of
personal attack. DeLong being wrong about Sumer does not make Graeber right
about Apple.

He had very little tolerance for disagreement. The blog Crooked Timber had a
roundtable to discuss _Debt_. The discussion was mostly positive, but with
some criticisms around the edges. Graeber had a vituperative response that
took everyone by surprise. You can see the conclusion of the discussion with a
perplexed response here: [https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/04/because-
imperialism/](https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/04/because-imperialism/)

~~~
yarrel
Graeber didn't defend the Apple statement, he said it was an editing error and
that it was revised for later editions.

Obsessing over that wasn't a good look for DeLong. It isn't for his alts, his
stans, or whatever you are.

That Crooked Timbre post is not very good. It reflects much worse on the
author than on its purported subject.

~~~
QuesnayJr
I see Hacker News' policy on personal attacks has an exception when the target
is someone who's criticized Graeber. I have like a hundred comments here, so
if I am a DeLong-alt, I am playing a long game.

Graeber defended the statement, but said it wasn't supposed to be Apple. Then
he blamed a graduate student of Richard Wolff for the error. Then he settled
on the editing error explanation.

I didn't pick the quote because it's an outlier, but because it's typical of
the last chapter of Debt, and it's one that everyone understands. The whole
chapter has been seriously criticized by economists in general (despite what
he said in the link above about the book not being criticized except by
DeLong). The other examples require specialized knowledge, but that one
doesn't. DeLong tweeted out other examples, one-by-one, which is weird, but I
think it's weird in general to use Twitter for arguments.

How does the post reflect worse on the author? If you read Graeber's reply
here ([https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/02/seminar-on-debt-the-
fir...](https://crookedtimber.org/2012/04/02/seminar-on-debt-the-
first-5000-years-reply/)) he accuses Henry Farrell of all kinds of unsavory
behavior, in response to a mildly critical review
([https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/22/the-world-economy-is-
no...](https://crookedtimber.org/2012/02/22/the-world-economy-is-not-a-
tribute-system/)). I read that online discussion when it happened, and I think
most people were pretty sympathetic to Graeber, despite the Apple quote, until
that response.

I am also not a Henry Farrell alt, in case you're wondering.

