David’s constant nervous laugh is telling. He can’t say anything substantive that withstands scrutiny from Thiel. He basically says something, gets refuted, then backtracks and agrees with Thiel. Go ahead OP and cry about it.
Honestly, it's normal way of speaking by David. He does better impression arguing on paper than in real life, because people usually interpret his behavioral ticks as nervousness as such things.
FriedIcecreamIsAReality I think his articulation is good but his logic is bad. Very common among academics. Theil always talks like this. I don’t think he’s nervous.
I read Bullshit Jobs and started reading Debt a few weeks before he passed. Truly quite a loss. This next decade is going to be a bumpy ride at the very least.
His thesis project is really great too. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. It was the only resource of its kind when I did a project with a friend.
Me too! I just discovered him today and wish he were still here because I feel (for whatever that’s worth) he is spot on. Do you know any other philosophers along this same vein? I want to send his book to all my managers.
@@Treebark1313 Its too complicated for a stupid minds. Princeton is part of regime. They work for establishment. Thats why they canned the white dude for organizing a union. Ask me one more question and Ill tell you how smart you are.
@@donq2957 I can't believe how completely wrong this is lol. A) he was a professor at Yale B) he wasn't the organizer he just gave vocal support to a student that was the one doing the organizing C) he didn't have tenure D) the reason that the faculty voted to remove him was multifaceted and related to a lot of different things he had done or supported including his work with the global justice movement
34:00 it’s astounding that Graber asks Thiel how to harness the intellectual power of the global poor, and he responds with an anecdote about choosing to leave his job at a powerful law firm. He can’t engage with Graber’s question at all. He’s completely unaware he was born on 3rd base.
A quick summary of the vid. Pretty much Peter said in the nicest most apologetic way possible. I dont care how we get there, or how many people suffer. I want to get to Mars at all cost. In contrast, David was a beautiful humanist
@@tavom6710 Yes, I suppose so - David Graeber argued against war, for preserving the environment, for giving greater freedom to workers and in particular to women in society, for opposing racism and imperialism. Things Peter Thiel viscerally opposes and of course, Peter Thiel is winning that debate.
@@gamerknown I just don't understand why arguing for makes you a saint. I can argue for all sorts of things from my seat. Changing material reality is very different. Whatever your opinion you've got to acknowledge that he changed reality more than David Graeber's preening virtue ever could. in eastern mysticism one is not supposed to become involved in the world . Are you in favour of the same thing?
32:21 Graeber: "There's people out there who could probably come up with almost anything you could imagine... right now they're sitting around trying to pay off their father's debt on the rice plantation or spending all their time in a shoe factory... that's what I'm concerned with" Thiel: "All you had to do is go out the front door, and I know you'll say it's harder for all different reasons but no; all you have to do is go out the front door" How do you walk out the front door of being in debt?? lol
By paying it off through the new revenue source you've acquired. There is relatively big number of low-competition non-scalable globalization-based companies you can create living in third world countires. Take the local supply chain optimization for example. Also; if you really have a good idea, which Graeber is so concerned about, you wouldn't have the problem with acquiring capital, even though you're personally in debt. I can't imagine any investment fund telling you that as a ceo/cto of a company you can't pay yourself more than average shoe factory worker. And if you can earn even as little as the average factory worker, you can pay off your debt, by the definition of the argument.
@@Wittgenstein.I assure being a creative person and trying to get things across to non creative ones is like pulling teeth regardless if the system worked then you wouldn't be here defending it right now
@@Wittgenstein. this comment lacks much perspective. you seem to be ignoring the concept of interest. in countries where there are few laws surrounding it and fewer actually enforced many people live in what is effectively legal slavery, the debt pit deepens faster than it can be filled and the practices of creditors are designed to achieve this. the governments in a lot of these countries are deeply corrupt and work with monopolistic or oligopolistic companies, many of which are themselves multinational western companies taking advantage of the corruptable governments and lax laws. you cannot simply 'acquire some capital' if your every waking moment is spent paying not to sleep on the street or go hungry. you cannot pretend like these people have anything close to the opportunity we do here
You missed his point though, it wasn't that he was just as trapped as a poor person or something like that it was that the other high-powered high-paid lawyers thought that they were trapped... This whole class Warfare thing makes us all stupid
@@x0rn312It is usually called class "struggle" not "warfare", which i think makes a difference. claiming that a first world lawyer and someone working in a "third world" shoe factory is essentially experiencing the same struggle, because they both "feel trapped" is ridiculous. It is popular that when someone points to inequality, and looks for someone to blame, for the more privileged party to claim some version of "but in the end aren't we all human?". you can always abstract it to a degree where everyone is equal. Of course corporate lawyers can, and are allowed to feel trapped, and they undoubtedly are in some way, but you have to see how there is a difference, no? I agree there is no point in mindlessly antagonizing each other and i dislike the current trend of thinking that being privileged automatically makes you a bad person, which it doesn't. What it does though is bestow you with a relatively higher degree of social responsibility, which involves acknowledging ones advantages and in the very least not judging those less fortunate as being of lesser character.
Both are equally irrelevant. This is one hour of two men who are experts on one field automatically assuming they're experts on a totally unrelated one. These men have no clue what they're talking about and seem to ignore or dismiss the fact that some engineering challenges have an intrinsic difficulty that you won't solve through politics or management restructuring.
@@davidp.7620 one guy seems like he holds some money to affect the funding of such process,the other is trying to discuss a solution to solve the lack of funding to that process.
Read a thing about Russian Cosmism and Nikolai Fyodorov, a faction of the technophile wing of the early 20th century pre- and post-revolution Bolsheviks. Their factions goal? Not just immortality drug. Nah. Too simple and easy for them. "An Immortality Drug would be an affront to all those giants and lesser men that were needed throughout the history of mankind to push Humanity to a Communist Utopia. We are immortal and live in an Utopia but what about those people!? Isn't it an insult to all those people who HAD TO die to get us to this point!? They, not us, are more deserving of immortality! So? We are going to build machines to resurrect all the dead people that were ever born! And all the people that might have been born! And all the people that never were born! Mwuhahahahaha!" The Russian Cosmists certainly didn't lack ambition.
cdzlink because centrally planned economies lacked the ability to manage every aspect of the economy and people misappropriated Marx’s egalitarian ethic in service of state slavery.
I thought David Graeber's book on 'Debt' was a genuine masterpiece - and listening to some of his talks / debates online has been a pleasure. It seems to me that he combined a childlike optimism (e.g. didn't he more or less openly advocate a 'jubilee' at some point?) with a profound understanding of so many things he wrote and spoke about. I think I will genuinely miss him. RIP
can't wait to read "Debt" -- graeber worked closely with Michael Hudson who has a whole book "Forgive them their debts" that goes into great detail on the jubilee year and near east conceptions of debt and debt amnesty. He cites Graeber a lot!
Imagine calling advocating for mass theft childlike optimism. Or imagine calling Hitler a childlike optimist (more or less openly committed an innovative act called genocide)
Graeber: *explains how the system locks people down and allows only a few people to do things they want* Thiel (one of the few people): I don't think we should change the system, we should just do things
He didn't say that ..we should not change..all he said ..that changing a whole system..is quite daydreaming.. it's better and more efficient to do small things and making it larger so that rather than convincing people.
@@verapamil07 oh? And hyper-capitalist/pro oligarchy like thiel (but not u, because ur a pleb) aren’t destroying society on the way to THEIR admitted dystopia?
I think what he means he doesn't fetishise his political beliefs. he doesn't start every sentence with " coming from antiauthoritarian political movement" or some of her pretentious tribal statement. His limitation is that he will not entertain anything he doesn't think has some possibility of success. maybe that's a limitation of imagination. Maybe that's why he has been so successful.
@@tavom6710 Sounds very "postmodern-isy" if there can be any such term. If I understand, what you are saying is, he is as cold and dead politically as a pile of money is...yaani Capital has no soul and therefore no beliefs, pure pragmatism...yes? I am not convinced, but I hear you. On thinking more deeply about it, I think he expresses his beliefs through his money, through actually altering the political landscape to suit his political beliefs... ...where we for being powerless are compelled to proselytize our beliefs till the masses and powerful hear them and hopefully alter the landscape to fit them. I think he does not needs to get in a public tussle with us because he has the relevant audience he needs to live his particular political beliefs. I believe you saw what he did to Gawker?
@@ArkAnudDinYaSin he is considerably less cold and dead then David Graeber. Honestly I've never heard of that guy until I watched this video. Gawker lost a lawsuit based on their publication of a sex tape without the consent of the person the tape. If there is a moral high ground to be had there I can't see it. He and his followers speak with such absurd self-assurance. It's like wandering into the Christopher Hitchens, fan boy dark web. They are both dead let's move on!! I will leave you guys to your circle jerk.
David Graeber was such a brilliant guy, and with such a caring and compassionate nature. Peter Thiel is a fascist and an anti-democrat. His answer to most people being unable to fulfill their potential is to say that"there are a lot of ways to do things" Facepalm
Both sides were being polite and not too direct. Graeber was giving a question about how to design a system that selects for talent. Thiel was saying that you let the talent self select itself in their own ingenious ways.
@@sentilopis i think both are correct in that many/most talented people dont know what to do with their lives (but still figure smth out) and that we cant really make a john lennon in school, bc the things he presents have not been seen before. the problem does reduce to giving them both the many opportunities to flourish that they need if aimless, and the basic means and freedom to go do their own thing if the things offered dont suit them.
Yikes Peter, the banks got more levers and got bailed out again. Silicon valley hasn't shrunk the wealth gap and has only made big brother even bigger. David owned this conversation. Great teacher.
@@blairhakamies4132 He means Thiel was schooled in this debate, and it turns out many of his views have not held up to the test of time. Thiel himself has left Silicon Valley.
Peter just doesnt seem to care. His care seems as much as a Pharoah in Ancient Egypt wanting great temples built on the backs of others. And at the end of it all, he believes he has built them all himself, with his own two magical hands no less. I can't even begin to think like he does, but I guess some of our minds are simpler than his
Thiel being like "no no don't look at the structure just focus on the consequences *start sweating* ...no don't look at the structure. *look at the structure* nooooooooo" *kernel panic*
Every time Thiel talks, he tries to draw attention away from any recognition that the majority of people are having their lives brutally limited for the benefit of a few. David is being SO nice. Making his points, though.
@@w.harrison7277 I said nothing that showed obsession or envy. I referred to argument tatics that distracted attention from addressing injustice and corruption, repeatedly.
yeah, he was TOO nice. I came into the debate hoping that my favorite anarchist would wipe the floor with a corporate oligarch. But I don't blame him too much, if he was aggressive at all he wouldn't be himself. and he was just an amazing mind.
Thiel wants rich people to do great things, and Graeber wants us all to do what we want, and get great things as a byproduct. It's a pretty easy choice for me.
They can both be right! Thiel's prescriptions are meant to get the ball rolling, but his vision more or less converges with Graeber in the long run. They have the same basic objectives, just different ways of getting there.
@@segasys1339 The guy who runs a company devoted to mass surveillance, named after the evil seeing stones of Sauron, does not converge with Graeber. At all. Can't happen.
@@ernststravoblofeld Relax bruh. If that's your takeaway from this discussion, you're just recreationally outraged. They both agree on an end state of techonological abundance and human prosperity but disagree on how to break out of the sclerotic oligarchy in the near to medium term. If you think Thiel opposes Graeber in any intractable, irreconcilable way, you need to chill out.
I never understood why Peter Thiel is worshipped as a philosopher and intellectual in silicon valley. His entire philosophy is a mishmash of justifications and rationalizations for his own greed. Why did Thiel, a former hard core libertarian, transform into a national conservative? Because Palantir won a government contract, of course.
“It is a frequent vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you have identified the correct one.”
@@shannon-daygrant8754 A PRINCIPLED libertarian wouldn't support Josh Hawley and Donald Trump, sell data to NSA, FBI, and ICE, fund a candidate who wants a registry of muslims in the US, or provide ideological support for neo-reactionaries like Moldbug. Of course, most american "libertarianism" boils down to "the best government is the one that lets me make the most profit" and Thiel's actions don't deviate from Ayn Rand's egoist ideology. But he's definitely not a philosophically consistent libertarian.
@@crystalc1ear You're still mind-reading a bit, but Ok. you're problem is he bills himself as a libertarian but doesn't fit your idea of one. Can principled' Putting labels aside, can you point to anything he has said that you disagree with?
@@shannon-daygrant8754 I actually don't disagree with much on this video. Thiel is saying innovation and good things come from the self-interested actions of a few brilliant people and that's the way it should be, Graeber says they come from collective effort and cooperation and that's the way it should be. I am closer to the latter but I can see Thiel's point. But overall I am repulsed by Thiel's sociopathic life philosophy. The obsession with exiting society (and evading taxes) once you've used up its potential, the obsession with immortality, the racism (he defended apartheid and Palantir's alliances with racial profiling in the government are shady in my opinion), the sexism (he said women should not vote), etc... I'm no SJW and some of the things he says, especially about colleges and groupthink, I kind of agree with, but in the end I think he's a vile cretin.
I almost sense Theil understands the just aspirations of the public and prefers to leverage advantage of spoils while in their elitist bloody hands and ensure nothing interferes by preaching his accelerationist meritocracy myth hype.
Theil is intelligent and has made some interesting critiques in the past, but next to Graeber (who i am even less familiar with) Theil looks like an average libertarian "know nothing". He's not even keeping up with Graeber here, who is way ahead of him on every subject. For example, the idea of being "politically agnostic". Anyone who has truly engaged with the deep questions of society and humanity knows that this is an immature view. You can't be politically agnostic and be expected to be taken seriously on the subjects of politics which encompass everything. This view is a symptom of our times, yet Theil gets away with this, he is even lauded for this view because of his status, yet another symptom of our times. Graeber is attempting to take the conversation deeper at every turn and Theil just has nowhere to go. It demonstrates the difference between a true intellectual (or what it means to be truly educated) and the status quo apologists that are so popular today (the one's the Greeks referred to as "Sophists"). I hope people can see the real lack of substance in Theil's approach.
@@Graeberwave Seriously, one of the greatest "innovations" of capitalism is mass ideological social control, though perhaps this is itself an illusion in that this is the fundamental feature of "human nature" that is distorted and forced to function as a bug. Or in other words, the transformation of that underlying unifying force of imagining and chasing the 'absurd' or 'impossible' for the benefit of many that religion offers at its core through the idea of anything/everything ie "god" into a force of coercion and social bondage for the revolting benefit of a few. I mean like, one can "act like they are free" all they want, but if they're confined to a prison of possibility (or you know, literally) no amount of faith is going to change that structural domination at its base. And like, not to excuse the absolutely deserved shitting on Thiel for his obvious grotesque material comfort that he has the _actual potential_ to influence through this accumulated surplus value, but ironically Thiel himself is even a lesser (much, _much_ lesser, to be clear) victim of the confinement he apathetically enforces on the rest of us in that manufactured ideological prison that puts up subconscious imaginary blind spots to possibility purely for the sake of perpetuating its continued exploitative existence, cloaked in that distortion of the enlightenment ideals of "freedom" and "rationality" to justify itself despite a shared acknowledgement of being neither. I forget where I heard the phrase "epistemology of ignorance" but I think it is quite an apt expression of what I'm trying to get at. Anyway, hopefully that made any sense and wasn't too bathed in unnecessary jargon, really just a wordy way to say maybe Peter should look into dialectical materialism to better understand his lack of imagination and extremely arbitrary circumstantial position of financial dictator that can break him out of the assumed and unquestioned divine right of entrepreneurs mindset. Or not. Probably that one sadly (and almost insanely at this point).
@@Bisquick Agreed. We underestimate how influential mass media is. Check out the book Technopoly by Neil Postman if you haven't already (or anything by Vilem Flusser).
Peter serves a very obvious purpose in the world today imo: to be so off base from reality and to have so much power that he is evil. He is a representation of what we must overcome in the coming years. Take a look at his "competition is for losers" talk he did at Stanford where he argues that monopolies are a must and that scientists who end up poor lived worthless lives. He is someone that has somehow never been challenged in his life. He is backed and funded and protected... somehow. You can see Peter getting uncomfortable as David unknowingly calls outs Peter's entire ethos beginning around 6 minutes in. Watch Peter's fingers. David goes on to essentially say "beaurorcary began being controlled by corporations which shifted the focus from innovation and creation to finance". Peter literally argued for this in his competition is for losers talk.
It is astonishing how brazen Thiel is about his hatred for democracy and his lack of faith in human beings to be more creative than he is. Anyone even briefly familiar with human history, anthropology, and social movements knows that human beings have an almost boundless creativity when not restrained by authoritarian hierarchical systems.
@@onetwo3411 anarchism is a political stance, not a form of social organization. So zero, since there is no such thing as living "in anarchy." But if your question is "name some of the great inventions created in forms of social organization other than the one we live in today," the answer is almost boundless: the compass, agriculture, all simple machines, inoculations, cookery, the arch, the dome, columns, knives, steel, trumpets, flutes, roads...
@@onetwo3411 anarchy is a relationship. U want examples tho: printing press, the x-Ray, the automobile, cryptocurrency, thousands of surgical procedures and Medicines…I could go on, but even an NPC like u gets it.
The problem, which was not discussed, is not that we aren't trying to colonize mars, or extend life, it's that we are always trying to make money. If a mushroom found in forests all over the world was a cure all, it would destroy pharma. Same for alternate energy would destroy big oil. Scarcity is manufactured because it is profitable.
Graeber really did put Thiel in a corner during this talk. It was clear how uncomfortable Thiel was getting when Graeber kept deconstructing Thiel’s world views. Sad to see a legend pass away so young.
THIEL: "Maybe it's just I'm secretly working on behalf of the regime or something" GRAEBER: [mumbles] "Not that secretly". Hits the nail on the head 😂 Praise to Graeber for his patience!
@K O Autopsy results not yet produced. Up to 40 days in a case like this. Natural causes at the moment. Which seems unlikely. If he had an illness or condition we would have expected an announcement by now.
Peter Thiel: Political atheist, libertarian, capitalist, and “working on behalf of the regime” (can’t believe he said that). He hates communism but defends lobbying government for tax-funded advantages. He doesn’t like big government but argues for big national programs like moon landing. Boy was he wrong about “the finance era” being over, and “a long deflationary phase” beginning. At least he admits he chose technology business over politics because he’s “not good at convincing people.” Graeber is in a league of his own. Thiel repeatedly defends his capitalism and contradicts himself multiple times. Didn’t realize he had defense contracts until now. Graeber really seems principled, to care about the future and common good and then suggests some constructive ideas. Thiel’s principles seem to be based around his own personal freedom and wealth accumulation. It was good to see them agree on some things though. Really happy to watch this. I learned a lot. Thx OP
Palantir the fascist tool for power www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-trump-backers-spy-firm-lobbied-gove-hancock-before-winning-key-nhs-contract/
@@frankjennings4489 You do not even realise what you are saying. Thiel can have all the principles he wants, if he wants them, which a professor has. If he doesn't want them, then he does not hold those principles... When you talk about principles, what principle are you espousing about them? That, if it is convenient, you can have principles, so long as it risks no harm to your prospects of maximising profits, you can have principle 'A', as a principle. That's not holding principle 'A', that's holding the principle of wanting to maximise profits first, with everything else coming second. Holding principle 'A' is just something you pretend. That's the principle you are espousing. You can hold this principle, but it is totally lousy, much more unprincipled than principled. What you are saying is that 'principles' are things of convenience, and that Thiel does not maybe have the convienience of having all the principles, that a professor might have. That is itself a principle. A tremendously lousy principle, more unprincipled than principled.
When Graeber said academia has amounted to self-marketing, I am reminded of how many of my seemingly leftist professors would literally just assign us to read their publications and how so many lectures centered around paid speeches they did at the height of their eminence. It is sad,yet predicted that education, and knowledge itself ,succumbed to the hyperreal economy. Rest in power, Graeber.
Yeah, but to be fair to them, that's just how terrible it is out here in late capitalism. They need to make a living too, and sometimes they really have to sell themselves, and their work. Sometimes, that amounts to a relatively harmless assignment involving their book in their lectures. Other times, it can involve blatant manipulation of research to reframe certain true facts and create harmful false propaganda.
Well.... it's what they understand and have studied so they are more effective at teaching it. Why not assign something they have written? I had a teacher share her master's thesis with us and we would debate with her about it and it helped us all develop a better understanding. It isn't all about self-promotion. Unfortunately she got fired and they hired some new underpaid adjunct to teach for minimal wages
@@aliceinwonder8978 I've been hanging around universities about 25 years, working as an academic for more than 10. The institution where I work is in the global top 20. While the university I attended in my undergrad years was certainly not in the top 20, the quality of education I was given there is sadly, better than what I am able to offer my own students in the apparently prestigious institution in which I now work. Part of the distinction is that the teachers used to give us a good idea of their own research and there'd indeed be lively debates and thoughtful reflection around the work they generously shared: it's what set me on the path of my own academic journey (can't really call it a career). Nowadays I guess there's been a shift into building static courses that can be more easily tracked over time, readings that give a general understanding of the topic but little opportunity for provocation or reflection; more of a self-service environment for students etc. In short, it's become more like a McDonald's. While the amount of work/pay I receive is a bit of a problem, it's the crisis in university culture that will see my out the exit before this year is through.
Interesting to hear Peter Thiel talk about not wanting to change politics or think political change is important, when he's literally bank rolling some of the most right wing politicians running for office 😂
The problem with Thiel's argument in this debate (there are lots of problems with Thiel generally, but they don't really factor into this) is that he's got this very Malthusian mindset, and he makes the same mistake as Malthus. He's right that there is scarcity in the system, but most of that scarcity is artificial and the only reason there isn't enough for everyone is because people like Thiel have so much more than everyone else. Thiel isn't some revolutionary thinker, he made his money by being a banker, but the first one to do it online, and then speculative investment. He hasn't actually produced anything except a convenient middle-man. The primary reason he's a billionaire is that he was born at just the right time to capitalize on an emerging market that was invented though government funding, and be the only game in town when the market calcified.
It is also amazing how you and I know what the shape of the Earth is. Yet, why do people want to "debate" otherwise? And to all the Thiel and Musk knobs, I'll remind you: that was a rhetorical question.
The way you described his career is technically accurate but doesn't really do it justice. Saying that he was just a banker who happened to be the first to do it online is like saying that rockets are just big fireworks. Lots of people tried to create viable online payment systems but it proved very difficult and PayPal was the first major success largely because of Thiel's philosophy and leadership. He's also been one of the most successful venture capitalists ever, so writing the rest of his career off as just speculative investment is also underselling what he's done, problematic entanglements with the security state aside.
@@frankjennings4489 He also funded JD Vance, the latest Trumpanzee to jump on the fascist bandwagon, who just won their primary! Thiel just can't stop winning!
Really? The definition of organization is: > an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department. Since people don't spontaneously *happen* to agree on their goals and how to achieve them, surely organization implies *some form* of centralization; even if informal and unconscious. Its easy to see organization can happen in ways that are not purely top down and autocratic -that is to say, not formally centralised; however co-ordination certainly means that there was some level centralization(no matter how informal and dynamic); lest how would one sign or imperative be given a greater imperative than all the other signs put forward by the constituents of the organization that would be required for such co-ordination or shared attention towards a certain goal? People don't merely happen to agree that 9am is the time for work and 5pm is clock off - but that wasn't organised by one pure top down autocracy either - it is to some extent decentralised, but since it IS organised, it must be centralised to some varying degree... What am I missing here?
This is kind of blowing my mind because I've been talking about a libertarianism that also recognises the need for a welfare state for a long time and have found no other thinkers who share that view point. But today I discovered David Graeber - his speaking my language
This is so good! i'm glad I found this, I respect both these guys perspectives and love their books. They differ philosophically, sometimes in polarising ways, yet are both so intelligent and valuable. Such a mature discussion and glad they can sit and enjoy each other's presence enough to not cut each other off and throw in low comments on each others character (mostly). Graeber, I miss you.
Thiel has the guts to actually keep harping on scarcity. There is obviously no such thing, or his position in society would not exist. There are vastly more empty houses than homeless people. There is enough food waisted by the food industry to feed the world twice over. Scarcity is largely a manufactured thing to keep wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the special few.
I think there was a tremendous opportunity for the two to agree after Thiel raised a valid point about the oil shock of the 70s. The direction I wish the talk had taken was, why not an Apollo-like program to reduce oil dependency by developing alternative energy technologies? It was clearly feasible. Of course, some of the answers to this question are obvious and play much more to Graeber's observations about how society makes it difficult to creatively innovate when, among other things, it's under excessive political pressure from a multitude of sources such as lobbyists and very large industries. This is an imbalance that needs to be corrected. Graeber is in favor of change, Thiel is convinced things can't be changed so let's solve by working around the constraints. I'm in favor of the former; the latter is fundamentally pessimistic and simply leads to a slightly different distorted system.
Here’s a glimpse of what could have happened if an Apollo-like program to reduce oil dependency had been initiated. Look at the steep drop in energy production cost from solar cells. cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F22d7264b-830b-47fc-94e1-22ba4b80b811_2426x3747.png Here is the source article. noahpinion.substack.com/p/jevons-paradox-wont-slow-the-energy
That Apollo-like project already exists. Several times over. The world is spending far more resources on developing clean energy than it ever did on making it to the moon. The problem is that producing a constant stream of clean energy for 8 billion people is a far more complicated task than a moon landing. No amount of political discourse will change that fact
the change is dependent upon citizens even being aware that something different can happen. That's why history is taught the way it is. Most westerners are ONLY taught that taking is valued, there is no other reality beyond money, and that peaceful existence is stupid and naive. It's one of the earliest moral injuries.. that we're all animalistic and survival means theres violent ends to losers. The manipulation through 'wars' and trumped up political 'activity' serve to keep imagination under lock and keycard.
As much as I like Peter Thiel one has to acknowledge that David indeed thinks about the subject matter in much deeper and more coherent way. Peter is an advocate of leaving the system aside and doing what you want to do regardless of law and etc. David thinks about changing the whole system. This way much more potential could be released. Potential of millions of people who do useless jobs just to support themselves instead of following their passion.
“Changing the whole system” is the basis of every shallow and incoherent plan. It’s like the platonic form of shallow incoherence. The original sin. It’s the goal of every movement that ends up making zero impact.
@@informationsuperkhan it doesn't have to happen like that though, in a large sweeping manner. I have some first hand experience with this happening to me (a mere component of the whole). When covid hit I got furloughed from my job at a restaurant, went on government assistance, and was able to start organizing musicians to fight for fairer wages in a city that brings in billions from music every year while its musicians barely survive- or have to work in other jobs in addition to the music industry. If it can happen to me (a part of the whole), then it can happen to other parts of the whole without needing some sort of utopic revolution. The only thing really utopic I keep hearing is the idea that this corporate capitalist world is somehow sustainable, and guarantees individual freedom.
@@informationsuperkhan perhaps. But in the least we need to create local communities that “the system” has very little control over. That’s what I’m about. Forget “the USA”/ federalism. It’s a decaying gold plated turd.
“I often say, one thing that’s Not a scarce resource of the world is- imaginative people with possible solutions to intractable problems. There’s probably no one in the entire world that doesn’t have some idea that we have never thought of and we’re both pretty smart guys.” -David Graeber The root of it all. This system doesn’t utilize our best and brightest.
In fact it leaves many to be ground down by poverty, disease, and addiction. Perhaps most considering the vast majority of society lives in abject poverty.
I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. - Albert Einstein
the people commenting on the way that David giggles saying it's out of nervousness is so funny. He can barely keep it together because Peter Thiel keeps saying exactly the wrong things and thus supporting David's position
It seems to me that Thiel advances an argument that applauds Herculean resilience and grit without interrogating the conditions that require them. Also, there is a big difference between being an Anarchist (micro), and living in an Anarchy (macro). Myopic...
"Herculean resilience" ?? How many boxes on the street did Thiel ever live in? He was born into a priveleged racist economy and hasn't slowed one iota. He's spouting all that 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' mythology all these wealthy folk use. It's pure BS. They made their money off of taking it from others who believed them. The more they take, the more praise is heaped upon them. It's really weird in the longer view of humanity.
Peter Thiel is not nearly as intelligent as he is given credit for, and he completely lacks both common sense and wisdom. He thinks it's possible to create a colony on Mars, but it's not possible to create a system of direct democracy. Both ideas are ridiculous. David Graeber has intelligence, common sense, and wisdom. Game, Set, and Match: Graeber
This discussion could have been a LOT less civil, and likewise a lot less intelligible. I really appreciated hearing these two actually debate and talk instead of the usual arguments
Agreed. All the comments in this video on the other hand... like they weren't hardly even arguing why are people talking about this like it was a street brawl.
@@w.harrison7277 Care to provide some scientific data to backup that beyond ridiculous claim? Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, if you know anything about science you would know that. I think it's far more likely that we tend to put our smart tech people into the business world now where all they do is research on how to get people addicted to their phones. And I see no evidence of even a correlation either as every field of study is still overwhelmingly male dominated atleast here in the usa.
I don't think he did refute the assertion that scarcity is real... I think he actually agreed with him. But, to paraphrase and use your term, he added that that doesn't mean the money is real in the way people think.... These guys are way more on the same page than the people in the comments seem to realize. This is barely a deabate: it's really two Anarchist/Libertarian type people trying to figure out how you structure a truly free Society...
Thiel: "i agree that the eccentric university professor is a species that's becoming extinct". Graeber: "well, I know that" That was hard to hear now. RIP to a great one. Someday, we'll get justice for his death
Fllippin' Peter Thiel. Color me yellow and call me a banana; imagine a billionaire neoliberal technocrat telling people you can't have this and that while also issuing veiled denunciations of worker owned co-ops. He can go pound sand.
Those comments by Graeber at the beginning kinda make you think in some respects how lame progress has been technologically. Flying cars, Space colonies, immortality pills, an end to drudgery? Nope, rather just more cheesy social media. There’s a lot of good technological development when it comes to computers and the internet though personally I think the biggest stuff was the first decade of the internet.
Unfortunately the great days of the Internet are over, and could get worse. Of course if you know where to look (or what to do) you can use that #technology in a "good" way. Also, unfortunately, we are more often encouraged (or maybe educated, corralled) to be a bunch of mouth-breathing flu klux klan types typing like keyboard drone pilots all over the place. Shout out to Instructables.com by the way.
I have not yet thought this through adequately, but the technological stagnation seems to me to be mirrored by the way small businesses develop in the United States. Let's say that you want to start a pharmacy. You go to a bank with a business plan for starting a small pharmacy in a neighborhood which has none. That's a rejection waiting to happen, because the bank deems the plan as risky. Next week, you bring a revised plan to the same banker; now you intend to start a rival pharmacy directly across the street from an established pharmacy offering all the same products. The banker will approve this loan because now she's betting on what she deems as a safer business, one which has already been demonstrated to work by someone else. In this scenario, the underserved neighbor never does get a pharmacy, and the two business owners are now dividing the available profits from the overserved neighborhood. In this world, I can see how R&D budgets are refocused get shrunk or eliminated all together, and what remains gets focused on smaller goals. There is just no courage in the world of finance.
@@davidnaef1 He's always been libertarian in general but he realized the nature of politics and the futility of trying to get things done by trying to get everyone's permission. His points make a lot of sense actually.
Peter Thiel: "There was no technology to stop terrorism in 2001." 49:55 Wow. So all those hundreds of billions of dollars were just.... for something else. Norad? Eh, they were busy that day too.
Just because there was money doesnt mean that there was technology. Money and technology are two different things. This whole comment section is just creepy and uninformed.
@@mgm8075 The guy in the comment criticized Thiel for saying that in 2001 there was no technology to stop terrorism. Which is a great point, that's why Thiel believes that if we want to prevent further erosion of personal freedom like from the Patriot act, we need technology to stop it instead, because someone has to. So I don't know how any of this serves as a criticism of Thiel, other than blind hate, which is pervasive in this comment section. Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by money diverted to him rather than something greater. Thiel earned his money for doing things very beneficial for people, and has reinvested it into ground breaking companies that attempt to do things far greater than any government would be brave enough to do. He has 3/4 of his net worth in startups and he invests in ones that go balls out and swinging. I hope you realize that just because someone has a large net worth doesn't mean that he has billions in his bank account just sitting there doing nothing. Thiel has earned the right to manage the kind of capital he has accumulated, and he does to in an extremely thoughtful and forward looking way. No government apparatchiks would be ever able to direct it better than he does. You probably have him and his company, Palantir, to thank for your freedoms not being eroded further. It's extremely good and finding terrorist networks. Because of that, I bet that some major attacks that would have happened in the US were prevented. If they weren't, we would have the Patriot Act squared.
@Nosferatu Zodd you are contradicting yourself. If the government is to be trusted then what's the issue with providing them with some tools? The government of China has implemented something much more intrusive without the help of private businesses. And Thiel is anything but spineless. He constantly puts his money in brave project, and these are already benefiting humanity and will do so in the future. Furthermore, he constantly criticizes his peers and that always takes bravery. I for one cannot imagine that someone like you, in a group of other socialists, would dare criticize the precepts that group holds to be true. Thiel does it all the time, but the only way one can see how much it takes is for a person to have done it themselves.
@@arc46789 Without the help of private businesses? Who do you think did the work lol? Even Western companies exported technology to China for the CCP surveillance programme.
@Nosferatu Zodd Political Agnostism... he's not sure if Politics is as real as the Billions in his Bank Account, or is if it's MORE real..... Oh Peter T., i know you'll never change...
James Madison: "The primary function of government is to protect the interest of the opulent minority against the majority." Thiel: "It's too complex a society...there's a lot that's broken...government would become too controlling. But what we can do is go to Mars."
Thiel made/makes a lot of money from Palantir but certainly not all of it. His co-founding of Paypal and early investment in Facebook were the source of far more of his wealth before PLTR hit the stock market.
@@dalton-at-work Creating a system to enable online payments is value creation. Investing in a startup would also fail to meet the criteria of rent extraction. You seem to be wielding Graeber's work like a hammer and to you everything looks like a nail.
@@dodododatdatdat A quote from Graeber (in Direct Action): Creating accord is the creation of society. Society is god. Or, perhaps, god is our capacity to create society. Consensus is therefore a ritual of sacrifice, the sacrifice of egoism, where the act bring into being that very god. We are gods.
DAVID GRAEBER was a founding member of the Institute for Experimental Arts He did a lecture with the title: How social and economic structure influences the Art World in the Financial Consequences - International MultiMedia Poetry Festival organized by the Institute for Experimental Arts supported by LSE Department of Anthropology. Influential anthropologist David Graeber, known for his 2011 volume Debt: The First 5000 Years speaks about the correlation between the cultural sphere and society. The intellectuals and the artists create an imaginary way to criticize the economic system in any era. Art can overcome hegemonic frameworks and acknowledge other possible worlds, offer us the opportunity to understand better the marginalized social entities. Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process). As the economic crises go deeper in time more people face the effects of exclusion. Art and social sciences can give voice to the voiceless. Especially young social aware poets can give us a clear view of the real social effect of the financial consequences. - David Graeber You can watch the Lecture here: ruclips.net/video/WCF-8OQj0RE/видео.html
The only reason Thiel thinks it’s possible for everyone to just go out and do anything they want is really just him telling on himself and his own privilege
Seems as though Peter Thiel's main argument is that it it often easier to affect change starting with small groups rather than mass movements. This viewpoint is not at all antithetical to anarchism and is in fact the basis of many successful modern tactics of anarchist organization. His flaw seems to be the assumption that smaller groups of people must necessarily be organized heirarchically. The only evidence he provides for this assumption is ancedotal involving small companies that claimed to be decentralized and transparent breaking down when those involved became aware of differences in their pay. So I must assume that Peter Theil doesn't understand that different pay rates are a form of hierarchical organization.
@@Confucius_76 No there has never been one. Corruption thrives under all systems of government and most of them are built on a foundation of corruption.
I’m not so sure about that. Peter has been instrumental in creating some of the most important tech companies in human history (Facebook, Palantir, PayPal, etc.). They have literally changed the course of civilization, for better or worse (probably the latter). Guys like Graeber write about the things that people like Thiel actually *do* in the world. Graeber’s work has the occasional zing, but seems unfocused. Just my opinion.
if palantir and the likes gain more control davids work will be burnt akin to Nazi book burning .....Neofascist www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-trump-backers-spy-firm-lobbied-gove-hancock-before-winning-key-nhs-contract/
I want to believe that that’s true, but when has any professor assigned you to read Graeber? I think his work hasn’t really been acknowledged in academic circles,who are themselves often neo liberal bureaucracies, n’est pas? It’s true in a way. Academia is still very very afraid to speak of politics outside the binary left/right system. Graeber,Zizek-those minds who seek to criticize both sides as a single structure are often rejected...from what I see and recall at least .
58:35 Peter Thiel doesn't think of the industrial deregulation of North America; or perhaps, the lack of any regulation or caution in developing industries. Beirut just exploded because people ignored fairly common knowledge about ammonium nitrate. Almost half of all Americans do not understand viruses; there's no chance they'd understand radiation hazards. Both are "invisible."
My experience is that bootstrapped startups are NOT hierarchical. People have to wear many hats by necessity, survival depends on teamwork, ... AND it isn't until you take investment for the first time that everyone starts fighting over equity... or even thinks much about it. At that point, the value has been proven, the most creative work has been done, and the question is how to optimize or scale... but that is NOT the breakthrough, that is an economization.
33:43 your priveleged track record granted you opportunity that a factory worker in china didn't have-and never will. you went to law school, which immediately one-ups you on any job application. your ability to leave and start anew is not representative of the vast majority.
49:45 in order to stop the curtailing of civil liberties, you work with the PERPETRATOR of civil rights violations? you're a show libertarian like so many other american libertarians, you oppose government power but worship corporate power. both are illegitimate from an anarchist perspective and frankly if you actually followed the NAP, you'd be opposed to both. that you are not is proof positive you lack a serious principled stance against the control of freedom by power.
@@Galahaj I just concluded that from the fact that you think a fascist dude made great points in a video in which he only talked shit from start to finish^^
Thiel pretending David simply proposed to print more money "so there is more money for everyone" says so much more about Thiel than David, loool. Can he be that stupid to think David is that stupid? But even if this is a sneaky-snake-trick once again: This is still ridiculous for a sneaky trick! Such a bucket-head move and some trolls here in comments say Thiel dominated the debate. omg, this is comedy my friends!
A lot of commenters seem to think Thiel saying he's a political atheist makes him a hypocrite, because he identified himself as a libertarian and donated money to Trump. But that's really missing the point: I don't think he's saying he doesn't feel any affinity towards any political persuasion or that he won't partake in politics; he's saying he doesn't worship any political ideology, i.e. he doesn't believe any set of ideas is above reproach, or should be bowed down to sight-unseen. That seems like a pretty legitimate point of view to me, and my sense is the only reason people would take issue with it is either a) they are 'believers' in a specific political religion and therefore see him as an apostate, or b) haven't understood the metaphor. I could be wrong - that's just how I parsed his sentiment. I should also I say i much prefer Graeber - both in this discussion and his writing more generally. So this isn't coming from some whack-job Thiel obsessive.
Absolutely ! There is no coherent philosophy behind his thoughts besides greed . He is arrogant enough to think no one can see “ the Emperor has no clothes “
Well he’s kind of a theist or a non theist hard to say really. In any case his position regarding politics seems a little bipolar but it’s completely coherent.
@@cf6713 It is not "completely coherent" at all. In one breath he is a political atheist, in the next he is a libertarian. That's not cohesion, I don't know what else to tell you.
Funny to see someone I consider as a crook like Mr Thiel, who is in our alternate reality world a Great Entrepreneur. So basically he was one of the many who got the "idea" (a 5 year old could get it) to distribute electronic payment. So the idea was trivial and the implementation was almost trivial. Paypal is a gigantic monopoly that extract value by providing a useful service as a very profitable product. The monopoly does not come from paypal efficiency, it is just the nature of the market there. What he means by innovation or ideas is funny, there was niether ideas or innovation in paypal. Indeed many similar compagnies were develloping such a trivial service, the goal was to be the winner to take it all. And of course to attract capital in order to hire an army of semi litterate coders to be first in the preferential attachment race. Hilarious. The same goes for mars, the idea is at least a century old, and well Cyrano de Bergerac dreamed of a trip to the moon. The technology is 80 years old (with marginal improvements). How fun it was to see them totally dodging the question about the point of sending 10 men on mars when the population is 7 billions, even 1 million would be 1/7000. So a libertarian is someone who want to put in the hand of private monopolies common ressources : physical ones but also knowledge, and workforce etc ...
David’s constant nervous laugh is telling. He can’t say anything substantive that withstands scrutiny from Thiel. He basically says something, gets refuted, then backtracks and agrees with Thiel. Go ahead OP and cry about it.
Honestly, it's normal way of speaking by David. He does better impression arguing on paper than in real life, because people usually interpret his behavioral ticks as nervousness as such things.
Telling huh? I don’t think so and talk about reading a lot of things into that
FriedIcecreamIsAReality I think his articulation is good but his logic is bad. Very common among academics. Theil always talks like this. I don’t think he’s nervous.
FriedIcecreamIsAReality stfu
@@Thomas-re9ky I’d say the opposite
I never heard of David until after he passed. I feel a real sense of loss for the world.
I read Bullshit Jobs and started reading Debt a few weeks before he passed. Truly quite a loss. This next decade is going to be a bumpy ride at the very least.
@@dennyhamrick2552 I hear you. I am surprised that U.S. is not in more upheaval.
Amazing writer. Do read 5000 years of Debt by David Graeber
His thesis project is really great too. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value. It was the only resource of its kind when I did a project with a friend.
Me too! I just discovered him today and wish he were still here because I feel (for whatever that’s worth) he is spot on. Do you know any other philosophers along this same vein? I want to send his book to all my managers.
Thiel: "Maybe I'm secretly working for the regime or something"
Graeber: "Not secretly..."
LOL.
Says the dude who got tenure at Princton and had it revoked because he wanted organize a grad student union.
@@donq2957 in what way is a graduate student union "the regime"?
@@Treebark1313 Its too complicated for a stupid minds. Princeton is part of regime. They work for establishment. Thats why they canned the white dude for organizing a union. Ask me one more question and Ill tell you how smart you are.
@@donq2957 I can't believe how completely wrong this is lol. A) he was a professor at Yale B) he wasn't the organizer he just gave vocal support to a student that was the one doing the organizing C) he didn't have tenure D) the reason that the faculty voted to remove him was multifaceted and related to a lot of different things he had done or supported including his work with the global justice movement
@@purple-flowers Yes
34:00 it’s astounding that Graber asks Thiel how to harness the intellectual power of the global poor, and he responds with an anecdote about choosing to leave his job at a powerful law firm. He can’t engage with Graber’s question at all. He’s completely unaware he was born on 3rd base.
I think the answer is that the global poor have negligible intellectual power; if they were so smart, why would they choose to stay poor?
Thiel is so ultra-serious, it's a highly amusing contrast against Graeber's gleeful giggling.
RIP David, you beautiful bastard.
A quick summary of the vid. Pretty much Peter said in the nicest most apologetic way possible. I dont care how we get there, or how many people suffer. I want to get to Mars at all cost. In contrast, David was a beautiful humanist
@@Elcherino123 Beautiful Humanist = inconsequential human?
@@tavom6710 Yes, I suppose so - David Graeber argued against war, for preserving the environment, for giving greater freedom to workers and in particular to women in society, for opposing racism and imperialism. Things Peter Thiel viscerally opposes and of course, Peter Thiel is winning that debate.
@@tavom6710 not necessarily.
@@gamerknown I just don't understand why arguing for makes you a saint. I can argue for all sorts of things from my seat. Changing material reality is very different. Whatever your opinion you've got to acknowledge that he changed reality more than David Graeber's preening virtue ever could. in eastern mysticism one is not supposed to become involved in the world . Are you in favour of the same thing?
32:21 Graeber: "There's people out there who could probably come up with almost anything you could imagine... right now they're sitting around trying to pay off their father's debt on the rice plantation or spending all their time in a shoe factory... that's what I'm concerned with"
Thiel: "All you had to do is go out the front door, and I know you'll say it's harder for all different reasons but no; all you have to do is go out the front door"
How do you walk out the front door of being in debt?? lol
By paying it off through the new revenue source you've acquired. There is relatively big number of low-competition non-scalable globalization-based companies you can create living in third world countires. Take the local supply chain optimization for example.
Also; if you really have a good idea, which Graeber is so concerned about, you wouldn't have the problem with acquiring capital, even though you're personally in debt. I can't imagine any investment fund telling you that as a ceo/cto of a company you can't pay yourself more than average shoe factory worker. And if you can earn even as little as the average factory worker, you can pay off your debt, by the definition of the argument.
@@Wittgenstein.you completely missed the point of everything Graeber said. You’re a fucking moron my amigo.
@@Wittgenstein.I assure being a creative person and trying to get things across to non creative ones is like pulling teeth regardless if the system worked then you wouldn't be here defending it right now
I know a lot of people who acquired more debt doing exactly that... The new source of revenue is more debt, and so on...
@@Wittgenstein. this comment lacks much perspective. you seem to be ignoring the concept of interest. in countries where there are few laws surrounding it and fewer actually enforced many people live in what is effectively legal slavery, the debt pit deepens faster than it can be filled and the practices of creditors are designed to achieve this. the governments in a lot of these countries are deeply corrupt and work with monopolistic or oligopolistic companies, many of which are themselves multinational western companies taking advantage of the corruptable governments and lax laws. you cannot simply 'acquire some capital' if your every waking moment is spent paying not to sleep on the street or go hungry. you cannot pretend like these people have anything close to the opportunity we do here
if there was any justice in the world, Thiel would be gone and Graeber still with us
Bro used an example of himself leaving a law firm job he was handed right out of college as an example of why people aren’t as trapped as they think
You missed his point though, it wasn't that he was just as trapped as a poor person or something like that it was that the other high-powered high-paid lawyers thought that they were trapped...
This whole class Warfare thing makes us all stupid
@@x0rn312It is usually called class "struggle" not "warfare", which i think makes a difference. claiming that a first world lawyer and someone working in a "third world" shoe factory is essentially experiencing the same struggle, because they both "feel trapped" is ridiculous. It is popular that when someone points to inequality, and looks for someone to blame, for the more privileged party to claim some version of "but in the end aren't we all human?". you can always abstract it to a degree where everyone is equal. Of course corporate lawyers can, and are allowed to feel trapped, and they undoubtedly are in some way, but you have to see how there is a difference, no? I agree there is no point in mindlessly antagonizing each other and i dislike the current trend of thinking that being privileged automatically makes you a bad person, which it doesn't. What it does though is bestow you with a relatively higher degree of social responsibility, which involves acknowledging ones advantages and in the very least not judging those less fortunate as being of lesser character.
Infinitely more important and interesting than Zizek vs Peterson
Agreed.
Both are equally irrelevant. This is one hour of two men who are experts on one field automatically assuming they're experts on a totally unrelated one. These men have no clue what they're talking about and seem to ignore or dismiss the fact that some engineering challenges have an intrinsic difficulty that you won't solve through politics or management restructuring.
@@davidp.7620 one guy seems like he holds some money to affect the funding of such process,the other is trying to discuss a solution to solve the lack of funding to that process.
i cant stand watching zizek and him rubbing his nose every single second.💀
it's practically the same thing. charlatan vs academic. a lot of hot air vs a lot of decent ideas
Graeber talking wistfully about an immortality drug is especially sad right now. Rest in power, comrade
I'm totally rooting for you here...
Read a thing about Russian Cosmism and Nikolai Fyodorov, a faction of the technophile wing of the early 20th century pre- and post-revolution Bolsheviks. Their factions goal? Not just immortality drug. Nah. Too simple and easy for them. "An Immortality Drug would be an affront to all those giants and lesser men that were needed throughout the history of mankind to push Humanity to a Communist Utopia. We are immortal and live in an Utopia but what about those people!? Isn't it an insult to all those people who HAD TO die to get us to this point!? They, not us, are more deserving of immortality! So? We are going to build machines to resurrect all the dead people that were ever born! And all the people that might have been born! And all the people that never were born! Mwuhahahahaha!"
The Russian Cosmists certainly didn't lack ambition.
Why did communism fail so miserably?
cdzlink because centrally planned economies lacked the ability to manage every aspect of the economy and people misappropriated Marx’s egalitarian ethic in service of state slavery.
@@cdzlink7115 because certain things are just BAD...
I thought David Graeber's book on 'Debt' was a genuine masterpiece - and listening to some of his talks / debates online has been a pleasure.
It seems to me that he combined a childlike optimism (e.g. didn't he more or less openly advocate a 'jubilee' at some point?) with a profound understanding of so many things he wrote and spoke about.
I think I will genuinely miss him.
RIP
Debt is an excellent book.
The comparison to a child is perfect. Jesus said only those who behave like a child (in their curiosity) will enter the kingdom of Heaven.
can't wait to read "Debt" -- graeber worked closely with Michael Hudson who has a whole book "Forgive them their debts" that goes into great detail on the jubilee year and near east conceptions of debt and debt amnesty. He cites Graeber a lot!
In the same boat
Imagine calling advocating for mass theft childlike optimism. Or imagine calling Hitler a childlike optimist (more or less openly committed an innovative act called genocide)
“You used to put them in academia, but now academia’s all about self-marketing.”
Hearing Thiel mention Elon Musk's "occupy Mars" t-shirts to refute Graeber's point about capital stifling innovation is too funny!
That t-shirt didn’t age well did it?
Graeber: *explains how the system locks people down and allows only a few people to do things they want*
Thiel (one of the few people): I don't think we should change the system, we should just do things
we = euphemism for "small government" = synonym for oligarchy
He didn't say that ..we should not change..all he said ..that changing a whole system..is quite daydreaming.. it's better and more efficient to do small things and making it larger so that rather than convincing people.
@@tanmayroy6372 agreed, leftist like to imagine their pipe dream society and then destroy everything on its way to utopia.
@@verapamil07 oh? And hyper-capitalist/pro oligarchy like thiel (but not u, because ur a pleb) aren’t destroying society on the way to THEIR admitted dystopia?
@@tanmayroy6372 while people suffer and die, because f#%$ them right?
No, Peter Thiel you are not a Political Atheist.
That is a cop-out so that you do not have to qualify your beliefs.
I think what he means he doesn't fetishise his political beliefs. he doesn't start every sentence with " coming from antiauthoritarian political movement" or some of her pretentious tribal statement. His limitation is that he will not entertain anything he doesn't think has some possibility of success. maybe that's a limitation of imagination. Maybe that's why he has been so successful.
@@tavom6710 Sounds very "postmodern-isy" if there can be any such term.
If I understand, what you are saying is, he is as cold and dead politically as a pile of money is...yaani Capital has no soul and therefore no beliefs, pure pragmatism...yes?
I am not convinced, but I hear you.
On thinking more deeply about it, I think he expresses his beliefs through his money, through actually altering the political landscape to suit his political beliefs...
...where we for being powerless are compelled to proselytize our beliefs till the masses and powerful hear them and hopefully alter the landscape to fit them.
I think he does not needs to get in a public tussle with us because he has the relevant audience he needs to live his particular political beliefs.
I believe you saw what he did to Gawker?
@@ArkAnudDinYaSin he is considerably less cold and dead then David Graeber. Honestly I've never heard of that guy until I watched this video.
Gawker lost a lawsuit based on their publication of a sex tape without the consent of the person the tape. If there is a moral high ground to be had there I can't see it.
He and his followers speak with such absurd self-assurance. It's like wandering into the Christopher Hitchens, fan boy dark web. They are both dead let's move on!!
I will leave you guys to your circle jerk.
@@tavom6710 That's rude.
It's not our fault you can't hold yours up.
The sheer disingeneousness of that remark was just breathtaking.
David Graeber was such a brilliant guy, and with such a caring and compassionate nature. Peter Thiel is a fascist and an anti-democrat.
His answer to most people being unable to fulfill their potential is to say that"there are a lot of ways to do things"
Facepalm
big facts
I could not disagree more , Thiel is brilliant
Both sides were being polite and not too direct.
Graeber was giving a question about how to design a system that selects for talent.
Thiel was saying that you let the talent self select itself in their own ingenious ways.
You're SO full of sh*t.
@@sentilopis i think both are correct in that many/most talented people dont know what to do with their lives (but still figure smth out)
and that we cant really make a john lennon in school, bc the things he presents have not been seen before.
the problem does reduce to giving them both the many opportunities to flourish that they need if aimless, and the basic means and freedom to go do their own thing if the things offered dont suit them.
Yikes Peter, the banks got more levers and got bailed out again. Silicon valley hasn't shrunk the wealth gap and has only made big brother even bigger. David owned this conversation. Great teacher.
Thiel went to school for free.
@@Graeberwave what do you mean, please?
@@blairhakamies4132 He means Thiel was schooled in this debate, and it turns out many of his views have not held up to the test of time. Thiel himself has left Silicon Valley.
@@mgm8075 thank you for educating me. 😊
Peter just doesnt seem to care. His care seems as much as a Pharoah in Ancient Egypt wanting great temples built on the backs of others. And at the end of it all, he believes he has built them all himself, with his own two magical hands no less. I can't even begin to think like he does, but I guess some of our minds are simpler than his
Thiel being like "no no don't look at the structure just focus on the consequences *start sweating* ...no don't look at the structure.
*look at the structure*
nooooooooo"
*kernel panic*
Every time Thiel talks, he tries to draw attention away from any recognition that the majority of people are having their lives brutally limited for the benefit of a few. David is being SO nice. Making his points, though.
it amazes me how many commenters are hyper obsessed with Peter Thiel‘s wealth. Why not drop the envy and get on with life?
@@w.harrison7277 I said nothing that showed obsession or envy. I referred to argument tatics that distracted attention from addressing injustice and corruption, repeatedly.
yeah, he was TOO nice.
I came into the debate hoping that my favorite anarchist would wipe the floor with a corporate oligarch.
But I don't blame him too much, if he was aggressive at all he wouldn't be himself. and he was just an amazing mind.
@@w.harrison7277 When a thief steals what is rightfully yours, is it envy to want it back?
@@w.harrison7277Horrible take.
Thiel wants rich people to do great things, and Graeber wants us all to do what we want, and get great things as a byproduct. It's a pretty easy choice for me.
@@w.harrison7277 Hey, it's a eugenics Nazi. Hi Mr Nazi!
They can both be right! Thiel's prescriptions are meant to get the ball rolling, but his vision more or less converges with Graeber in the long run. They have the same basic objectives, just different ways of getting there.
@@segasys1339 The guy who runs a company devoted to mass surveillance, named after the evil seeing stones of Sauron, does not converge with Graeber. At all. Can't happen.
@@ernststravoblofeld Relax bruh. If that's your takeaway from this discussion, you're just recreationally outraged. They both agree on an end state of techonological abundance and human prosperity but disagree on how to break out of the sclerotic oligarchy in the near to medium term. If you think Thiel opposes Graeber in any intractable, irreconcilable way, you need to chill out.
@@segasys1339 Fuck off chud.
“I want to live forever.”
**SOBBING**
I never understood why Peter Thiel is worshipped as a philosopher and intellectual in silicon valley. His entire philosophy is a mishmash of justifications and rationalizations for his own greed. Why did Thiel, a former hard core libertarian, transform into a national conservative? Because Palantir won a government contract, of course.
“It is a frequent vice of radical polemic to assert, and even to believe, that once you have found the lowest motive for an antagonist, you have identified the correct one.”
Could you provide an argument that's not dependent on mind-reading?
@@shannon-daygrant8754 A PRINCIPLED libertarian wouldn't support Josh Hawley and Donald Trump, sell data to NSA, FBI, and ICE, fund a candidate who wants a registry of muslims in the US, or provide ideological support for neo-reactionaries like Moldbug. Of course, most american "libertarianism" boils down to "the best government is the one that lets me make the most profit" and Thiel's actions don't deviate from Ayn Rand's egoist ideology. But he's definitely not a philosophically consistent libertarian.
@@crystalc1ear You're still mind-reading a bit, but Ok. you're problem is he bills himself as a libertarian but doesn't fit your idea of one. Can principled'
Putting labels aside, can you point to anything he has said that you disagree with?
@@shannon-daygrant8754 I actually don't disagree with much on this video. Thiel is saying innovation and good things come from the self-interested actions of a few brilliant people and that's the way it should be, Graeber says they come from collective effort and cooperation and that's the way it should be. I am closer to the latter but I can see Thiel's point.
But overall I am repulsed by Thiel's sociopathic life philosophy. The obsession with exiting society (and evading taxes) once you've used up its potential, the obsession with immortality, the racism (he defended apartheid and Palantir's alliances with racial profiling in the government are shady in my opinion), the sexism (he said women should not vote), etc...
I'm no SJW and some of the things he says, especially about colleges and groupthink, I kind of agree with, but in the end I think he's a vile cretin.
It's truly amazing how Thiel fails to understand what not being wealthy is like
I almost sense Theil understands the just aspirations of the public and prefers to leverage advantage of spoils while in their elitist bloody hands and ensure nothing interferes by preaching his accelerationist meritocracy myth hype.
Why should he care?
@@destruction1928because he is proposing what he argues will be the best societal architecture for everyone else .
@@destruction1928 Ask some executives these days why they should care.
@@someonenotnoone You think because one got whacked that will change anything, this means nothing.
Theil is intelligent and has made some interesting critiques in the past, but next to Graeber (who i am even less familiar with) Theil looks like an average libertarian "know nothing". He's not even keeping up with Graeber here, who is way ahead of him on every subject. For example, the idea of being "politically agnostic". Anyone who has truly engaged with the deep questions of society and humanity knows that this is an immature view. You can't be politically agnostic and be expected to be taken seriously on the subjects of politics which encompass everything. This view is a symptom of our times, yet Theil gets away with this, he is even lauded for this view because of his status, yet another symptom of our times. Graeber is attempting to take the conversation deeper at every turn and Theil just has nowhere to go. It demonstrates the difference between a true intellectual (or what it means to be truly educated) and the status quo apologists that are so popular today (the one's the Greeks referred to as "Sophists"). I hope people can see the real lack of substance in Theil's approach.
Thiel is a poser. A slippery knob. End of story. I do like to quote Thiel though when he says "The market isn't exclusive to capitalism."
@@Graeberwave Seriously, one of the greatest "innovations" of capitalism is mass ideological social control, though perhaps this is itself an illusion in that this is the fundamental feature of "human nature" that is distorted and forced to function as a bug. Or in other words, the transformation of that underlying unifying force of imagining and chasing the 'absurd' or 'impossible' for the benefit of many that religion offers at its core through the idea of anything/everything ie "god" into a force of coercion and social bondage for the revolting benefit of a few.
I mean like, one can "act like they are free" all they want, but if they're confined to a prison of possibility (or you know, literally) no amount of faith is going to change that structural domination at its base. And like, not to excuse the absolutely deserved shitting on Thiel for his obvious grotesque material comfort that he has the _actual potential_ to influence through this accumulated surplus value, but ironically Thiel himself is even a lesser (much, _much_ lesser, to be clear) victim of the confinement he apathetically enforces on the rest of us in that manufactured ideological prison that puts up subconscious imaginary blind spots to possibility purely for the sake of perpetuating its continued exploitative existence, cloaked in that distortion of the enlightenment ideals of "freedom" and "rationality" to justify itself despite a shared acknowledgement of being neither. I forget where I heard the phrase "epistemology of ignorance" but I think it is quite an apt expression of what I'm trying to get at.
Anyway, hopefully that made any sense and wasn't too bathed in unnecessary jargon, really just a wordy way to say maybe Peter should look into dialectical materialism to better understand his lack of imagination and extremely arbitrary circumstantial position of financial dictator that can break him out of the assumed and unquestioned divine right of entrepreneurs mindset. Or not. Probably that one sadly (and almost insanely at this point).
@@Bisquick Agreed. We underestimate how influential mass media is. Check out the book Technopoly by Neil Postman if you haven't already (or anything by Vilem Flusser).
Thank you, much wiser than my comment. well stated.
Peter serves a very obvious purpose in the world today imo: to be so off base from reality and to have so much power that he is evil. He is a representation of what we must overcome in the coming years.
Take a look at his "competition is for losers" talk he did at Stanford where he argues that monopolies are a must and that scientists who end up poor lived worthless lives. He is someone that has somehow never been challenged in his life. He is backed and funded and protected... somehow.
You can see Peter getting uncomfortable as David unknowingly calls outs Peter's entire ethos beginning around 6 minutes in. Watch Peter's fingers. David goes on to essentially say "beaurorcary began being controlled by corporations which shifted the focus from innovation and creation to finance". Peter literally argued for this in his competition is for losers talk.
It is astonishing how brazen Thiel is about his hatred for democracy and his lack of faith in human beings to be more creative than he is. Anyone even briefly familiar with human history, anthropology, and social movements knows that human beings have an almost boundless creativity when not restrained by authoritarian hierarchical systems.
Name some of the great inventions created in anarchy
@@onetwo3411 anarchism is a political stance, not a form of social organization. So zero, since there is no such thing as living "in anarchy." But if your question is "name some of the great inventions created in forms of social organization other than the one we live in today," the answer is almost boundless: the compass, agriculture, all simple machines, inoculations, cookery, the arch, the dome, columns, knives, steel, trumpets, flutes, roads...
@@onetwo3411 anarchy is a relationship. U want examples tho: printing press, the x-Ray, the automobile, cryptocurrency, thousands of surgical procedures and Medicines…I could go on, but even an NPC like u gets it.
One two. The sex pistols. Case closed.
@@onetwo3411 agriculture, the wheel, fire, etc.
The problem, which was not discussed, is not that we aren't trying to colonize mars, or extend life, it's that we are always trying to make money.
If a mushroom found in forests all over the world was a cure all, it would destroy pharma. Same for alternate energy would destroy big oil. Scarcity is manufactured because it is profitable.
I think I ate that mushroom
Graeber really did put Thiel in a corner during this talk. It was clear how uncomfortable Thiel was getting when Graeber kept deconstructing Thiel’s world views. Sad to see a legend pass away so young.
Have you seen any Adam Curtis documentaries?
@@Graeberwavewhat’s is about?
Thiel is a sociopath serving elite interests. Graeber is brilliant, and has a good heart and ethics. Graeber's books are superb.
THIEL: "Maybe it's just I'm secretly working on behalf of the regime or something"
GRAEBER: [mumbles] "Not that secretly".
Hits the nail on the head 😂 Praise to Graeber for his patience!
fascists www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-trump-backers-spy-firm-lobbied-gove-hancock-before-winning-key-nhs-contract/
And the regime just silenced Graeber.
It's the key moment of the whole thing
@K O Autopsy results not yet produced. Up to 40 days in a case like this. Natural causes at the moment. Which seems unlikely. If he had an illness or condition we would have expected an announcement by now.
The kings of the button-down shirts.
Peter Thiel: Political atheist, libertarian, capitalist, and “working on behalf of the regime” (can’t believe he said that). He hates communism but defends lobbying government for tax-funded advantages. He doesn’t like big government but argues for big national programs like moon landing. Boy was he wrong about “the finance era” being over, and “a long deflationary phase” beginning. At least he admits he chose technology business over politics because he’s “not good at convincing people.” Graeber is in a league of his own. Thiel repeatedly defends his capitalism and contradicts himself multiple times. Didn’t realize he had defense contracts until now. Graeber really seems principled, to care about the future and common good and then suggests some constructive ideas. Thiel’s principles seem to be based around his own personal freedom and wealth accumulation. It was good to see them agree on some things though. Really happy to watch this. I learned a lot. Thx OP
It's much easier to be principled as a professor theorizing about radical change than an entrepreneur operating on a high-level.
Frank Jennings that’s true
@@frankjennings4489 Since when is direct action "theorizing"?
Palantir the fascist tool for power www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-trump-backers-spy-firm-lobbied-gove-hancock-before-winning-key-nhs-contract/
@@frankjennings4489 You do not even realise what you are saying.
Thiel can have all the principles he wants, if he wants them, which a professor has. If he doesn't want them, then he does not hold those principles...
When you talk about principles, what principle are you espousing about them?
That, if it is convenient, you can have principles, so long as it risks no harm to your prospects of maximising profits, you can have principle 'A', as a principle.
That's not holding principle 'A', that's holding the principle of wanting to maximise profits first, with everything else coming second. Holding principle 'A' is just something you pretend.
That's the principle you are espousing. You can hold this principle, but it is totally lousy, much more unprincipled than principled.
What you are saying is that 'principles' are things of convenience, and that Thiel does not maybe have the convienience of having all the principles, that a professor might have.
That is itself a principle. A tremendously lousy principle, more unprincipled than principled.
When Graeber said academia has amounted to self-marketing, I am reminded of how many of my seemingly leftist professors would literally just assign us to read their publications and how so many lectures centered around paid speeches they did at the height of their eminence. It is sad,yet predicted that education, and knowledge itself ,succumbed to the hyperreal economy. Rest in power, Graeber.
Damn. True.
Yeah, but to be fair to them, that's just how terrible it is out here in late capitalism. They need to make a living too, and sometimes they really have to sell themselves, and their work.
Sometimes, that amounts to a relatively harmless assignment involving their book in their lectures. Other times, it can involve blatant manipulation of research to reframe certain true facts and create harmful false propaganda.
Luckily not all academia in the world is like this. America has lost the ability to question.
Well.... it's what they understand and have studied so they are more effective at teaching it. Why not assign something they have written? I had a teacher share her master's thesis with us and we would debate with her about it and it helped us all develop a better understanding. It isn't all about self-promotion. Unfortunately she got fired and they hired some new underpaid adjunct to teach for minimal wages
@@aliceinwonder8978 I've been hanging around universities about 25 years, working as an academic for more than 10. The institution where I work is in the global top 20. While the university I attended in my undergrad years was certainly not in the top 20, the quality of education I was given there is sadly, better than what I am able to offer my own students in the apparently prestigious institution in which I now work. Part of the distinction is that the teachers used to give us a good idea of their own research and there'd indeed be lively debates and thoughtful reflection around the work they generously shared: it's what set me on the path of my own academic journey (can't really call it a career). Nowadays I guess there's been a shift into building static courses that can be more easily tracked over time, readings that give a general understanding of the topic but little opportunity for provocation or reflection; more of a self-service environment for students etc. In short, it's become more like a McDonald's. While the amount of work/pay I receive is a bit of a problem, it's the crisis in university culture that will see my out the exit before this year is through.
Interesting to hear Peter Thiel talk about not wanting to change politics or think political change is important, when he's literally bank rolling some of the most right wing politicians running for office 😂
Thiel: just keep the corrupt system and let the rich do their thing
Graeber: enable everyone to unleash their potential ❤
The problem with Thiel's argument in this debate (there are lots of problems with Thiel generally, but they don't really factor into this) is that he's got this very Malthusian mindset, and he makes the same mistake as Malthus. He's right that there is scarcity in the system, but most of that scarcity is artificial and the only reason there isn't enough for everyone is because people like Thiel have so much more than everyone else. Thiel isn't some revolutionary thinker, he made his money by being a banker, but the first one to do it online, and then speculative investment. He hasn't actually produced anything except a convenient middle-man. The primary reason he's a billionaire is that he was born at just the right time to capitalize on an emerging market that was invented though government funding, and be the only game in town when the market calcified.
So many facts, so many hurt feelings.
It is also amazing how you and I know what the shape of the Earth is. Yet, why do people want to "debate" otherwise? And to all the Thiel and Musk knobs, I'll remind you: that was a rhetorical question.
I was enjoying this until I got called a knob
The way you described his career is technically accurate but doesn't really do it justice. Saying that he was just a banker who happened to be the first to do it online is like saying that rockets are just big fireworks. Lots of people tried to create viable online payment systems but it proved very difficult and PayPal was the first major success largely because of Thiel's philosophy and leadership. He's also been one of the most successful venture capitalists ever, so writing the rest of his career off as just speculative investment is also underselling what he's done, problematic entanglements with the security state aside.
@@frankjennings4489 He also funded JD Vance, the latest Trumpanzee to jump on the fascist bandwagon, who just won their primary! Thiel just can't stop winning!
Peter Thiel assumed that “decentralized” means “chaotic.” As if decentralized organizations can’t coordinate.
Decentralization is only ok when he approves of it. He has the monopoly on decentralizing even.
great name
lol, this is almost certainly purposeful dishonesty from Thiel. He at one point identified as an ancap, and they are all about decentralization.
Really? The definition of organization is:
> an organized group of people with a particular purpose, such as a business or government department.
Since people don't spontaneously *happen* to agree on their goals and how to achieve them, surely organization implies *some form* of centralization; even if informal and unconscious. Its easy to see organization can happen in ways that are not purely top down and autocratic -that is to say, not formally centralised; however co-ordination certainly means that there was some level centralization(no matter how informal and dynamic); lest how would one sign or imperative be given a greater imperative than all the other signs put forward by the constituents of the organization that would be required for such co-ordination or shared attention towards a certain goal?
People don't merely happen to agree that 9am is the time for work and 5pm is clock off - but that wasn't organised by one pure top down autocracy either - it is to some extent decentralised, but since it IS organised, it must be centralised to some varying degree...
What am I missing here?
He's about that pyramid life, top of it actually, he probably has no idea what the bottom layers go through
This is kind of blowing my mind because I've been talking about a libertarianism that also recognises the need for a welfare state for a long time and have found no other thinkers who share that view point. But today I discovered David Graeber - his speaking my language
It's called anarchism dude. It's gonna blow your mind.
Can we just pause and applaud the editing of this video to remove dumb pauses and useless intros🎉🍾
This is so good! i'm glad I found this, I respect both these guys perspectives and love their books. They differ philosophically, sometimes in polarising ways, yet are both so intelligent and valuable. Such a mature discussion and glad they can sit and enjoy each other's presence enough to not cut each other off and throw in low comments on each others character (mostly). Graeber, I miss you.
Thiel has the guts to actually keep harping on scarcity. There is obviously no such thing, or his position in society would not exist. There are vastly more empty houses than homeless people. There is enough food waisted by the food industry to feed the world twice over. Scarcity is largely a manufactured thing to keep wealth and power concentrated in the hands of the special few.
I accept cookies 😋
I think there was a tremendous opportunity for the two to agree after Thiel raised a valid point about the oil shock of the 70s. The direction I wish the talk had taken was, why not an Apollo-like program to reduce oil dependency by developing alternative energy technologies? It was clearly feasible.
Of course, some of the answers to this question are obvious and play much more to Graeber's observations about how society makes it difficult to creatively innovate when, among other things, it's under excessive political pressure from a multitude of sources such as lobbyists and very large industries. This is an imbalance that needs to be corrected.
Graeber is in favor of change, Thiel is convinced things can't be changed so let's solve by working around the constraints. I'm in favor of the former; the latter is fundamentally pessimistic and simply leads to a slightly different distorted system.
Here’s a glimpse of what could have happened if an Apollo-like program to reduce oil dependency had been initiated. Look at the steep drop in energy production cost from solar cells. cdn.substack.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F22d7264b-830b-47fc-94e1-22ba4b80b811_2426x3747.png
Here is the source article. noahpinion.substack.com/p/jevons-paradox-wont-slow-the-energy
That Apollo-like project already exists. Several times over. The world is spending far more resources on developing clean energy than it ever did on making it to the moon. The problem is that producing a constant stream of clean energy for 8 billion people is a far more complicated task than a moon landing. No amount of political discourse will change that fact
the change is dependent upon citizens even being aware that something different can happen. That's why history is taught the way it is. Most westerners are ONLY taught that taking is valued, there is no other reality beyond money, and that peaceful existence is stupid and naive. It's one of the earliest moral injuries.. that we're all animalistic and survival means theres violent ends to losers. The manipulation through 'wars' and trumped up political 'activity' serve to keep imagination under lock and keycard.
As much as I like Peter Thiel one has to acknowledge that David indeed thinks about the subject matter in much deeper and more coherent way. Peter is an advocate of leaving the system aside and doing what you want to do regardless of law and etc. David thinks about changing the whole system. This way much more potential could be released. Potential of millions of people who do useless jobs just to support themselves instead of following their passion.
“Changing the whole system” is the basis of every shallow and incoherent plan. It’s like the platonic form of shallow incoherence. The original sin. It’s the goal of every movement that ends up making zero impact.
Not want to be rude, but your summary is a good window into a typical leftist central planning mind. Idealism that never becomes reality.
Most people don't have a passion and there's value in finding passions through doing difficult and unenjoyable things
@@informationsuperkhan it doesn't have to happen like that though, in a large sweeping manner. I have some first hand experience with this happening to me (a mere component of the whole).
When covid hit I got furloughed from my job at a restaurant, went on government assistance, and was able to start organizing musicians to fight for fairer wages in a city that brings in billions from music every year while its musicians barely survive- or have to work in other jobs in addition to the music industry. If it can happen to me (a part of the whole), then it can happen to other parts of the whole without needing some sort of utopic revolution. The only thing really utopic I keep hearing is the idea that this corporate capitalist world is somehow sustainable, and guarantees individual freedom.
@@informationsuperkhan perhaps. But in the least we need to create local communities that “the system” has very little control over. That’s what I’m about. Forget “the USA”/ federalism. It’s a decaying gold plated turd.
“I often say, one thing that’s Not a scarce resource of the world is- imaginative people with possible solutions to intractable problems. There’s probably no one in the entire world that doesn’t have some idea that we have never thought of and we’re both pretty smart guys.” -David Graeber
The root of it all. This system doesn’t utilize our best and brightest.
In fact it leaves many to be ground down by poverty, disease, and addiction. Perhaps most considering the vast majority of society lives in abject poverty.
OpiatesAndTits well said and sadly very true.
great quote!
Theils direct response to this quote is " it's a lack of imagination" wtf.
I am absolutely convinced that no wealth in the world can help humanity forward, even in the hands of the most devoted worker in this cause. - Albert Einstein
the people commenting on the way that David giggles saying it's out of nervousness is so funny. He can barely keep it together because Peter Thiel keeps saying exactly the wrong things and thus supporting David's position
What i heard and saw was a dialog between an intellectual and some rich guy.
a chess game of admissions - graeber won out at 20 mins at the point thiel acknowledges screwed up aspects of bureaucracy
and then at 22:30 where graeber perfectly takes thiel down a few pegs
@@nnnnsaakadamanas218 Theils face is hilarious
Exactly.
I don't think David Graeber is that rich...
jk i think they're both very interesting.
It seems to me that Thiel advances an argument that applauds Herculean resilience and grit without interrogating the conditions that require them. Also, there is a big difference between being an Anarchist (micro), and living in an Anarchy (macro). Myopic...
"Herculean resilience" ?? How many boxes on the street did Thiel ever live in? He was born into a priveleged racist economy and hasn't slowed one iota. He's spouting all that 'pulled myself up by my bootstraps' mythology all these wealthy folk use. It's pure BS. They made their money off of taking it from others who believed them. The more they take, the more praise is heaped upon them. It's really weird in the longer view of humanity.
Graeber is a genius and Thiel is a freak 😌
Peter Thiel is not nearly as intelligent as he is given credit for, and he completely lacks both common sense and wisdom. He thinks it's possible to create a colony on Mars, but it's not possible to create a system of direct democracy. Both ideas are ridiculous. David Graeber has intelligence, common sense, and wisdom. Game, Set, and Match: Graeber
Excellent discussion, especially in view of the very different backgrounds represented.
This discussion could have been a LOT less civil, and likewise a lot less intelligible. I really appreciated hearing these two actually debate and talk instead of the usual arguments
Agreed. All the comments in this video on the other hand... like they weren't hardly even arguing why are people talking about this like it was a street brawl.
David is light years ahead. We have the technology. We certainly should not be working 24/7 all our lives in order to line someone else's pockets.
@@w.harrison7277 Wtf are you even talking about?
@@w.harrison7277 Care to provide some scientific data to backup that beyond ridiculous claim? Correlation does not necessarily equal causation, if you know anything about science you would know that. I think it's far more likely that we tend to put our smart tech people into the business world now where all they do is research on how to get people addicted to their phones. And I see no evidence of even a correlation either as every field of study is still overwhelmingly male dominated atleast here in the usa.
keynes imagined in the 1930s that by the 2020s we'd only be working 15 hour workweeks...
Graeber is a pleasure to listen to.
Agree. Sadly, covid got him, I think.
Love how Graeber immediately and eloquently refuted Thiel's assertion that the concepts of scarcity and fake money are real. Kudos to him.
Graeber demolished Thiel. I'm embarrassed for Peter Thiel.
I don't think he did refute the assertion that scarcity is real... I think he actually agreed with him. But, to paraphrase and use your term, he added that that doesn't mean the money is real in the way people think....
These guys are way more on the same page than the people in the comments seem to realize. This is barely a deabate: it's really two Anarchist/Libertarian type people trying to figure out how you structure a truly free Society...
The reason technology has done more in the way of bits instead of atoms is directly a symptom of the system Graeber shines a light on
R.I.P David Graeber ...:(
It's very upsetting.
God dammit, I literally just found out... Had no idea. What a loss and what a damn shame.
Thiel: "i agree that the eccentric university professor is a species that's becoming extinct".
Graeber: "well, I know that"
That was hard to hear now. RIP to a great one. Someday, we'll get justice for his death
Justice?
@@craigkelly8369 if history has taught me anything, it's that a three letter agency is to blame if anyone left of truman dies before 70
@@abstractalien12345 Home Owners Associations can be difficult entities to get along with but murdering academic anarchists ...?
Fllippin' Peter Thiel. Color me yellow and call me a banana; imagine a billionaire neoliberal technocrat telling people you can't have this and that while also issuing veiled denunciations of worker owned co-ops. He can go pound sand.
Peter Thiel might be the most terrifying human on the planet and that’s saying a lot.
@@mattwooten7421 can you expand your statement, please?
He's a literal Nazi. As in, he attends their meetings.
@@thedude1373 Amazing if it is true 🤔
@@blairhakamies4132 It is. www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rosiegray/peter-thiel-donald-trump-white-nationalist-support
It’s important to remember that it isn’t how much money we have, it’s what the money buys and incentivized that matters
They need to slow down Thiel-bot's ocular-sensor servo-motors in the next update @26:56
Any idea when this happened ? which year I mean. Thanks for uploading it :)
Friday, September 19, 2014
aged poorly, peter's ideas have -yoda
"We should just start doing it," is a very vacuous statement.
What a pleasure to be able to listen to these minds.
Do you think Elon Musk started Tesla?
“I want to live forever” 😢
Those comments by Graeber at the beginning kinda make you think in some respects how lame progress has been technologically. Flying cars, Space colonies, immortality pills, an end to drudgery? Nope, rather just more cheesy social media. There’s a lot of good technological development when it comes to computers and the internet though personally I think the biggest stuff was the first decade of the internet.
True story. Graeber talks about the Internet here, interesting. ruclips.net/video/-QgSJkk1tng/видео.html
Unfortunately the great days of the Internet are over, and could get worse. Of course if you know where to look (or what to do) you can use that #technology in a "good" way. Also, unfortunately, we are more often encouraged (or maybe educated, corralled) to be a bunch of mouth-breathing flu klux klan types typing like keyboard drone pilots all over the place. Shout out to Instructables.com by the way.
I have not yet thought this through adequately, but the technological stagnation seems to me to be mirrored by the way small businesses develop in the United States. Let's say that you want to start a pharmacy. You go to a bank with a business plan for starting a small pharmacy in a neighborhood which has none. That's a rejection waiting to happen, because the bank deems the plan as risky. Next week, you bring a revised plan to the same banker; now you intend to start a rival pharmacy directly across the street from an established pharmacy offering all the same products. The banker will approve this loan because now she's betting on what she deems as a safer business, one which has already been demonstrated to work by someone else. In this scenario, the underserved neighbor never does get a pharmacy, and the two business owners are now dividing the available profits from the overserved neighborhood. In this world, I can see how R&D budgets are refocused get shrunk or eliminated all together, and what remains gets focused on smaller goals. There is just no courage in the world of finance.
Thiel: I'm a political atheist.
Thiel: As a Libertarian...
Joshua Bohnert lmaoooo he did do that
42:45 I think David Graeber gave a very good answer on Peter Thiels concept of being a political atheist. I go with David on that by a long shot.
The kings of the button-down shirts.
@@davidnaef1 He's always been libertarian in general but he realized the nature of politics and the futility of trying to get things done by trying to get everyone's permission. His points make a lot of sense actually.
all libertarian's think they are political atheists, but they are just republicans who want legal weed
Around 20 minutes in it’s pretty obvious that Thiel realizes he’s in over his head.
lmao he starts molting
Thiel is never over his head. He is the head.
@@unitedstatesofpostamerica7559 the very shiny head
Not even, to me it was clear in his opening statement.
Haha, esp funny in the end when he looks at David to what his answer to the audiences question might be... haha.
"Where Did the Future Go". Peter Thiel: Airbnb is pretty good. Bahahaahhahahhahahaha, what a lightweight
Airbnb market cap is $80B.
@@conformist So what?
Peter Thiel: "There was no technology to stop terrorism in 2001." 49:55
Wow. So all those hundreds of billions of dollars were just.... for something else. Norad? Eh, they were busy that day too.
Just because there was money doesnt mean that there was technology. Money and technology are two different things. This whole comment section is just creepy and uninformed.
@@mgm8075 The guy in the comment criticized Thiel for saying that in 2001 there was no technology to stop terrorism. Which is a great point, that's why Thiel believes that if we want to prevent further erosion of personal freedom like from the Patriot act, we need technology to stop it instead, because someone has to.
So I don't know how any of this serves as a criticism of Thiel, other than blind hate, which is pervasive in this comment section.
Furthermore, I don't know what you mean by money diverted to him rather than something greater. Thiel earned his money for doing things very beneficial for people, and has reinvested it into ground breaking companies that attempt to do things far greater than any government would be brave enough to do. He has 3/4 of his net worth in startups and he invests in ones that go balls out and swinging. I hope you realize that just because someone has a large net worth doesn't mean that he has billions in his bank account just sitting there doing nothing.
Thiel has earned the right to manage the kind of capital he has accumulated, and he does to in an extremely thoughtful and forward looking way. No government apparatchiks would be ever able to direct it better than he does.
You probably have him and his company, Palantir, to thank for your freedoms not being eroded further. It's extremely good and finding terrorist networks. Because of that, I bet that some major attacks that would have happened in the US were prevented. If they weren't, we would have the Patriot Act squared.
@Nosferatu Zodd you are contradicting yourself. If the government is to be trusted then what's the issue with providing them with some tools? The government of China has implemented something much more intrusive without the help of private businesses. And Thiel is anything but spineless. He constantly puts his money in brave project, and these are already benefiting humanity and will do so in the future. Furthermore, he constantly criticizes his peers and that always takes bravery. I for one cannot imagine that someone like you, in a group of other socialists, would dare criticize the precepts that group holds to be true. Thiel does it all the time, but the only way one can see how much it takes is for a person to have done it themselves.
@@arc46789 It is pretty crazy, a huge amount of misinterpretation or blatant distortion of Thiel's views.
@@arc46789 Without the help of private businesses? Who do you think did the work lol? Even Western companies exported technology to China for the CCP surveillance programme.
Politically agnostic? I'm sorry how many million dollars did he donate to trump?
I think he meant to say “I hedge my bets.”
@Nosferatu Zodd Political Agnostism... he's not sure if Politics is as real as the Billions in his Bank Account, or is if it's MORE real..... Oh Peter T., i know you'll never change...
James Madison: "The primary function of government is to protect the interest of the opulent minority against the majority."
Thiel: "It's too complex a society...there's a lot that's broken...government would become too controlling. But what we can do is go to Mars."
You should include in the video description that this talk originally occurred in 2014.
Thiel has made all of his money from .gov, then calls himself a "libertarian."
Damn.
All libertarian (AKA neoliberalism practicer) did that
Thiel made/makes a lot of money from Palantir but certainly not all of it. His co-founding of Paypal and early investment in Facebook were the source of far more of his wealth before PLTR hit the stock market.
@@JaredCzaia so basically "rent extraction"
@@dalton-at-work Creating a system to enable online payments is value creation. Investing in a startup would also fail to meet the criteria of rent extraction. You seem to be wielding Graeber's work like a hammer and to you everything looks like a nail.
OP you crack me up trashing all the commenters (only the Thiel ones) doing gods work sir
Yes I am biased, biased for humanity. I will not lie and pretend like I've achieved "objectivity," although I can say the sky is blue.
@@Graeberwave Bless yourself. And thanks for the video
@@dodododatdatdat A quote from Graeber (in Direct Action): Creating accord is the creation of society. Society is god. Or, perhaps, god is our capacity to create society. Consensus is therefore a ritual of sacrifice, the sacrifice of egoism, where the act bring into being that very god.
We are gods.
DAVID GRAEBER was a founding member of the Institute for Experimental Arts He did a lecture with the title: How social and economic structure influences the Art World in the Financial Consequences - International MultiMedia Poetry Festival organized by the Institute for Experimental Arts supported by LSE Department of Anthropology.
Influential anthropologist David Graeber, known for his 2011 volume Debt: The First 5000 Years speaks about the correlation between the cultural sphere and society. The intellectuals and the artists create an imaginary way to criticize the economic system in any era. Art can overcome hegemonic frameworks and acknowledge other possible worlds, offer us the opportunity to understand better the marginalized social entities. Social exclusion is the process in which individuals or people are systematically blocked from (or denied full access to) various rights, opportunities and resources that are normally available to members of a different group, and which are fundamental to social integration and observance of human rights within that particular group (e.g., housing, employment, healthcare, civic engagement, democratic participation, and due process). As the economic crises go deeper in time more people face the effects of exclusion. Art and social sciences can give voice to the voiceless. Especially young social aware poets can give us a clear view of the real social effect of the financial consequences. - David Graeber
You can watch the Lecture here: ruclips.net/video/WCF-8OQj0RE/видео.html
He wrote an essay on that in Reverse Revolutions. It is one of my favorites.
The only reason Thiel thinks it’s possible for everyone to just go out and do anything they want is really just him telling on himself and his own privilege
Seems as though Peter Thiel's main argument is that it it often easier to affect change starting with small groups rather than mass movements. This viewpoint is not at all antithetical to anarchism and is in fact the basis of many successful modern tactics of anarchist organization. His flaw seems to be the assumption that smaller groups of people must necessarily be organized heirarchically. The only evidence he provides for this assumption is ancedotal involving small companies that claimed to be decentralized and transparent breaking down when those involved became aware of differences in their pay. So I must assume that Peter Theil doesn't understand that different pay rates are a form of hierarchical organization.
Good point.
Thiel's core thesis is that despite corruption being at the core of the system, we shouldn't try to do anything about it.
the usual "logic" from apologists for the status quo / powers that be
Has there ever been a system which has eliminated corruption? If not, what system has reduced it the most?
@@Confucius_76 No there has never been one. Corruption thrives under all systems of government and most of them are built on a foundation of corruption.
@@Confucius_76 ergo remove the system (or atleast the formal system)
You have to work with what you have unless you enjoy failure. If you want to be a radical then enjoy a bullet for your trouble.
This was recorded in 2014. Could this be mentioned in the description, please? I had to scroll down a lot to find out.
Thiel insists on scarcity when CEOs earn 300x the average employee and the richest 1% own 50% of the worlds wealth.
What is this, a PR tour for Theil? Hoping the shameful data drain from Fb won't be looked at as the sleazy skim that it was?
communism of the rich fanboys are upset.
@@Graeberwave While the perceptions of the masses got twisted by these connected satanic silver spoon twits.
"I want more, please?"
@@susanray4059 Insidious pencil necked keyboard drone pilots.
@@susanray4059 Emotion is a legitimate way of knowing -some neuroscientist who wrote a book
@@susanray4059 I know, I'm just saying.
"I wanna live forever." 34:18. I think David's academic work will far out live Thiel in terms of influence so I think he will. :( RIP
I’m not so sure about that. Peter has been instrumental in creating some of the most important tech companies in human history (Facebook, Palantir, PayPal, etc.). They have literally changed the course of civilization, for better or worse (probably the latter). Guys like Graeber write about the things that people like Thiel actually *do* in the world. Graeber’s work has the occasional zing, but seems unfocused. Just my opinion.
@@thrilos7 k
if palantir and the likes gain more control davids work will be burnt akin to Nazi book burning .....Neofascist www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/revealed-trump-backers-spy-firm-lobbied-gove-hancock-before-winning-key-nhs-contract/
I want to believe that that’s true, but when has any professor assigned you to read Graeber? I think his work hasn’t really been acknowledged in academic circles,who are themselves often neo liberal bureaucracies, n’est pas? It’s true in a way. Academia is still very very afraid to speak of politics outside the binary left/right system. Graeber,Zizek-those minds who seek to criticize both sides as a single structure are often rejected...from what I see and recall at least .
@@Maziedivision I read plenty my advisors never assigned.
Rest in Power Graeber.
Is Palantir taking us from Keystone Cops to Orwellian?
THIEL: No.... Well yes actually.
The guy is an unappealing Max Headroom flunky...He has no intention of respecting anyone's Inalienable rights.
58:35 Peter Thiel doesn't think of the industrial deregulation of North America; or perhaps, the lack of any regulation or caution in developing industries. Beirut just exploded because people ignored fairly common knowledge about ammonium nitrate. Almost half of all Americans do not understand viruses; there's no chance they'd understand radiation hazards. Both are "invisible."
Peter- Money is just a measure of stuff
David- Actually it's not
Yeah the billionaire is wrong here. Seems legit
@@redboycaptures yeah that's what happens when you work for the cia
@@jorgethevanguard oh ok so he made paypal and invested in facebook as a CIA operative?
Hey Peter! What if countries and tech start-ups are different things that should be organised differently?
My experience is that bootstrapped startups are NOT hierarchical. People have to wear many hats by necessity, survival depends on teamwork, ... AND it isn't until you take investment for the first time that everyone starts fighting over equity... or even thinks much about it. At that point, the value has been proven, the most creative work has been done, and the question is how to optimize or scale... but that is NOT the breakthrough, that is an economization.
I love how every single thing peter says the camera has to cut to David to show you how dumbfounded he is
26:30 here is an example how Thiel "debates" saying: "get someone to the moon... with a decentralized chaotic system"
He’s such a snake.
33:43 your priveleged track record granted you opportunity that a factory worker in china didn't have-and never will. you went to law school, which immediately one-ups you on any job application. your ability to leave and start anew is not representative of the vast majority.
49:45 in order to stop the curtailing of civil liberties, you work with the PERPETRATOR of civil rights violations? you're a show libertarian like so many other american libertarians, you oppose government power but worship corporate power. both are illegitimate from an anarchist perspective and frankly if you actually followed the NAP, you'd be opposed to both. that you are not is proof positive you lack a serious principled stance against the control of freedom by power.
You guys are tripping. This was a great discussion and barely a debate. They both had great points, audience was good too. Thanks OP. RIP David
thinking thiel had good points there is a huge self report. try consuming different content than shapiro and peterson
@@Galahaj I just concluded that from the fact that you think a fascist dude made great points in a video in which he only talked shit from start to finish^^
Spray that Fascist tag around till it loses meaning.
@@charlytaylor1748 str8 up brother. Too much vitriol = no real discussion. I don't even watch Shapiro lol and if I did why should it matter?
@@charlytaylor1748 so youre saying Thiel is not a fascist? US brain take
Thiel pretending David simply proposed to print more money "so there is more money for everyone" says so much more about Thiel than David, loool. Can he be that stupid to think David is that stupid? But even if this is a sneaky-snake-trick once again: This is still ridiculous for a sneaky trick! Such a bucket-head move and some trolls here in comments say Thiel dominated the debate. omg, this is comedy my friends!
A lot of commenters seem to think Thiel saying he's a political atheist makes him a hypocrite, because he identified himself as a libertarian and donated money to Trump. But that's really missing the point: I don't think he's saying he doesn't feel any affinity towards any political persuasion or that he won't partake in politics; he's saying he doesn't worship any political ideology, i.e. he doesn't believe any set of ideas is above reproach, or should be bowed down to sight-unseen.
That seems like a pretty legitimate point of view to me, and my sense is the only reason people would take issue with it is either a) they are 'believers' in a specific political religion and therefore see him as an apostate, or b) haven't understood the metaphor.
I could be wrong - that's just how I parsed his sentiment.
I should also I say i much prefer Graeber - both in this discussion and his writing more generally. So this isn't coming from some whack-job Thiel obsessive.
Agreed. Thiel says a very useful quote in this discussion: The market isn't exclusive to capitalism.
@Nosferatu Zodd Just wanted you to kow that you are a voice of reason.
what year was this done in? RIP David, he taught me so much.
2014
@@Graeberwave thank you.
After listining everything, i am convinsed, Peter Thiel is creating his own dillusion to support his networth.
Absolutely !
There is no coherent philosophy behind his thoughts besides greed .
He is arrogant enough to think no one can see
“ the Emperor has no clothes “
3 blood clots formed in my brain everytime Thiel said he was a political athiest
Take an 81mg of aspirin quickly.
Well he’s kind of a theist or a non theist hard to say really. In any case his position regarding politics seems a little bipolar but it’s completely coherent.
its like saying "i have no ideology"
Yeah and he said that all shiny from sweat, it's like watching somebody bitting his tongue for an hour and half
@@cf6713 It is not "completely coherent"
at all. In one breath he is a political atheist, in the next he is a libertarian.
That's not cohesion, I don't know what else to tell you.
Funny to see someone I consider as a crook like Mr Thiel, who is in our alternate reality world a Great Entrepreneur. So basically he was one of the many who got the "idea" (a 5 year old could get it) to distribute electronic payment. So the idea was trivial and the implementation was almost trivial. Paypal is a gigantic monopoly that extract value by providing a useful service as a very profitable product. The monopoly does not come from paypal efficiency, it is just the nature of the market there. What he means by innovation or ideas is funny, there was niether ideas or innovation in paypal. Indeed many similar compagnies were develloping such a trivial service, the goal was to be the winner to take it all. And of course to attract capital in order to hire an army of semi litterate coders to be first in the preferential attachment race. Hilarious. The same goes for mars, the idea is at least a century old, and well Cyrano de Bergerac dreamed of a trip to the moon. The technology is 80 years old (with marginal improvements). How fun it was to see them totally dodging the question about the point of sending 10 men on mars when the population is 7 billions, even 1 million would be 1/7000. So a libertarian is someone who want to put in the hand of private monopolies common ressources : physical ones but also knowledge, and workforce etc ...
Interesting opinion, and aspects I agree with, however as trivial as some innovations may seem they are innovations none the less.
The Thumbnail 😂
Wrong guy died.
Beautiful debate! I wish political debates would be so nice. It is rare pair of speakers.
who invited Peter Thiel? Is understanding is not on par with David Graeber's.
Looks to me like we seriously shouldn’t have forgiven the criminals who founded PayPal.