m of care – feb 19
reading group on david graeber‘s capitalism – transform of slavery
Feb 19 m of careAm I Really Just an Internalized Accretion?, or, How People Make People and Capitalism Makes SlavesJoin us this week as we discuss David Graeber’s “Turning Modes of Production Inside Out [short version],” wherein our beloved comrade explains why after 1968 so many activists and social theorists were hell-bent on making sure that their modes of production articulated.Link to the text:
https://drive.google.com/…/1tO_q…/view...Link to the event:
notes/quotes from meeting (wifi slow.. got into mtg late):
steve bachelor: doing intro – commercial relations reduces value to tokens.. object w no history.. mech that unites ancient world exchange w contemp commodified capitalist relations that makes simplifications in order to make exchange.. mech is introjection
steve: last 2 pts: then see capitalism as slave form.. slavery/capitalism structurally analogous.. mode of production as way of making people
steve: last point.. ‘since c has demand for growth.. we’re all f’d.. but i can’t really go into that now.. ‘ so wonderful ending
steve: he id’s a mech for way value gets reproduced.. c is an introjected form of slavery.. means i need to know what introjection means.. word first appeared in1852: means to feel thru.. very prominently used social sci category.. a fetishistic relationship where one becomes one w the object they are introjecting..
steve: i would ask david.. was he using introjection that knowingly .. that it did have history in soc sci.. that stopped w birth of functionalism (relies on consent).. and replaced by incorporation.. introjection is action based rather than conscious based
introjection: the unconscious adoption of the ideas or attitudes of others.”Hesse’s introjection of his parents’ emotional values”
matt: on having a continuing market state for slaves
mr: i just thought this was.. people who do/don’t use coercion..
steve: on interpolation vs introjection – height of ridiculous of intellectual debate.. but.. if think of co production there’s a schizmogenesis (g bateson) can have simultaneous creations.. valuable about this idea of exploding production.. to me allows scholarly support for activism.. to work in the cracks.. ie: genetic links of mode of production
steve: schizmogenesis helps skirt the binaries.. that the emperors want to sow
nika: can you talk more about exchange w people who have long distance relationship.. seems that’s what’s all our museum’s will have.. w museums as churches of state et al
steve: long trade routes about scarcity.. when they arrived.. have been removed from history.. further away from history becomes more valuable/exotic/scarce.. museums.. also are based on idea of scarcity.. what gets preserved.. what doesn’t.. there is an exoticism the further they are from place of origin.. creates a logic where the removal of history is what then exoticizes those things.. so the via david.. easy to commodify them.. enables their commodification
nichola mcnair: catherine barrett ‘we are all entangled in nature.. all exploitation starts w our pretense that we can separate ourselves’.. we spin out to all kinds of myth.. all a pretense that we’re not a part of nature
yuki whitley: p 80 quote.. ‘rather than one class of people being able to imagine themselves as abs free because others are abs unfree.. we have the back and forth..’.. up until then i was right there with him.. but i have mixed feelings about this assessment.. ie: in us how we’re supposed to live.. but hasn’t been true to my practical life.. ie: what people do during working/free hours to blend.. i wonder how people can separate those
yuki: earlier page on feudalism.. clear specific tasks owed to a lord.. on slaves in post slavery.. a person that thinks of self as unfree would have an easier time operating in a c society
nika: on relating that to school to prep kids for that.. and they don’t promote slavery.. because if they did.. they would stop doing this
simona: laboro means suffering.. and (?) comes from torture.. on tv show/series (tripalium) that needed work is only for 20% of people and only way out is to win lottery.. shows how borders has much to do w control of workers.. same control used on slaves.. 3rd idea about museums.. removed from meaning of original place.. humans reconstruct meanings in any occasion.. which means idea/object ie: dreamcatcher.. has on meaning out side central america.. but taken to europe and sold at free market it gets a new meaning..
steve: to me that pts up what is so fascinating of value theory and creation of fetishes.. we create those things to make meaning and then those things give us meaning.. so long as have meaning.. have value.. how does the value get preserved/reproduced.. ? david is saying object is important.. but it’s the human .. reluctant to say there are absolutes.. because always a relation between (object and human).. but this is humanistic inquiry
nika: i have so much to read after this reading group.. this is amazing
mr: compared to stuff on democracy and activism that so many people can relate to.. this is more a theoretical text.. hard to talk about.. one thing i liked – what matters in life is your relation between people.. but so much of what gets called economy are these deadening factors.. ie: i didn’t have to spend money to come to this mtg.. so is it part of the econ?
soumik: back to pt about week days vs weekends.. i also paused there.. for me.. 2 days between working day.. i would already feel down on sun eve.. and that would move back to sat et al.. so.. are you really free on those days.. i think
this was our original questioning in the lab – ‘why is everyone always waiting till 3 or 5 pm or the weekend.. how can we do our days differently’
vassily: on eskimos egalitarian in summer.. hierarchical in winter
graeber/wengrow back & forth law
steve: long distance trade isn’t what makes it parallel to slavery.. but the structures.. i don’t think it’s mere rhetoric.. i think he’s talking about symbolic orders.. in where we define freedom/mutual-aid.. so the piece is thin in that he is all over the place.. but i think he’s trying to get at this broader idea about how we think about power and where power is/isn’t .. how hierarchies do/don’t get made..
vassily: on how you think.. wow.. he could have said that in 2 pages.. but that’s how he does
steve: because he is trying to make this structural.. he’s not trying to make specific parallels.. ie: capitalism isn’t profit.. but loyalty to nobles.. which is likened to slavery.. and how can one go about challenging that.. if it’s not the most efficient way of org ing human society
vassily: we can continue discussion on google doc.. so much more to talk about.. like the ending.. i don’t think he wrote much about that later.. other scholars should take that on
nika: on wanting to continue this discussion at some point
vassily: so next paper/read – communism – for mar 5
sharing google doc for reading suggestions: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1fhgExRmhsjR1v-VsXlWBs1pwW62v-pfpIk6C7PoFqYU/edit
steve: i like the idea of doing a new one and then if want return to this
mr: also on reading debt and theory of value.. esp ch 4
simona: on next mtg – using a platform and connecting municipal experiences.. next one is on campaign of social housing.. but i’d like to intro these networkers at assembly
nika: a very important project of social design.. so next fri have the convo with them.. on municipal assemblies