What do you think?
Rate this book
Revolutions in Reverse: Essays on Politics, Violence, Art, and Imagination
Capitalism as we know it appears to be coming apart. But as financial institutions stagger and crumble, there is no obvious alternative. There is good reason to believe that, in a generation or so, capitalism will no longer exist: for the simple reason that it s impossible to maintain an engine of perpetual growth forever on a finite planet. Yet faced with this prospect, the knee-jerk reaction is often to cling to what exists because they simply can t imagine an alternative that wouldn t be even more oppressive and destructive. The political imagination seems to have reached an impasse. Or has it? In this collection of essays David Graeber explores a wide-ranging set of topics including political strategy, global trade, debt, imagination, violence, aesthetics, alienation, and creativity. Written in the wake of the anti-globalization movement and the rise of the war on terror, these essays survey the political landscape for signs of hope in unexpected places. At a moment when the old assumption about politics and power have been irrefutably broken the only real choice is to begin again: to create a new language, a new common sense, about what people basically are and what it is reasonable for them to expect from the world, and from each other. In this volume Graeber draws from the realms of politics, art, and the imagination to start this conversation and to suggest that that the task might not be nearly so daunting as we d be given to imagine.
120 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
112 people are currently reading
2546 people want to read
About the author
David Graeber
91Ìýbooks4,854ÌýfollowersDavid Rolfe Graeber was an American anthropologist and anarchist.
On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he held the title of Reader in Social Anthropology.
Prior to that position, he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007.
Graeber had a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World. He was an core participant in the Occupy Movement.
He passed away in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
On June 15, 2007, Graeber accepted the offer of a lectureship in the anthropology department at Goldsmiths College, University of London, where he held the title of Reader in Social Anthropology.
Prior to that position, he was an associate professor of anthropology at Yale University, although Yale controversially declined to rehire him, and his term there ended in June 2007.
Graeber had a history of social and political activism, including his role in protests against the World Economic Forum in New York City (2002) and membership in the labor union Industrial Workers of the World. He was an core participant in the Occupy Movement.
He passed away in 2020, during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
September 12, 2021
The revolution begins by asking what sort of promises do free men and women make to one another , and how, by making them, do we begin to make another world.
Six short and very thought provoking essays that stand as an attack on the neoliberal/capitalist camp. In the first three essays, he begins by pointing out that what is often seen as the failure of popular social movements to bring about change over the last 50 years is better seen in terms of their successes. He is also at pains to make it clear that the changes that have occurred are not just the working out of the contradictions of capitalism, but the result of the decisions we make and the actions we take. He then discusses, among other things, state violence, social movements, and how bureaucracy militates against change. The essays in the second half of the book focus on issues related to George Bush winning the election in 2004 with one essay reflecting on Italian philosophers and art history.
It’s a great read for those doubting the real effectiveness of popular social action and also for those believing that we really can change the world . Graeber manages not only to explore and expose, but also to stimulate and enthuse. Sad that we lost that voice last year.
Six short and very thought provoking essays that stand as an attack on the neoliberal/capitalist camp. In the first three essays, he begins by pointing out that what is often seen as the failure of popular social movements to bring about change over the last 50 years is better seen in terms of their successes. He is also at pains to make it clear that the changes that have occurred are not just the working out of the contradictions of capitalism, but the result of the decisions we make and the actions we take. He then discusses, among other things, state violence, social movements, and how bureaucracy militates against change. The essays in the second half of the book focus on issues related to George Bush winning the election in 2004 with one essay reflecting on Italian philosophers and art history.
It’s a great read for those doubting the real effectiveness of popular social action and also for those believing that we really can change the world . Graeber manages not only to explore and expose, but also to stimulate and enthuse. Sad that we lost that voice last year.
January 11, 2021
For those who've never really read anything of Graeber's, or at least want to know more about this shining, constellation of a human being, whose writings ought to be permanent lodestars for the left - this, along with are great places to get acquainted. They're short, readable essay pieces (about a 100 or so pages all up, and absolutely findable for free with a quick search) and they mark the life of man who never stopped believing - because he was there, because he had a hand in making it - that a better world was already here, if we dared to grasp it.
"Financial elites, having shown the world they were utterly incompetent at the one activity they had claimed they were best able to do � the measurement of value � have responded by joining with their political cronies in a violent attack on anything that even looks like it might possibly provide an alternative way to think about value, from public welfare to the contemplation of art or philosophy (or at least, the contemplation of art or philosophy for any other reason than the purpose of making money). For the moment, at least, capitalism is no longer even thinking about its long-term viability. It is disturbing to know that one is facing a suicidal enemy, but at least it helps us understand what we are fighting for. At the moment: everything."
"Financial elites, having shown the world they were utterly incompetent at the one activity they had claimed they were best able to do � the measurement of value � have responded by joining with their political cronies in a violent attack on anything that even looks like it might possibly provide an alternative way to think about value, from public welfare to the contemplation of art or philosophy (or at least, the contemplation of art or philosophy for any other reason than the purpose of making money). For the moment, at least, capitalism is no longer even thinking about its long-term viability. It is disturbing to know that one is facing a suicidal enemy, but at least it helps us understand what we are fighting for. At the moment: everything."
August 2, 2018
Six essays, with three being fairly related, and three being somewhat separate. Though, to be fair, these are all about Graeber's larger intellectual projects: revolution, anticapitalism, organization, debt/capital, and political blindness (sometimes willful blindness).
The first three essays deal with popular movements of the last thirty or so years that have led to mass direct action networks. The first attempts to reframe how we view them and their immense successes. The second and third deal more with the relationship between state violence, social movements, revolutionary action, revolutionary organization, and how to move forward. He spends a great deal of time crediting and referencing the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s and their profound effect on consensus forming.
The final three essays are a bit broader and are primarily challenges to the intellectual class, and are often specific to american issues relating to George Bush winning the 2004 election. Though the penultimate essay is a reflection on Italian philosophers speaking about art history, which is both hilarious and oddly refreshing.
Like all of Graber's work that I've come across, he offers no answers and doesn't attempt ot answer any questions. Rather, he challenges the popular perception of events, especially events relating to capital, labor, anarchism, and organization. His essays are meant to begin discussion or at least lead it in potentially new directions, and I think that's what I enjoy most about his work. That and his ability to give new perspectives in funny and insightfully useful ways.
The first three essays deal with popular movements of the last thirty or so years that have led to mass direct action networks. The first attempts to reframe how we view them and their immense successes. The second and third deal more with the relationship between state violence, social movements, revolutionary action, revolutionary organization, and how to move forward. He spends a great deal of time crediting and referencing the feminist movement of the 60s and 70s and their profound effect on consensus forming.
The final three essays are a bit broader and are primarily challenges to the intellectual class, and are often specific to american issues relating to George Bush winning the 2004 election. Though the penultimate essay is a reflection on Italian philosophers speaking about art history, which is both hilarious and oddly refreshing.
Like all of Graber's work that I've come across, he offers no answers and doesn't attempt ot answer any questions. Rather, he challenges the popular perception of events, especially events relating to capital, labor, anarchism, and organization. His essays are meant to begin discussion or at least lead it in potentially new directions, and I think that's what I enjoy most about his work. That and his ability to give new perspectives in funny and insightfully useful ways.
February 11, 2024
David Graeber çok sevilen bir anarşist ve düşünür. En çok refere edilen eseri Bullshit Jobs’� da okumayı düşünüyorum. Ama siyaset üzerine yazılarını komik diyeceğim ölçüde anlamsız buldum. Graeber tarihsel olarak seçtiği nesnelere bir fanatik gibi yaklaşıyor. Şu an söylense kimsenin hatırlamayacağı eylemlerini kapitalizme Sovyetlerden çok zarar verdik gibi argümanlarla anlatıyor. Daha ne kadar saçmalayacak diyerek okudum. Neoliberalizme ve kapitalizme olan nefretini paylaşsam da akıl almaz bir mantığı var. Kitabın içinde bu nefret ve ekolojiye dair anlattıkları dışında dişe dokunur bir şey bulamadım.
October 31, 2017
Graeber bir sosyal bilimci, ama bu kitapta anti-kapitalist, muhalif örgütlerde mücadele eden insanlara bir politik eylemci olarak sesleniyor.
2000'lerdeki karşı küreselleşme hareketlerindeki deneyimleri üzerinden "devrim mümkün mü, peki nasıl" sorularını tartışıyor.
Graeber mücadelenin egemenlerin üzerinde etkisi olduğunu gösterirken muhaliflerin kendi güçlerinin farkında olmadığını belirtiyor. Bu muhaliflere moral verecek bir yorum ama muhalifleri kendi gücünün farkında olmamakla da eleştiriyor. Burada sorumluluğun bir kısmını muhaliflerin düşünsel arka planını belirleyen İtalyan otonomist düşünürlerine yüklüyor (önemlerini ve muhalifliklerini küçümsemeden). Kendisini bu cenahtan daha çok Midnight Notes'a (Sylvia Federici ve diğerlerinin olduğu bir kolektif) daha yakın olduğunu belirtiyor.
Okuması rahat, referanslara boğulmamış ve samimi bir politik tartışma yaratma amacı taşıyan bir kitap.
2000'lerdeki karşı küreselleşme hareketlerindeki deneyimleri üzerinden "devrim mümkün mü, peki nasıl" sorularını tartışıyor.
Graeber mücadelenin egemenlerin üzerinde etkisi olduğunu gösterirken muhaliflerin kendi güçlerinin farkında olmadığını belirtiyor. Bu muhaliflere moral verecek bir yorum ama muhalifleri kendi gücünün farkında olmamakla da eleştiriyor. Burada sorumluluğun bir kısmını muhaliflerin düşünsel arka planını belirleyen İtalyan otonomist düşünürlerine yüklüyor (önemlerini ve muhalifliklerini küçümsemeden). Kendisini bu cenahtan daha çok Midnight Notes'a (Sylvia Federici ve diğerlerinin olduğu bir kolektif) daha yakın olduğunu belirtiyor.
Okuması rahat, referanslara boğulmamış ve samimi bir politik tartışma yaratma amacı taşıyan bir kitap.
June 9, 2025
An interesting collection of essays written between 2004 and 2010 by David Graeber. The essays are on a variety of topics - revolutionary strategy, structural violence, nature of altruism and motivations of army recruits to the obsession of art in the nighties with French theory of the 1970s. As usual with Graeber’s more theoretical works, they are all over the place with some references to theoretical works one needs to have a graduate degree in social theory to understand - but also thoroughly fascinating and providing at many points a relatively novel lenses of seeing the world.
The years from 2004 to 2010 were an interesting time for Graeber. After playing a role in the anti-globalisation protests of the late 1990s and early 2000s - a period of stability after he got his PhD in 1996 - he got fired from Yale, went into academic wilderness, helped to shape the Occupy Wall Street movement and later settled more permanently in the United Kingdom. It was thus a period of relative instability and transformation - from a young academic who participated in global justice activism to a more global figure of an academic representing his views in his professional output.
To some extent, these essays reflect this change. Some early ideas he would later develop into better known books, like the Utopia of Rules, Bullshit Jobs or even latter parts of Debt are first presented here. For instance, the essay that gave the name to this book, ‘Revolutions in Reverse� is essentially a much shorter and more dense version of ‘Dead Zones of Imagination� from The Utopia of Rules (dealing with the lopsided levels of imagination for people on different levels of power caused by structural violence). Similarly, the ‘Sadness of Post-Workerism� deals with the phoneism and fakery ideas in the modern economy that are the real point of the Bullshit Jobs theory.
But there are also some things that I haven’t read in his other books. The first essay, for instance, ‘The Shock of Victory� essentially argues that the anti-globalism movement was unprepared for their successes and can’t recognise them. As much as I understand the changing role of the IMF, I felt slight cringe reading the alleged connection between the anti-globalist protests and the changes in the functioning of international financial institutions. It reminds me of an old Slovak (?) joke: an ant and an elephant are crossing a bridge that is shaking, when the ant says ‘we are stomping hard, aren’t we?�
The essay ‘Army of Altruists� is also interesting. It essentially argues that peoples� natural predisposition to altruism (and mutual aid) is just stifled by the market and manifests itself whenever people can be rewarded by service (like in the example from the essay when US Army soldiers can do ‘volunteering� with local communities and are paid for it). This is a part of the argument from Bullshit Jobs about the resentment that people in Bullshit Jobs feel towards people whose jobs have some service element or real meaning.
This essay also contains one of the best passages I have ever read that demonstrates the essence of the antipathy towards the privilege of elites, which is interestingly very much alive in the 2025 and one could even substitute the name of the current president for the name ‘Bush�:
‘If working-class Bush voters tend to resent intellectuals more than the rich, then, the most likely reason is because they can imagine scenarios in which they might become rich, but cannot imagine one in which they, or any of their children, could ever become members of the intelligentsia. If you think about it, this is not an unreasonable assessment. A mechanic from Nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an Enron executive. But it is possible. On the other hand, there is virtually no chance that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer, or a drama critic for the New York Times. Here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education, but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships. It has become a fact of life in the United States that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the money, for the first year or two one will not be paid. This is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or NGOs, or to become a political activist. But it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like Beauty or Truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter. The custom effectively seals off any such career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education. Such structures of exclusion had always existed of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.
If that mechanic's son - or daughter - wishes to pursue something higher, more noble, for a career, what options does she really have? Likely just two. She can seek employment with her local church, which is hard to get. Or she can join the Army.�
Overall, a really interesting collection of essays. The penultimate one is quite tedious and all of them are written in a language that oscillates between deep academic jargon and almost popular science language. Can’t say that I would recommend to everyone, but definitely to people who enjoy Graeber and want to take the time to understand his thought.
The years from 2004 to 2010 were an interesting time for Graeber. After playing a role in the anti-globalisation protests of the late 1990s and early 2000s - a period of stability after he got his PhD in 1996 - he got fired from Yale, went into academic wilderness, helped to shape the Occupy Wall Street movement and later settled more permanently in the United Kingdom. It was thus a period of relative instability and transformation - from a young academic who participated in global justice activism to a more global figure of an academic representing his views in his professional output.
To some extent, these essays reflect this change. Some early ideas he would later develop into better known books, like the Utopia of Rules, Bullshit Jobs or even latter parts of Debt are first presented here. For instance, the essay that gave the name to this book, ‘Revolutions in Reverse� is essentially a much shorter and more dense version of ‘Dead Zones of Imagination� from The Utopia of Rules (dealing with the lopsided levels of imagination for people on different levels of power caused by structural violence). Similarly, the ‘Sadness of Post-Workerism� deals with the phoneism and fakery ideas in the modern economy that are the real point of the Bullshit Jobs theory.
But there are also some things that I haven’t read in his other books. The first essay, for instance, ‘The Shock of Victory� essentially argues that the anti-globalism movement was unprepared for their successes and can’t recognise them. As much as I understand the changing role of the IMF, I felt slight cringe reading the alleged connection between the anti-globalist protests and the changes in the functioning of international financial institutions. It reminds me of an old Slovak (?) joke: an ant and an elephant are crossing a bridge that is shaking, when the ant says ‘we are stomping hard, aren’t we?�
The essay ‘Army of Altruists� is also interesting. It essentially argues that peoples� natural predisposition to altruism (and mutual aid) is just stifled by the market and manifests itself whenever people can be rewarded by service (like in the example from the essay when US Army soldiers can do ‘volunteering� with local communities and are paid for it). This is a part of the argument from Bullshit Jobs about the resentment that people in Bullshit Jobs feel towards people whose jobs have some service element or real meaning.
This essay also contains one of the best passages I have ever read that demonstrates the essence of the antipathy towards the privilege of elites, which is interestingly very much alive in the 2025 and one could even substitute the name of the current president for the name ‘Bush�:
‘If working-class Bush voters tend to resent intellectuals more than the rich, then, the most likely reason is because they can imagine scenarios in which they might become rich, but cannot imagine one in which they, or any of their children, could ever become members of the intelligentsia. If you think about it, this is not an unreasonable assessment. A mechanic from Nebraska knows it is highly unlikely that his son or daughter will ever become an Enron executive. But it is possible. On the other hand, there is virtually no chance that his child, no matter how talented, will ever become an international human rights lawyer, or a drama critic for the New York Times. Here we need to remember not just the changes in higher education, but also the role of unpaid, or effectively unpaid, internships. It has become a fact of life in the United States that if one chooses a career for any reason other than the money, for the first year or two one will not be paid. This is certainly true if one wishes to be involved in altruistic pursuits: say, to join the world of charities, or NGOs, or to become a political activist. But it is equally true if one wants to pursue values like Beauty or Truth: to become part of the world of books, or the art world, or an investigative reporter. The custom effectively seals off any such career for any poor student who actually does attain a liberal arts education. Such structures of exclusion had always existed of course, especially at the top, but in recent decades fences have become fortresses.
If that mechanic's son - or daughter - wishes to pursue something higher, more noble, for a career, what options does she really have? Likely just two. She can seek employment with her local church, which is hard to get. Or she can join the Army.�
Overall, a really interesting collection of essays. The penultimate one is quite tedious and all of them are written in a language that oscillates between deep academic jargon and almost popular science language. Can’t say that I would recommend to everyone, but definitely to people who enjoy Graeber and want to take the time to understand his thought.
December 4, 2011
In Revolutions in Reverse, David Graeber explores the relationship between state violence, ideology, the apparent worldwide failure to imagine alternatives to the way in which capitalism is currently developing, the crises of representation that are affecting most 'mature' democracies (or should I say economies?), and the debt crisis we currently find ourselves in. In other words, he explores the relationship between the above-mentioned crises and our mental conceptions of the world. But, differing from most theorists, he he thinks sharing goals far more important than sharing a theoretical background and assessment of what the world is like. And, interestingly, he explores this question not as a largely detached observer (me), but as a member of some of the movements I mentioned above. And because of this, the essays have a very fresh and accessible feel to them.
The collection revolves around the question "What does revolution mean once one no longer expects a single, cataclysmic break with past structures of oppression?" As Graeber points out, revolutions have never happened 'magically', and neither were the revolutions themselves (which have almost always failed) ever instrumental in producing the kind of wide-scale social change that we tend to associate with the word 'revolution.' But this is not to say that those 'failed' revolutions were ineffective, because they often did bring about important changes. As such, he suggests that if we want to bring about change, we need to stop focusing on the question how to bring about some kind of "revolutionary moment," and rather, focus on the question how we might create the broader social movements that those revolutions might (or might not) emerge out of, but which at least stand a chance of changing public discourse.
In his exploration of these issues, what he shows more than anything is how useful it can be to (for a time) try to forget how you would normally think about a situation, and to simply take seriously what it is that you see happening around you. (And, conversely, how strongly misguided beliefs about how we should understand the world can keep us from understanding it better.) Because many of the things he describes are of the 'hiding in plain sight' variety, hidden from view thanks to their utter banality, rather than because of their extreme 'theoretical subtlety.'
What I personally found most interesting about the book, are the following two things. First, the way in which it further confirms a point that has been made repeatedly by Bruno Latour: namely, that theory and abstraction are useful only insofar as they can be related to practice, and to events in the world, and that ignoring reality because your theory tells you it is acceptable to do so is dangerous. This does not mean that practice trumps theory, but rather that theory ignores the intricacies of actual practices only at its own peril, since it is only in practice that theory can prove its usefulness. And secondly, the story it tells about the interaction between violence and the imagination.
The collection revolves around the question "What does revolution mean once one no longer expects a single, cataclysmic break with past structures of oppression?" As Graeber points out, revolutions have never happened 'magically', and neither were the revolutions themselves (which have almost always failed) ever instrumental in producing the kind of wide-scale social change that we tend to associate with the word 'revolution.' But this is not to say that those 'failed' revolutions were ineffective, because they often did bring about important changes. As such, he suggests that if we want to bring about change, we need to stop focusing on the question how to bring about some kind of "revolutionary moment," and rather, focus on the question how we might create the broader social movements that those revolutions might (or might not) emerge out of, but which at least stand a chance of changing public discourse.
In his exploration of these issues, what he shows more than anything is how useful it can be to (for a time) try to forget how you would normally think about a situation, and to simply take seriously what it is that you see happening around you. (And, conversely, how strongly misguided beliefs about how we should understand the world can keep us from understanding it better.) Because many of the things he describes are of the 'hiding in plain sight' variety, hidden from view thanks to their utter banality, rather than because of their extreme 'theoretical subtlety.'
What I personally found most interesting about the book, are the following two things. First, the way in which it further confirms a point that has been made repeatedly by Bruno Latour: namely, that theory and abstraction are useful only insofar as they can be related to practice, and to events in the world, and that ignoring reality because your theory tells you it is acceptable to do so is dangerous. This does not mean that practice trumps theory, but rather that theory ignores the intricacies of actual practices only at its own peril, since it is only in practice that theory can prove its usefulness. And secondly, the story it tells about the interaction between violence and the imagination.
November 23, 2017
Tersine Devrimler için Everest yayınlarına, özenli çevirinden ötürü Aslı Esen Arslan'a sonsuz teşekkürler...
Çok sayıda not aldığım kitabın her makalesi ayrı ayrı tartışmayı hak ediyor.
Kitap Giriş bölümünün ardından, Zafer Şoku (Nükleer Karşıtı-Küresel Adalet hareketleri), Ortaklaşa Umut, Tersine Devrim (Özgeciler Ordusu, İşçilik Sonrasının Hüznü) başlıklı makalelerden oluşuyor...
Giriş bölümünde Graeber bu derlemenin ilk olarak Yunanca "Hareket, Şiddet, Sanat ve Devrim" (Atina, Black Pepper press, 2009) basıldığını, bu makalelerdeki bir çok savın 2008 krizi sonrasında otorite karşıtı eylemci hareketlerde yaygınlaştığını belirtiyor. Kitaptaki makalelerin tümü, 2004-2010 arasında yazılmış. Graeber bu nedenle yazıları "kafa karışıklığının hüküm sürdüğü, umut beslemek için ipuçları bulmanın çok güç olduğu bir dönemin eseri olduğunu belirtiyor.
Graeber, öncelikle "başarılı" sonuçlar alınan hareketler sonrasında elde edilen "kazanımların" ne olduğu, yürütülen tartışmalar, "kazanmak ne demek?" sorusu üzerine odaklanan bir makale ile başlamayı seçiyor. Bu bölümü "Gezi tartışmaları"nın ışığında okumakta yarar var.
Ortaklaşa umut, aynı tartışmaları daha ileriye taşımayı hedefliyor. Neoliberalizmin ekonomik değil, politik bir proje olduğu; hayal gücümüzü mahvetmek, hatta külfetli güvenlik önlemleri, akıl almaz askeri projeleri sayesinde kapitalist düzenin kendisini yok etmek için tasarlandığını vurguluyor. "Yaşadığımız günler"e daha farklı açılardan bakmanızı sağlayacak bir bölüm...
Tersine Devrim, New Left Review dergisi tarafından reddedilen bir makale... Bu makalede Graeber, insanların özde ne olduğuna, dünyadan ve birbirlerinden ne beklemelerinin makul olacağına dair YENİ BİR DİL, YENİ BİR SAĞDUYU yaratmak için bir anca önce kolları sıvamak " gerektiğini, bunun için uygulanabilcek yol haritasını öneriyor.
Çok sayıda not aldığım kitabın her makalesi ayrı ayrı tartışmayı hak ediyor.
Kitap Giriş bölümünün ardından, Zafer Şoku (Nükleer Karşıtı-Küresel Adalet hareketleri), Ortaklaşa Umut, Tersine Devrim (Özgeciler Ordusu, İşçilik Sonrasının Hüznü) başlıklı makalelerden oluşuyor...
Giriş bölümünde Graeber bu derlemenin ilk olarak Yunanca "Hareket, Şiddet, Sanat ve Devrim" (Atina, Black Pepper press, 2009) basıldığını, bu makalelerdeki bir çok savın 2008 krizi sonrasında otorite karşıtı eylemci hareketlerde yaygınlaştığını belirtiyor. Kitaptaki makalelerin tümü, 2004-2010 arasında yazılmış. Graeber bu nedenle yazıları "kafa karışıklığının hüküm sürdüğü, umut beslemek için ipuçları bulmanın çok güç olduğu bir dönemin eseri olduğunu belirtiyor.
Graeber, öncelikle "başarılı" sonuçlar alınan hareketler sonrasında elde edilen "kazanımların" ne olduğu, yürütülen tartışmalar, "kazanmak ne demek?" sorusu üzerine odaklanan bir makale ile başlamayı seçiyor. Bu bölümü "Gezi tartışmaları"nın ışığında okumakta yarar var.
Ortaklaşa umut, aynı tartışmaları daha ileriye taşımayı hedefliyor. Neoliberalizmin ekonomik değil, politik bir proje olduğu; hayal gücümüzü mahvetmek, hatta külfetli güvenlik önlemleri, akıl almaz askeri projeleri sayesinde kapitalist düzenin kendisini yok etmek için tasarlandığını vurguluyor. "Yaşadığımız günler"e daha farklı açılardan bakmanızı sağlayacak bir bölüm...
Tersine Devrim, New Left Review dergisi tarafından reddedilen bir makale... Bu makalede Graeber, insanların özde ne olduğuna, dünyadan ve birbirlerinden ne beklemelerinin makul olacağına dair YENİ BİR DİL, YENİ BİR SAĞDUYU yaratmak için bir anca önce kolları sıvamak " gerektiğini, bunun için uygulanabilcek yol haritasını öneriyor.
September 18, 2012
A very thought-provoking collection of essays on a variety of topics by David Graeber. This really inspires me to read his book 'Direct Action: An Ethnography,' which I've been putting off cause it's so damned huge. There are definitely some gems in here, though, and I'm really down for reading more by my fellow wobbly. My one complaint, and I'm not the only one to put this out there, is the horrendous quality of the editing. Some of the pieces have obviously been published elsewhere and seem polished and contain minimal errors. Others, however, contain sentences here and there which are rendered wholly unintelligible by the complete lack of even rudimentary editing and proofreading, to the point it distracts from what is being said. Still, I highly recommend this for anyone interested in modern anarchist thought, direct action, or just a new and unique perspective on the modern left.
January 31, 2012
Great collection of Graeber's essays, but terribly copy edited. Typos and other errors were distracting enough that I couldn't recommend owning this edition, especially as much of Graeber's short pieces are easy to find and read online.
May 4, 2019
This is a short but punchy volume of Graeber's essays where you can see the roots of a number of his very popular recent books, from the origins of in "Hope in Common" and "Against Kamikaze Capitalism" to blueprints for in the titular essay of this text, "Revolution in Reverse". You'll even find traces of before the essay of the same name was published in 2013, here in "The Sadness of Post-workerism" and across the text.
What of the essays? The two earliest are trial runs - well, all of these are! - but I found some more polished than others. Most maintain Graeber's talent for introducing sudden, intuitive shifts that feel like lightning bolts, or like revelations. Take this observation on the roots of Trump's popularity, avant la lettre:
Very effective, and very rapid - analysis like this is what makes his books so accessible and challenging at the same time. Nor is Graeber afraid to make well-founded assertions about the processes of value (his academic specialty) and the imagination. Take this one, for example, that will turn up again in Bullshit Jobs, but that crops up here in rough form:
What of the essays? The two earliest are trial runs - well, all of these are! - but I found some more polished than others. Most maintain Graeber's talent for introducing sudden, intuitive shifts that feel like lightning bolts, or like revelations. Take this observation on the roots of Trump's popularity, avant la lettre:
If working-class Bush voters tend to resent intellectuals more than they do the rich, then, the most likely reason is because they can imagine scenarios in which they might become rich, but cannot imagine one in which they, or any of their children, could ever become members of the intelligentsia. If you think about it, this is not an unreasonable assessment.The discussion proceeds to evaluate the basis for careers in humanistic pursuits, from journalism to law to drama, and then evaluates the basis of nobility itself that founds the allure of these careers.
Very effective, and very rapid - analysis like this is what makes his books so accessible and challenging at the same time. Nor is Graeber afraid to make well-founded assertions about the processes of value (his academic specialty) and the imagination. Take this one, for example, that will turn up again in Bullshit Jobs, but that crops up here in rough form:
The things we care most about - our loves, passions, rivalries, obsessions - are always other people; and in most societies that are not capitalist, it's taken for granted that the manufacture of material goods is a subordinate moment in a larger process of fashioning people. In fact, I would argue that one of the most alienating aspects of capitalism is the fact that it forces us to pretend that it is the other way around, and that societies exist primarily to increase their output of things.Damning and graceful all at once, this is the kind of argument from which there is no refuge.
March 21, 2024
This is a collection of essays by David Graeber published in the early- to late-00s (the latest in 2010). The book can be found as a PDF online, and in the book it says one is free to read it as such, though buying it does help the cause. Unfortunately, the editing is pretty terrible at times: besides acceptable spelling mistakes, there are times when a word is missing, incorrect, or hasn't been edited out, and the reader must use their imagination to decipher the actual meaning.
Besides that, the texts are in the expected quality of Graeber's writings, with the first essays ("The Shock of Victory", "Hope in Common", and "Revolution in Reverse") analysing why the social movements in the late 90s and early 00s have eventually failed strategically (illustrated with his own insider experience in some of these movements), how the institutions responded with violence and confusing the minds, and what could be the next steps.
He then tries in "Army of Altruists" to give an explanation of why George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, and the role the army plays in the US, besides obviously serving the militaro-industrial complex, i.e. giving an outlet for people's altruism that they have little to no way to get otherwise.
In "The Sadness of Post-workerism", he gives an account of a conference on art (devolving in the interactions between art, philosophy and politics) by philosophers Toni Negri, Franco "Bifo" Berardi, Maurizio Lazzarato and Judith Revel at the Tate Modern on the 2007/01/19.
Finally, in "Against Kamikaze Capitalism", the shortest but in my opinion the best of the essays in the book, David Graeber analyses the enemy of the social movement, an enemy that is so hell-bent on victory that it is ready to destroy itself to beat its opponent. Like Pierre Serna mentions, the liberal center will always eventually associate with the extreme right to beat the left, before being eventually consumed by fascism, so capitalism is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the powers that be. As is stated in the essay:
Neoliberalism was the movement that managed to convince everyone in the world that economic growth was the only thing that mattered, even as, under its aegis real global growth rates collapsed, sinking to perhaps a third of what they had been under earlier, state-driven, social welfare-oriented forms of capitalism. Neoliberalism was the system that managed to convince everyone in the world that financial elites were the only people capable of managing or measuring the value of anything, even as in order to do so, it ended up promulgating an economic culture so irresponsible that it allowed those elites to bring the entire financial architecture of the global economy tumbling on top of them because of their utter inability to assess the value even of their own financial instruments. Again, this was no accident. 3e pattern is consistent. Whenever there is a choice between the political goal of demobilizing social movements, or convincing the public there is no viable alternative to the capitalist order, and actually running a viable capitalist order, neoliberalism means always choosing the former.
Besides that, the texts are in the expected quality of Graeber's writings, with the first essays ("The Shock of Victory", "Hope in Common", and "Revolution in Reverse") analysing why the social movements in the late 90s and early 00s have eventually failed strategically (illustrated with his own insider experience in some of these movements), how the institutions responded with violence and confusing the minds, and what could be the next steps.
He then tries in "Army of Altruists" to give an explanation of why George W. Bush was re-elected in 2004, and the role the army plays in the US, besides obviously serving the militaro-industrial complex, i.e. giving an outlet for people's altruism that they have little to no way to get otherwise.
In "The Sadness of Post-workerism", he gives an account of a conference on art (devolving in the interactions between art, philosophy and politics) by philosophers Toni Negri, Franco "Bifo" Berardi, Maurizio Lazzarato and Judith Revel at the Tate Modern on the 2007/01/19.
Finally, in "Against Kamikaze Capitalism", the shortest but in my opinion the best of the essays in the book, David Graeber analyses the enemy of the social movement, an enemy that is so hell-bent on victory that it is ready to destroy itself to beat its opponent. Like Pierre Serna mentions, the liberal center will always eventually associate with the extreme right to beat the left, before being eventually consumed by fascism, so capitalism is ready to do whatever it takes to preserve the powers that be. As is stated in the essay:
Neoliberalism was the movement that managed to convince everyone in the world that economic growth was the only thing that mattered, even as, under its aegis real global growth rates collapsed, sinking to perhaps a third of what they had been under earlier, state-driven, social welfare-oriented forms of capitalism. Neoliberalism was the system that managed to convince everyone in the world that financial elites were the only people capable of managing or measuring the value of anything, even as in order to do so, it ended up promulgating an economic culture so irresponsible that it allowed those elites to bring the entire financial architecture of the global economy tumbling on top of them because of their utter inability to assess the value even of their own financial instruments. Again, this was no accident. 3e pattern is consistent. Whenever there is a choice between the political goal of demobilizing social movements, or convincing the public there is no viable alternative to the capitalist order, and actually running a viable capitalist order, neoliberalism means always choosing the former.
January 18, 2022
3.5 stars on balance (possibly due to my personal preference for deep-dive into long form expositions instead).
Review later perhaps, but the six essays try to start (rather than actually have) a conversation about revolutionary theory, choices and action that are needed, not just in our current political/financial/climate crisis, but perhaps on a continual quest for more just, egalitarian and non-alienating forms of social organisation. (It was also clear that the author is very much influenced by decolonial and feminist standpoint theory.)
Above all, he wants to rescue us from feelings of complete despair about a way out.
Review later perhaps, but the six essays try to start (rather than actually have) a conversation about revolutionary theory, choices and action that are needed, not just in our current political/financial/climate crisis, but perhaps on a continual quest for more just, egalitarian and non-alienating forms of social organisation. (It was also clear that the author is very much influenced by decolonial and feminist standpoint theory.)
Above all, he wants to rescue us from feelings of complete despair about a way out.
April 9, 2025
Graeber ci descrive gli anni dell'attivismo (e parecchie intuizioni su quanto sarebbe accaduto dopo) degli anni '90 e primi anni 2000. Fatti per inciso che hanno preceduto le Torri Gemelle e il cambio di rotta della politica estera degli Stati Uniti, tra cui Seattle e quello che abbiamo vissuto qui a Genova.
Non manca di descriverci come funzionano gli operatori informativi (la cui prosa è più simile alla tecnica omerica dello scrivere in versi) e cosa definisce il potere e il suo braccio armato (di fatto, la polizia, che prende la moderna forma di guardiano della proprietà privata).
Non manca di descriverci come funzionano gli operatori informativi (la cui prosa è più simile alla tecnica omerica dello scrivere in versi) e cosa definisce il potere e il suo braccio armato (di fatto, la polizia, che prende la moderna forma di guardiano della proprietà privata).
September 18, 2023
Okay, so this is an essay collection, so I figured I’d rate the individual essays and give short summaries of what I thought of them for future reference.
1. The Shock of Victory- 4/5
It’s definitely good, but I’m quite skeptical of parts of his thesis. Essentially he’s claiming the anarchist movement has had two massive victories worldwide from 1970 to 2000- the anti-nuclear movement and the anti-globalization movement. I’m more willing to give him the first. In the US at least, anti-nuclear activists did manage to stop the construction of new plants from 1980-2010. But the idea that they managed to slow down globalization around 2000 is ridiculous to me. It seems that US opinion on globalization didn’t change until around 2015, with Sanders and Trump. And even now, actual effects of anti-globalization in the US are extremely limited- it’s mostly been moving away from China. He focuses on the US, but the story in the EU/Asia is the same, I think.
I also find his really strongly held idea that the US government starts wars every time the anarchist movement is getting too successful to be completely ridiculous. It’s just spurious correlation- the US starts wars a lot, so there’s overlap. This is especially true because most of his timeframe is during the Cold War, and he includes CIA operations as wars, despite the fact that few Americans would have even known they were happening.
But the main idea is interesting- the anarchist movement is so focused on a total victory- the worldwide overthrow of capitalism- that they can’t accept small victories. They don’t feel like they matter and flounder because they “failed.� It’s worth keeping in mind for any sort of ideological movement, I think- maybe there’s a utopia you want to create, but any step towards it should still be celebrated.
2. Hope in Common- 2/5
It’s okay. It gives basically a manifesto of anarchist principles with a discussion of why they might actually be achieved, but it’s very much preaching to the choir. There’s no discussion of how these principles could be put into practice in reality, or of their shortcomings. For example, he proposes a ban on evictions but doesn’t address situations where a tenant is being evicted for cause beyond payment- destroying the home, bothering the neighbors, etc. It’s a running theme- a cry for communal solidarity without any discussion of what to do for anyone who has no interest in living up to their communal obligations. In fact, he seems to explicitly say this won’t be a problem.
3. Revolution in Reverse- 4/5
Really interesting! I particularly like the idea that structural inequalities create a burden of imagination. In essence, the oppressed need to understand their oppressors, which breeds sympathy, while the reverse is not true. It’s very elegant. The proposal is interesting as well- it posits an internal revolution to replace the “fighting in the streets� type, where people and communities seek to imagine new possibilities within themselves and enact them.
Also, it has a kinda hilarious story at the beginning which shows the issue with purity in some organizations- his anarchist organization received a car, which they couldn’t figure out how to use in a democratic way, since the state requires an owner, insurance, etc. So in the end, they just didn’t use the car. They lost an asset, but remained pure. I’m not sure he took from this story the same lesson I did- he made an interesting point about egalitarian organizations facing issues when they have to interact with the state, which is true, I think, but only one of many possible lessons.
4. Army of Altruists- 5/5
Super great essay! Basically makes the point that the army is the only opportunity many young people have to do a job where they feel like they’re serving something larger than themselves and doing something beneficial for the world. Other opportunities- in the arts, media, other parts of government- are fenced off behind walls of internships and class signals.
I do think he neglects one point- both nursing and teaching could fulfill the same urge, and, while they require education, it’s not as risky as a general liberal arts education economically. But those are both mostly for women, and the army is for men. So it could just be that they fulfil the same urge for two different parts of the population.
5. The Sadness of Post-Workerism
No real review here, I didn’t find the subject interesting.
6. Against Kamikaze Capitalism- 2/5
This is, I think, my least favorite essay here. He posits that modern neoliberal capitalism is like a kamikaze flight, willing to crash and burn to prevent alternate social forms from taking shape. But his evidence is sketchy, more anecdotes than hard data. He gives examples like France raising its retirement age, Britain doing austerity, US welfare having work requirements, but I don’t think he really shows how this connects to the kamikaze concept. Like, yeah, they’re all related in various ways to capitalism, but they seem to come from different specific conditions.
His main point is that capitalism leads to unquenchable growth but not growing reductions in working hours/free time. That’s fair, but it seems like he’s leaving something unsaid- the substantial reductions in total working time he’s putting forward would almost certainly have to be accompanied by dramatic reductions in material standards of living. It’s probably just not possible for a country to maintain high modern living standards if people are working way fewer hours and retiring young. And I think what he won’t acknowledge is that he’s weird- most people like having lots of things! It goes beyond that though- homes would probably have to be smaller, there’d be, by necessity, less research on new medicine, health care would probably end up more scarce (if only from doctors working fewer hours). He really doesn’t acknowledge this tradeoff, which makes me feel like this is something so commonly acknowledged in anarchist circles that it’s not worth commenting on or he doesn’t believe the tradeoff exists or that he’s unbothered by the tradeoff. I can’t figure out which it is.
1. The Shock of Victory- 4/5
It’s definitely good, but I’m quite skeptical of parts of his thesis. Essentially he’s claiming the anarchist movement has had two massive victories worldwide from 1970 to 2000- the anti-nuclear movement and the anti-globalization movement. I’m more willing to give him the first. In the US at least, anti-nuclear activists did manage to stop the construction of new plants from 1980-2010. But the idea that they managed to slow down globalization around 2000 is ridiculous to me. It seems that US opinion on globalization didn’t change until around 2015, with Sanders and Trump. And even now, actual effects of anti-globalization in the US are extremely limited- it’s mostly been moving away from China. He focuses on the US, but the story in the EU/Asia is the same, I think.
I also find his really strongly held idea that the US government starts wars every time the anarchist movement is getting too successful to be completely ridiculous. It’s just spurious correlation- the US starts wars a lot, so there’s overlap. This is especially true because most of his timeframe is during the Cold War, and he includes CIA operations as wars, despite the fact that few Americans would have even known they were happening.
But the main idea is interesting- the anarchist movement is so focused on a total victory- the worldwide overthrow of capitalism- that they can’t accept small victories. They don’t feel like they matter and flounder because they “failed.� It’s worth keeping in mind for any sort of ideological movement, I think- maybe there’s a utopia you want to create, but any step towards it should still be celebrated.
2. Hope in Common- 2/5
It’s okay. It gives basically a manifesto of anarchist principles with a discussion of why they might actually be achieved, but it’s very much preaching to the choir. There’s no discussion of how these principles could be put into practice in reality, or of their shortcomings. For example, he proposes a ban on evictions but doesn’t address situations where a tenant is being evicted for cause beyond payment- destroying the home, bothering the neighbors, etc. It’s a running theme- a cry for communal solidarity without any discussion of what to do for anyone who has no interest in living up to their communal obligations. In fact, he seems to explicitly say this won’t be a problem.
3. Revolution in Reverse- 4/5
Really interesting! I particularly like the idea that structural inequalities create a burden of imagination. In essence, the oppressed need to understand their oppressors, which breeds sympathy, while the reverse is not true. It’s very elegant. The proposal is interesting as well- it posits an internal revolution to replace the “fighting in the streets� type, where people and communities seek to imagine new possibilities within themselves and enact them.
Also, it has a kinda hilarious story at the beginning which shows the issue with purity in some organizations- his anarchist organization received a car, which they couldn’t figure out how to use in a democratic way, since the state requires an owner, insurance, etc. So in the end, they just didn’t use the car. They lost an asset, but remained pure. I’m not sure he took from this story the same lesson I did- he made an interesting point about egalitarian organizations facing issues when they have to interact with the state, which is true, I think, but only one of many possible lessons.
4. Army of Altruists- 5/5
Super great essay! Basically makes the point that the army is the only opportunity many young people have to do a job where they feel like they’re serving something larger than themselves and doing something beneficial for the world. Other opportunities- in the arts, media, other parts of government- are fenced off behind walls of internships and class signals.
I do think he neglects one point- both nursing and teaching could fulfill the same urge, and, while they require education, it’s not as risky as a general liberal arts education economically. But those are both mostly for women, and the army is for men. So it could just be that they fulfil the same urge for two different parts of the population.
5. The Sadness of Post-Workerism
No real review here, I didn’t find the subject interesting.
6. Against Kamikaze Capitalism- 2/5
This is, I think, my least favorite essay here. He posits that modern neoliberal capitalism is like a kamikaze flight, willing to crash and burn to prevent alternate social forms from taking shape. But his evidence is sketchy, more anecdotes than hard data. He gives examples like France raising its retirement age, Britain doing austerity, US welfare having work requirements, but I don’t think he really shows how this connects to the kamikaze concept. Like, yeah, they’re all related in various ways to capitalism, but they seem to come from different specific conditions.
His main point is that capitalism leads to unquenchable growth but not growing reductions in working hours/free time. That’s fair, but it seems like he’s leaving something unsaid- the substantial reductions in total working time he’s putting forward would almost certainly have to be accompanied by dramatic reductions in material standards of living. It’s probably just not possible for a country to maintain high modern living standards if people are working way fewer hours and retiring young. And I think what he won’t acknowledge is that he’s weird- most people like having lots of things! It goes beyond that though- homes would probably have to be smaller, there’d be, by necessity, less research on new medicine, health care would probably end up more scarce (if only from doctors working fewer hours). He really doesn’t acknowledge this tradeoff, which makes me feel like this is something so commonly acknowledged in anarchist circles that it’s not worth commenting on or he doesn’t believe the tradeoff exists or that he’s unbothered by the tradeoff. I can’t figure out which it is.
May 21, 2020
Anarşizmle tanışırken David Graeber'in neşeli tarzını tanımak bana şans oldu. Önemli bir yazar olduğunu düşünüyorum ama bu kimin umrunda olur, kimsenin...
"Tersine devrimleri" anlatırken günümüzün mitinglerini eylemlerini eskinin devrimlerinin tersi olarak nitelemesine şaşırmıştım. Bir de şu katıldığı eski tüfekler toplantısını betimlemesi çok komik ve öğreticiydi aklımda kalan Bifo isimli düşünürün dediği günümüzde artık kalan geçerli siyaset yapma biçimi olarak "intihar" eylemini unutmuyorum, diğer mücadele biçimlerini biraz anlamsız gibi görüyordu Bifo ne dobralık
"Tersine devrimleri" anlatırken günümüzün mitinglerini eylemlerini eskinin devrimlerinin tersi olarak nitelemesine şaşırmıştım. Bir de şu katıldığı eski tüfekler toplantısını betimlemesi çok komik ve öğreticiydi aklımda kalan Bifo isimli düşünürün dediği günümüzde artık kalan geçerli siyaset yapma biçimi olarak "intihar" eylemini unutmuyorum, diğer mücadele biçimlerini biraz anlamsız gibi görüyordu Bifo ne dobralık
August 22, 2015
One of the most persuasive attacks on capitalism/neoliberalism I've read - but they need to do another edition and fix the several hundred typos
November 30, 2023
Zirvelerde (G20, Dünya Bankası, OECD vs.) toplaşan kodamanlar, kapitalist imparatorlukların son günlerinde görmeye alıştığımız askeri ve finansal gücün kadim ittifakına dayalı tüm bu sistemin güçbela tek parça kalabildiğininin herhalde bizden daha fazla farkındaydılar. Dertleri sistemi kurtarmaktan çok, kimsenin aklında makul bir alternatif kalmaması, böylece çöküş anı gelip çattığında, kendilerinin çözüm önerebilecek tek merci olarak kalmasıydı.
Neoliberal kapitalizm, "başka alternatif yok" düşüncesini egemen kılmak konusuna kafayı takmış olan varyanttır. Neoliberalism asla ve kat'a bir ekonomik proje değil, ama politik bir projedir.
Borç, şiddete dayalı ilişkileri ve şiddetli eşitsizliği, müdahil olan herkese haklı ve ahlaki göstermenin gelmiş geçmiş en etkili yoludur. Bu dalavere işlemezse her şey patlar!
Umutsuzluk doğal bir hal değil; üretilmesi gerek!
Hayali kurulabilecek tek şey olarak çok para ve daha çok para kalıyor. Borçlanma kontrolsüzce büyüyor. Özgürlük, herkesin daimi olarak köleleştirilmesinin getirilerinden pay sahibi olma hakkına dönüşüyor.
Farkındalık problemi:
Ortak projelerde çalışırken hepimizin zaten komünist olduğunun, sorunları hukuka ya da polise başvurmadan çözerken hepimizin anarşist olduğunun, yepyeni bir şey ortaya koyduğumuzda hepimizin devrimci olduğunun farkına varmak...
Neoliberal kapitalizm, "başka alternatif yok" düşüncesini egemen kılmak konusuna kafayı takmış olan varyanttır. Neoliberalism asla ve kat'a bir ekonomik proje değil, ama politik bir projedir.
Borç, şiddete dayalı ilişkileri ve şiddetli eşitsizliği, müdahil olan herkese haklı ve ahlaki göstermenin gelmiş geçmiş en etkili yoludur. Bu dalavere işlemezse her şey patlar!
Umutsuzluk doğal bir hal değil; üretilmesi gerek!
Hayali kurulabilecek tek şey olarak çok para ve daha çok para kalıyor. Borçlanma kontrolsüzce büyüyor. Özgürlük, herkesin daimi olarak köleleştirilmesinin getirilerinden pay sahibi olma hakkına dönüşüyor.
Farkındalık problemi:
Ortak projelerde çalışırken hepimizin zaten komünist olduğunun, sorunları hukuka ya da polise başvurmadan çözerken hepimizin anarşist olduğunun, yepyeni bir şey ortaya koyduğumuzda hepimizin devrimci olduğunun farkına varmak...
June 28, 2022
Very "punk", both in terms of anger and energy and in terms of low quality. "We're already living under communism if only we'd be made to realise it!". "Capitalism will collapse within the decade". Between that and claims of how successful the protesters have been this whole book is delusional and so trite sometimes I can't tell if it's a parody. I'm beginning to think the reason communists speak in incomprehensible language is because they have bugger all to say. I'm sick of listening to this pointless moral critique of capitalism and I'm not reading any more communists unless they have something constructive to say. Yeah, capitalism bad, disease bad, hunger bad - how enlightening. Now piss off back to your squabbling about how to bring upon the revolution (funny no one cares about what comes after, because it's obviously sunshine and flowers).
December 1, 2024
I listened to this on an audio book that seemed to be a do it yourself-version with less than ideal quality. I listened about 3/4ths of the book. The thing I bring with me the most from it is that we activists often win more struggles than we realize and we do even less to celebrate them. Listening to it was a bit of activist history going back to Seattle 1999 with the WTO protest. I was a little bit active in Attac which focused on global economic equality. Listening to it I was wondering why it's so quiet about this issue today, but perhaps it's because activists are preoccupied by other struggles like the climate and Palestine.
Read
November 8, 2021"The things we care most about � our loves, passions, rivalries, obsessions � are always other people; and in most societies that are not capitalist, it’s taken for granted that the manufacture of material goods is a subordinate moment in a larger process of fashioning people. In fact, I would argue that one of the most alienating aspects of capitalism is the fact that it forces us to pretend that it is the other way around, and that societies exist primarily to increase their output of things."
April 8, 2025
Ensayos breves sobre el movimiento antiglobalización que tanto dio que hablar en los primeros 2000, con una tesis extrañamente triunfalista.
Desde que leà “Debt: the first 5000 yearsâ€� y sobre todo “The dawn of everythingâ€�, soy fan y discÃpulo de Graeber y lamento muchÃsimo su temprana muerte. Pero no he podido con esto, al segundo ensayo cerré el libro y a otra cosa. Creo que han envejecido fatal, dando relevancia a un movimiento que a mi entender no tuvo mucha repercusión en su dÃa y del que hoy no se acuerdan ni cuatro.
Desde que leà “Debt: the first 5000 yearsâ€� y sobre todo “The dawn of everythingâ€�, soy fan y discÃpulo de Graeber y lamento muchÃsimo su temprana muerte. Pero no he podido con esto, al segundo ensayo cerré el libro y a otra cosa. Creo que han envejecido fatal, dando relevancia a un movimiento que a mi entender no tuvo mucha repercusión en su dÃa y del que hoy no se acuerdan ni cuatro.
July 29, 2018
Very compelling, insightful and thought-provoking. Recommended for anyone who's interested in how change comes about.
The last essay almost caused me to drop a star - it feels a bit niche, and it's not my niche - but even there, there are bits that make it all worthwhile. The discussion of parallels between politics and magic is particularly fun:
'Politics is that dimension of social life in which things really do become true if enough people believe them.'
The last essay almost caused me to drop a star - it feels a bit niche, and it's not my niche - but even there, there are bits that make it all worthwhile. The discussion of parallels between politics and magic is particularly fun:
'Politics is that dimension of social life in which things really do become true if enough people believe them.'
March 10, 2021
Graeber writes a testimate to hope. A short attack on the notion that capitalism has become one-dimensional. He asks us to reasses what revolution can mean and what winning looks like. This was a much needed read right now. I feel like it would pair well with Postone's Time, Labor, and Social Domination; some of the analyses feel complimentary, but at different levels of abstraction. Graeber is much more concrete.
August 24, 2023
A decent selection of some of Graeber's essays. This isn't the best collection and nowhere as comparable as The Utopia of Rules, in terms of insight. If you like his work, you'll enjoy the book, otherwise, I wouldn't bother
Read
May 14, 2025Fort! Beaucoup de procédés de deconstruction qui m’ont fait voir les choses différemment. Pas beaucoup d’exemples concret cependant. Un peu peur que ça ne rentre par une oreille et que ça ressorte par l’autre.
May 24, 2020
Very powerful and nuanced ideology critiques on both capitalism and poststructuralism. David Graeber and Mark Fisher are a lot more honest than their contemporaries. And a lot more materialist.
May 26, 2021
Many of the ideas are better explored in Utopia of Rules. The essay Army of Altruists was very good.
August 24, 2021
short collection of essays, I like the first one that asks "are you an anarchist? the answer may surprise you." Good work. I enjoy Graeber's books and I now got a taste of his essays.
'
'
November 9, 2022
It's David Graeber. What else can I say?
Displaying 1 - 30 of 39 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.