m of care – dec 5 24
4th session of ultimate hidden truth talks
3rd on there never was a west
[https://museum.care/events/there-was-never-a-west-greg-yudin-in-conversation-with-mirko-canevaro/]:
“There Was Never a West”: Greg Yudin in conversation with Mirko Canevaro
The third discussion of Graeber’s essay “There Never Was a West”: A conversation between Greg Yudin and Mirko Canevaro, in the frame of “The Ultimate Hidden Truth of the World…”.
The third meeting of “The Ultimate Hidden Truth of the World…” reading group, the last one of 2024, will be a conversation between sociologist Greg Yudin and historian Mirko Canevaro.
greg – [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigory_Yudin]: Grigory Borisovich Yudin, also known as Greg Yudin (born 1983), is a Russian political scientist and sociologist. Yudin is an expert in public opinion and polling in Russia. He is columnist for the newspaper Vedomosti and the online magazine Republic, as well as the website Proekt. He has also written for Open Democracy.
“In one of his most powerful essays, Graeber debunks the idea that there ever was such a thing as “the West”. More specifically, he attacks the view that democracy was a “Western” invention and questions the admiration for democratic Athens. We will discuss how to disentangle democracy from the project of “Westernization” and what lessons can be drawn from the Athenian experience for this endeavor.” Greg Yudin on “There Never Was a West”
This will be the final session of the group in 2024. The meetings will continue next year. Follow us on social media to get the latest updates on the schedule for 2025.
View the full program of “The Ultimate Hidden Truth of the World…” reading group here.
Greg Yudin is a professor of political philosophy and an MA program head at The Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences. He studies the political theory of democracy with a special emphasis on public opinion polls as a technology of representation and governance in contemporary politics.
Yudin holds a PhD in philosophy from the Higher School of Economics, Moscow with a dissertation on Edmund Husserl’s phenomenology of science. Currently, he is working on a second PhD in politics at The New School of Social Research in New York. His book Public Opinion: The Power of Numbers was published in Russian by European University Press in 2020. He has also edited a collective volume entitled Living in Debt, on the effect of consumer credit on the life of communities in Russia (Saint Tikhon University Press, 2020).
He teaches political philosophy and social theory at the Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences and the Higher School of Economics (Moscow). Since 2024, he has been a research scholar at the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University.
notes/quotes from zoom meeting:
90 already here – wow
greg yudin: hosted m of care bs jobs group.. translated bs jobs into russian.. what connects nika and me is our interest in demo ness.. to set stage.. my primary field is theory of democracy.. this piece never west resonated w me for 2 reasons 1\ history of most harmful political concepts.. concept of west would play central role.. david would suggest these failures lead us right into dead zones of imagination.. no hope of imagining better society..t 2\ david’s criticism of hegemotic view of democracy.. ie: voting and elections.. strange view if take history of democracy serious
that helps.. as to why never a west ness part of ultimate hard copy
mirko canevaro: i think david got a lot of things right about democracy (ha.. zoom confirmed his language was japanese..?) – goes on to talk about democracy then and now
nika in chat:
The video will be posted at https://www.youtube.com/@instituteofdavidgraeber2258 a couple of days late. Please share it aroundmirko: greek democracy much bigger affair than athens.. standard formula use for decision.. demo.. always translated as decided by demos.. but technically means ‘comes to be opinion of demos’.. they didn’t vote on something all the time.. usually.. they would talk it to death.. what they voted on .. was what they had already agreed upon in order to come together.. (para).. when felt agreement reached.. consensus formed.. that’s when proposal delivered.. very strong power of veto.. so democracy diff than painted
alex in chat: yes mostly no need to vote, mostly acknowledge what the consensus is
mirko: even people argued each other to death end up in consensus
greg: graeber resists idea that demo is majority vote.. ‘pt is to ensure no one walks away feeling thoughts ignored’.. freedom as compliance w self imposed ness.. how can consensus be compatible w those class decisions.. where demos means the poor.. and dominate rich.. rich will feel oppressed.. so should we aim for class less society
mirko: if ask most scholars/theorists of a pro demo leaning what demos means: ‘totality of citizens and not a class based group’.. most wide spread opinion.. 2 opposing defns 1\ democratic.. power of all 2\ anti demo.. by elite for whom demo is power of poor.. if everybody has equal say.. and more poor.. then power of poor.. that also is a misunderstanding.. poor was those that had to work for a living.. so working element is the essential one
mirko: impression i get.. in athenian demo.. popular discourse.. forms institutionalized of common people.. so elite’s considered extra ficial and potentially subversive.. so rich people can belong to demos if align with demos.. direct taxes were only top 4% nobody else paid taxes
mirko: graeber talks about consensus from assemblies.. deliberate theorists get terrified of coming out toward consensus,, if end of day losing out.. open vote was show of hands.. so people oculd look around and see what others are voting.. and have causal influence on one another.. so to certain extent.. deliberation toward consent can be cohesive.. but tries to avoid extreme forms
nika in chat –
The key question for me is what decisions need to be made together and what decisions can be left to the people. How the whole system of power in society is organized..t
to me need a means to facil curiosity over decision making.. because the finite set of choices of decision making is unmooring us.. keeping us from us..
mirko: sandbox to try things out..t
begs the unconditional part of left to own devices ness.. the dance
‘in undisturbed ecosystem ..the avg individual.. left to its own devices.. behaves in ways that serve/stabilize the whole’ –dana meadows
we keep disturbing the ecosystem because we can’t seem to let go enough to see/try the unconditional part of left to own devices ness
greg: is fate of demo tied to west ness.. trump almost never speaks of west.. we’ll see if he tries to dismantle the west ness.. my question is .. will that be good for democracy
mirko: italian translation title is ‘critique of western demo’.. id of context of authoritarian govt is comfortable wayfor people to cut themselves out..
sam powell in chat: Slightly disappointed that the text wasn’t discussed in any detail
ha.. this resonates more w me
michael: practical issues in demo.. david raises issue of group of people needing to create common things.. but don’t have coercion.. so have to build a collective decision together.. david talks about it in his ethno of madagascar.. consensus is a practical issue.. if 49% aren’t into it.. won’t get done unless have violent coercion.. david really saying demo is a scam but need politically to use that word.. because need consensus to decide which leaders make decisions..
avi perlman in chat – I’m curious about comparing and contrasting David’s essay with CrimethInc’s essay “From Democracy to Freedom” https://crimethinc.com/books/from-democracy-to-freedom
mirko: point about coercion.. that’s one thing i don’t entirely buy about the essay.. that distinction.. 1\ most greek cities people did not bare arms in assemblies.. but also paradoxically.. decisions they make are consential.. not managerial
greg: reading nika’s question on dm.. what decisions left
nika: david’s experience in occupy assemblies.. you participate or walk away.. no forcing to go to protest.. but in greece.. society.. this consensus flipped whole structure.. and others in madagascar when govt walked away and people decided..
sam powell in chat – Those decisions that ‘don’t need consensus decision making’, for David, would be decided through consensus decision making…….a clear reading of his texts would tell you this
?
mirko: on the in-group and out .. whether you think form of dm was possible only because have slaves.. long standing argument.. david’s work shows these kinds of models are not dependent on people being out..
mirko: on what decisions need to be made by consensus.. there a lot of things people can just do.. don’t need a shared opinion about everything.. just on things community thinks they need shared opinion on
greg: important point.. with the obsession with voting
michael in chat: Most consensus politics groups by activists are only successful if the group more or less agrees on what they generally want to accomplish- they wouldn’t function if it was just 30 people pulled off the street to talk together
sam powell in chat: also consensus decision making doesn’t mean they ‘agree’ ….
stas: on 2 political groups.. imagination about society vs thing on the ground.. so when nika pts out athenian society not really majoritarian.. we still do have majoritarian decisions and in our imaginations we have majoritarian societies.. is there form for striving toward more ideal..
nika in chat – I would like to find a way to make decisions by consesus and in communities larger than 30 people
closest i’ve seen – waggle dance .. via louis rosenberg .. esp at 20 min in [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OawkMleAEdQ]: 20 min – on a swarm – a group of people/any type of independent agent.. that will form a system that is a closed loop system.. reacting to each other in real time.. able to negotiate and reach decisions in parallel.. a crowd – usually taking a poll/vote… done asynchrously… discrete input.. not even at same time.. find avg as snapshot.. crowd analogous to poll.. swarm analogous to a system… a poll is often polarizing.. tells diff’s- usually just gets people more entrenched.. exposing/driving extreme views… swarm is unifying.. negotiate in real time.. finding solution whole group that can best agree upon.. perhaps not most popular.. max’s the satisfaction of group.. rather than most popular.. swarms and crowds pretty diff… swarms have potential to find common ground… crowds.. tends to have one voice drown others out
and video clip of the waggle at 26-28 min controlling puck
and at 36 min: 36 min – every year honey bee.. fawns a new colony.. 10 000 bees go and leave and find new home.. dangerous/important process… need to pick home site.. waggle dance – encodes exact location of sites in body movement… then use waggle dances to select… space/ventilation/insulated/high enough off ground.. 2-500 bees doing waggle dance.. pushing and pulling on decision… thomas seeley in cornel – has studied bees intensely… bees will pick optimal site at least 80% of time
sam powell in chat:
@nika dubrovsky read the democracy project
ha
mirko: need to decide at least priori. that we are a community..
nika in chat – It seems to me that majiritarian democracy is only required when people plan something like war or direct violence..t
______
mirko’s continuation of 4th session [m of care – mar 20 25] of ultimate hidden truth talks
______
______
_______
_____
_____
______
______
____
be you. 