top of page
Home: Blog2
Search


Sarah Jaffe, author, labor journalist, and one of the hosts of Belabored Podcast, joins Laborwave Radio to discuss her new book, Work Won't Love You Back published by Bold Type Books.


You’re told that if you “do what you love, you’ll never work a day in your life.” But as Sarah Jaffe shows, “doing what you love” is a recipe for exploitation, creating a new tyranny of work in which we cheerily acquiesce to doing jobs that take over our lives.


We discuss the themes of the book, the downsides when punk rock is created by trust fund kids, and what love might look like in a world free of capitalist forms of work.



Find more work from Sarah Jaffe at sarahljaffe.com/


Become a Laborwave Radio patron to support this show at patreon.com/laborwave

Leave us a review on Apple Podcasts, it helps our content reach new listeners.


Music from In The Red Records: Thee Oh Sees- Adult Acid Tyvek- Origin of What


Transcript (rough draft)

This is Laborwave Radio

5s Laborwave Radio Laborwave Radio is an independent podcast supported by our patron subscribers. So if you enjoy our show, we encourage you to go to patrion.com, backslash labor wave, and become a patron. You can also support the show and non-monetary ways by giving us ratings and reviews on SoundCloud and Apple podcast. We're joined in this episode with Sarah. Joffey the author of the recent book work. Won't love you back. How devotion to our jobs keeps us exploited, exhausted and alone, published by bold type books. The book came out January 26. You can get a hard copy today and also enter a sweepstakes to possibly win a copy of the book and a tote bag.

45s Laborwave Radio You're told that if you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life. But as Sarah Joffey shows in her book, doing what you love is a recipe for exploitation, creating a new tyranny of work in which be cheerily acquiesced to doing jobs that take over our lives. We discussed the themes of the book, the downsides when punk rock is created by trust fund kids. And what love might look like in a world free of capitalist forms of work, highly encouraged listeners to get a copy right away. Also check out the work of Sarah Joffey. She's an excellent labor reporter with articles published in the nation descent Jacobin magazine. In these times, honestly, any of the left wing labor press.

1m 26s Laborwave Radio You could probably find articles by Sarah Jaffe and listen to our podcast, which is belabored podcast. With cohost Michelle Chen. We have a series of upcoming episodes, including a cross-collaboration with the one big podcast, the official podcast of the Ypsilanti, IWW, and a series of discussions on Kim. Moody's the rank and file strategy. And our next edition of comrades that more coming up on labor wave and hope you enjoy this episode, Sarah, Joffey welcome to labor wave. Thank you for coming back to the

2m 2s Sarah Jaffe Hello and happy to be back here

2m 5s Laborwave Radio At the time of this recording. We're waiting one more week for your book to officially launch and be published January 26th is the date that I have written down.

2m 14s Sarah Jaffe Yep. That's that's when it should be arriving in people's mailboxes, if they pre-ordered and will be available at bookstores, if such things are open where you live,

2m 23s Laborwave Radio Probably not by the time it comes out, but Oh God. Yeah, I know. So I love the title right off the bat work. Won't love you back. I want to jump right into the, you know, the core argument of the book about the labor of love myth, but I thought really quickly for our listeners, it would be good to just read the back of the book. It provides a succinct summary, so, and work won't love you back. Our guests are Joffey examines. The labor of love myth. The idea that certain work is not really work and therefore should be done at a passion through the lives of workers from the unpaid intern to the upper work teacher, to the tech worker, and even the professional athlete, as Joffey argues, understanding the labor of love chap will empower us to work less and demand what our labor is really worth.

3m 6s Laborwave Radio And once freed from those binds, we can finally figure out what actually gives us joy and satisfaction. So it's an ambitious book.

3m 16s Sarah Jaffe Yeah. I had the idea for this book. Like I like while I was working on the first book and it took me a while to sort of figure out how to write it, you know, cause you're just like, Oh my God, there's the entire world is here. Like I, you know, I literally start the book going back to like the beginning of human history. No big I'm also not a historian. So mistakes are entirely my not having any training in being a historian, but like, yeah, it was, it was inspired obviously by like experiences of my own life and also having been a labor reporter for a while, hearing the same versions of the same story over and over again from workers in really different and distinct fields.

3m 58s Sarah Jaffe So when you start hearing the same thing from like, I remember doing this interview with freelance reality TV producers who were organizing with the writers Guild back in like 2010, who were telling me like broadly similar stuff to what I was hearing from like fast food workers. And so when you start to hear like this narrative, you're like, okay, something's going on here? And I think it's different than the narrative about work that we used to hear. Or we didn't, I haven't been alive that long, but like from like what my mother probably heard when she was growing

4m 30s Laborwave Radio And that is the labor of love myth, that is like the core theme throughout this books. One thing that really struck me is how malleable this myth is depending on what type of job you're doing, what industry you're in. So can you talk just more about like, what is the labor of love myth and how is it so able to kind of adapt itself to its particular needs?

4m 52s Sarah Jaffe When, like I said, I had a hard time trying to think for a long time about how to structure and write this book. And I finally came around to like, okay, one half of this story is rooted in care, work in the work that women have been expected to sort of naturally do since again, like blue to release kind of early, early human history. And the other half is rooted in sort of the way we talk about artists and like the starving artist and this whole narrative of a certain kind of creative work, not being work at all, but being something that you do outside of your real job or for a passion or, you know, if you're starving and living in a Garret and whatever, and like all of our romantic narratives of the tortured genius, I just started watching the Queens gambit last night.

5m 36s Sarah Jaffe So I'm like freshly thinking about Dora geniuses. The way that I wrote the book ends up being like in two parts, part, one is starts with women's unpaid work in the home and moves through paid domestic work, teaching retail work and nonprofit labor and organizing, which I imagine some of your listeners know all about. And then the second half I start with art and then unpaid internships, academia tech, and sports. And so to think, talk about like, what are some industries? And I tried to choose like industries that are growing that are prevalent, that we hear a lot about. And also obviously industries where workers are, are organizing and doing a lot of things.

6m 19s Sarah Jaffe So like teachers are in a lot of ways, sort of the ultimate labors of love, but also like, you know, in the U S at least, and also starting to be in the UK, like teachers are really the forefront of the labor movement and really changing the way we think and talk about organizing. And so in order to do this, to sort of pick again in a variety of types of work that demonstrate different, but similar ways this narrative grew and expanded, and then you can sort of in those chapters, see the ways it can apply to different kinds of work as well. I hope you can. And like, there are other things, things that I didn't put in there, I really wanted to have a nurse's chapter. And we sort of decided that the nurse's chapter and the teacher's chapter would cover a lot of the same points.

7m 3s Sarah Jaffe So I ended up writing a feature story on nurses for the nation instead, that sort of covers a lot of the ground that a chapter in the book would have it. That should be coming up fairly soon. I hope I have to do at it's out of this week. You're busy. Yeah. No spare time would have spare time. Yeah. And so to think about like what we see when these narratives migrate from different kinds of work to different kinds of work. So what is it about retail work that takes its narrative from women's unpaid work in the home? And, you know, I mean, I, I just, every time I do these interviews, I just end up recommending like 12 other books. So the first one I'm going to do, won't be the last is Bethany Morton's book to serve God and Walmart, which is just one of the best labor histories I've ever read.

7m 49s Sarah Jaffe And I read a lot of labor history and she details the way that, like the Walton family, when, you know, Sam Walton started his first five and dime store, what happened was they were in a part of the country in the Ozarks where most people had been farmers where the people that he was hiring to work in these first stores were sort of farm Housewives who had never done wage labor before. And their moms hadn't done wage labor and their grandmas. Hadn't done wage labor, and nobody, you know, going back however long had done wage labor. And so they didn't really expect a lot in terms of wages. The family farm probably paid most of the bills and they were picking up some money on the side maybe, or at least that's the image that allows them to pay very little, but they got very good at paying lip service to these women and their sort of Christian story.

8m 40s Sarah Jaffe And so this thing that allowed the Walton company, I was just reading the other day that the Walton family got like $25 billion billion with a B dollars richer during the pandemic. And that's, you know, $25 billion richer. They already had 200 and something million dollars that is all based on this ethic that these women brought to the wage labor workforce from what they had done at home and in their church and in their community for free, because they actually cared about people. And so, you know, in a very real way, like Walmart and a lot of the retail stores that have sprung up in its image or tried to emulate it in order to not go out of business, it's entire fortune is built on women, caring about other people.

9m 28s Laborwave Radio Well, and you do a really good job at representing this kind of sexist trope around care work that basically poses that women are intrinsically and just innately caring individuals. Right? So because they're caring individuals, this isn't actually work for them. This is just what they would be doing in any society.

9m 49s Sarah Jaffe And that is, I mean, a right. It's sexist it among other things sort of implies that men are not caring, which allows, you know, frankly, men to get away with murder. But it also implies that, like that caring, isn't a skill that like emotional labor, you know, Arlie, Russell Hochschild, his definition of emotional labor. I really stressed it. Like it's about producing emotions in someone else. That's what emotional labor is actually about. So again, those women at Walmart are there, they are producing good feelings about Walmart by giving you good service. So then you're like, Oh, the lady at Walmart was so sweet. I'll go back there because you know, I feel good about this.

10m 30s Sarah Jaffe Even if you don't think about it, that consciously the good feelings that are produced in you, maybe it's not Walmart, it's probably not Walmart these days, but like the indie record store you might go to, or the neighborhood bookstore where I hope you will buy my book, that kind of thing, it relies on you feeling good about it. And that's this sort of nebulous thing that you can't, that's hard to quantify. And therefore it's really easy to undervalue and that kind of thing. So I was just writing an article about the idea that like an effect is a source of surplus value, which is something that I heard British media scholar, Marcus Gilroy. Waris I had an interview recently and yeah, like think about the way Facebook generates data, sort of like button click by like button click.

11m 19s Sarah Jaffe And we can think about those as like micro units of labor, right? Like Amazon has sort of with the mechanical Turk, it's broken down jobs already into micro tasks that people get a couple of pennies for doing maybe, but that is sort of an, an admission. If we think about it in that way, that like everything we're doing on all of these sites, you know, I have my Gmail window open and somewhere in one of these 8 million tabs is probably some social media site or other, and all of those are, are only able to generate money if we use them, if we continue to click on them and click on the ads and, and interact with them and give them more information. And so that is in a certain way, unpaid work we're doing right.

12m 3s Sarah Jaffe We're producing something for these companies. We are producing value for these companies. It's just been disguised as something that's fun. And like, that's also the logic that these workplaces rely on. If they try to make your job fun. If they're gamification, right. Was one of these big buzz words a few years ago. I don't hear as much about gamification now, but it's still going on. I bet some of your listeners have worked in an Amazon warehouse and like the, the games on the, the picker games and stuff like that, or like Uber has tried to game-ify work for Uber. The idea that like, if we can make it fun, therefore it's not working. Therefore we don't have to pay you as much because you're being paid in something else.

12m 43s Sarah Jaffe You're getting some nebulous sort of feeling reward instead of, you know, the real reward we need, because we can't pay the rent.

12m 50s Laborwave Radio I'm just thinking about my own experiences in some of these types of work that you write about, actually I count it for different industries

12m 58s Sarah Jaffe Or different jobs that you've had. And just that one rant that I did. Yeah.

13m 1s Laborwave Radio Well, no, in the book specifically, the chapters that there's, I've worked in four of those industries, retail is one of them. Non-profits academia kind of teaching that one is a little bit more of a loose fit. Well, that's probably me just internalizing the idea that it wasn't real work, but there's also a lot of external enforcement mechanisms for performing this type of emotional labor. You're talking about when I was bartending and working in retail, the management team was desperate about curating really positive Yelp reviews. And I remember one time I was like on the chopping block because somebody got really mad at me specifically. I, I, when I was bartending and wrote a terrible review by name, so what, what other kinds of mechanisms exist that impose this type of order on workers like that insist that they need to love their job and that reinforce it?

13m 56s Sarah Jaffe Yeah. So it's interesting because there are some researchers who have done a really good job. Here's why I recommend more books of looking at the management literature and like the development of this narrative in management literature. I tried to do mine from the point of view of, of workers and sort of the material conditions that changed for workers to see these things spread. But like Kathy weeks wrote an article, not that long ago for the Verso blog, something along the lines of the romance of work, where she looked at the management literature, Jamie McCallum's recent book worked over, he looks at the management literature and a book that I, you know, stole a framework from Luc Boltanski in Egypt pillows, the new spirit of capitalism, which was written in the late nineties. But that looks again at the way that as we change from an industrial economy to the sort of post-industrial economy we have in the U S and Western Europe, some other places, and what sort of motivations have changed and how those have spread.

14m 55s Sarah Jaffe And again, they're looking largely at management literature. So reading what people are being taught in MBA programs and garbage like that,

15m 6s 2 To see what has changed,

15m 8s Sarah Jaffe Changed about the way that people are being taught to sort of motivate their workforce. And so, like, this is, this is sort of very explicit in a lot of places that we're being told that we should find fulfillment on the job. And that was different from what you were told, if you went to work and GM's Lordstown factory as a member of the UAW in 1966, when Lordstown opened, right, you were not particularly expected to like it. You were just supposed to do it anyway. Sort of like what my dad told me about doing my math homework when I was a kid, I hate it don't care. You have to do it. That was, that was sort of the story though, right? It's like, you do it, you got to do it. Why do you have to do it? Because you will make money?

15m 49s Sarah Jaffe Like that was also the narrative that my dad told me about math homework, right? If you get good grades and you get into a good school, and then you get a good job, and then when you turn 40, you'll be a communist labor journalist.

15m 60s 2 He didn't like that.

16m 1s Sarah Jaffe But the way that, you know, you were motivated to go take a crappy job. I mean, first of all, you know, because like Capitol enclosed the commons, and there was no way for you to make a living except for becoming a wage labor. And then, you know, wage labor requires you to work in order to eat. And then, you know, I spend a lot of time in the first chapter because I think this is really important on the history of the poor laws and the poor law tradition and how that's shaped like American welfare reform, for example, and get another book recommendation, Francis Fox pivot and Richard cloud's book disciplining. The poor is all about this tradition in this history. And of course, Fran and Richard were welfare rights organizers.

16m 45s Sarah Jaffe And they really dug into this history in order to think about the way that these laws were disciplining, working class women who were receiving welfare payments and thinking about what is work, what isn't work, how, you know, essentially the narrative of welfare reform and that bill Clinton eventually gave us with the help of new Gingrich and company. That narrative is in a lot of ways like, Oh, these women will find meaning if they have wage labor, you know, they sort of ripped off this argument from feminism also, which was screwed up like second wave feminism has a lot to answer for on this front because, you know, okay, women need to work.

17m 31s Sarah Jaffe Suddenly women need to work, or rather suddenly like black women have always been expected to work. And when it became possible for black women to actually access welfare, which had been accessible for many, many years for white women, suddenly the idea that like black women weren't working was horrifying. Where does that come from?

17m 50s Sarah Jaffe The history of slavery? You know, there, there are, there are these really sort of culturally specific narratives that also are global and international. Certainly, you know, most of Europe also has narratives based in slavery because they were the ones responsible for it. And they become common sense in the sort of ground Shan sense of common sense, which is to say something that's probably wrong, but that we, we sort of believe at some level, or at least we act as if we believe it. And that's different from, you know, what grounds she called GoodCents, which is actually being right and understanding the way the world works. Yeah. And so, you know, the labor of love has in that way become common sense in all of these different ways, through all of these different materials, sort of disciplining forces from the poor laws to the management literature of the 1990s to welfare reform, to, you know, whatever garbage they're trying to pass through Congress right now,

18m 51s Laborwave Radio Something I want our listeners to know about your book is that it's set up in a really interesting way in that it provides a very sweeping historical summary of the development of work under capitalism. It's really thick. You said earlier, you're not a historian, but you're, you don't have to say that because I think you can trick people into believing. So it's there

19m 11s Sarah Jaffe Give me an honorary PhD,

19m 15s Laborwave Radio But you, you enter into each of these chapters through the lived experience of particular people that do the work. And I was just curious if you'd be willing to talk about how did you find, or how did you decide who to choose to represent these types of work, as well as like, you know, maybe share some of the stories of the people that you talked to on the book?

19m 35s Sarah Jaffe Oh my God. So I'm kind of in love with all of them. They're the best and yeah. And some of this credit for this goes to my wonderful and amazing editor, Katie O'Donnell, who was like, we should focus on one worker to embed these chapters in and really go deep with one worker so that people can actually sort of feel what it's like to do this work rather than have a couple of stories and draw them together. Like I did in my first book, it's like really go deep with one person. And I think it works out pretty well, even though, you know, it's impossible to sort of tell the breadth of stories of this industry through one person. It is possible to give a sense of what it feels like to be someone who does that work.

20m 17s Sarah Jaffe And I, I wanted them all to be people who are organizing, not just, you know, this is somebody who works at this job and here are the sad things that have happened to them because they work in this job, but here's how they're actually trying to change it because of course, you know, Mark's right. So the point is to change it. The point is not just to interpret it. So I found a lot of them through reporting that I was doing on organizing, right? Like the Los Angeles teachers' strike. I went to LA to cover the teacher's strike, which was exactly two years ago. I was in LA on a picket line. I actually looked it up in my picture. You know, Google photos giving me a whatever.

20m 57s Sarah Jaffe Here are your memories. And two years ago, two years ago, I was in the rain, outside the home of one of the members of the LA unified school districts, school board members with a bunch of people protesting. I was wearing a poncho that somebody gave me because I did not pack for Los Angeles thinking it was gonna rain for four days straight. It did. And I met Rose. I met a ton of teachers and many of whom would have been amazing characters, but I sort of asked some people who would be the person I should talk to. And Amy Shure from ACE, which is the Alliance of Californians for community empowerment, which is one of the many community organizations that was working alongside the teacher's union.

21m 38s Sarah Jaffe She suggested Rossa. And she was like, you have to meet Rosa Jimenez. She's amazing. And I did meet Rosa and she was amazing. And a picket line and pouring down rain outside of the RFK community school campus, which is in Korea town, actually, not that far from the actual UCLA building. And she sort of had this experience of teaching that spanned the sort of crisis times, right. She was hired for, she got one year in of teaching and then was laid off after the 2008 financial crisis. So she got involved with a bunch of young teachers who were organizing around that and around the layoffs. Then she teaches at this community school, which is sort of an example of the thing that the UCLA and many other teachers are, are talking about building as schools that really include the demands of parents in the community and the students that try to teach like relevant curriculum to the students that they have that teach in multiple languages.

22m 36s Sarah Jaffe And that try to be more than just a school, but a place where the community actually feels safe and welcomed and involved. And she's an activist. She organizes with the students in a group called students deserve, like she just was on all of these levels, this super, incredibly engaged organizing machine. And then we're sitting in the hallway of the building on the fourth day of the strike because every room in the UTL building is occupied with meetings and strategy and all this stuff is happening. So Rosa and I sit down in the hallway, I had this whole conversation and at the end of it, I asked her, I was like, what has it been like for you being out on strike this week? And she's just like, she's like, I realized that it's okay, that this is for me.

23m 20s Sarah Jaffe And we both sort of started crying cause I was just like, Oh my God, that, that, yes, you like the teachers unions have done such a good job of turning the labor of love narrative around to be part of their organizing, that they can still sort of get lost in that sometimes because it does, it is really important to them to say like our demands, our working conditions are our students' learning. Our demands

23m 46s Sarah Jaffe Will make this better for the entire school district for the entire city of Los Angeles. But also she's like, I am a single mom and this is hard for me and it's okay that I need a raise that I'm in this expensive city. That's getting more expensive every day. And like, it's okay to make demands for me too. So that's one, not that I have favorites because they're all incredible. Kevin, who's a video game programmer that is part of the first or one of the first video game workers unions in the UK at games workers, UK, which is part of, IWG be independent workers of great Britain. I met Kevin and a bunch of other workers at an organizing meeting that I went to, a friend of mine had put me in touch with some of the folks that organize with them and he just had this great story.

24m 35s Sarah Jaffe And also it was just really funny. So like I was trying to decide which of those workers that I wanted to go a little bit deeper with and like looking back over my transcription from the first interview, I was like, Oh my God. And he's really funny. And also, you know, talked about being like a person of color in this industry that is just like absolutely overwhelmingly dominated by white guys and that being an important motivator for his organizing, not just, and we're seeing this again with like the Google union. It's not even primarily in a lot of those cases about wages, it's about respect and it's about hours. It's about like putting a maximum cap on the amount of hours you can be expected to work when you're, you know, they call it crunch when you're crunching to get the game out on time.

25m 23s Sarah Jaffe And this is, you know, just a notorious thing across the industry and across programming in general. But video games in particular is just really, really bad. And I thought video games, I mean a, there was an actual union of video games, programmers, which was great. And then games seemed like the, the sort of perfect labor of love, part of the tech industry, whatever the hell we mean by the tech industry. It's a weird thing to say, isn't all industry about tech, but it was, it's very specific, right? You love video games. So you go to a special school. And most of the people that I talked to had gone to a special school and Kevin was saying, right, he's from Germany. He could have gone to university for free in Germany, but instead he went to this special school for games programming that charged 25,000 euros, I think, a year.

26m 13s Sarah Jaffe So, you know, right from the jump they're like, Oh, but you really want to do this because you love video games. And then at some point, you know, he starts laughing and he's like, I don't even play video games anymore. Yeah. So that's just a couple, I mean, I, there are 10 people in it. I, I stories on how I met them all. It can probably take up the remainder of your podcast

26m 30s 4 Now for a brief musical break. And a reminder that labor wave radio is an independent podcast sustained by subscribers on our Patrion. So we encourage you to become a subscriber today@patrion.com, backslash

26m 44s Laborwave Radio Labor wave. Here's a clip of music from Tyvec off their album origin of what, from in the red records.

28m 3s Laborwave Radio I love the stories too. And I do love the kind of agency that's represented in the stories. It makes me think of another thing that strikes me about your book is that at least in how I read it, it is dripping and indignation like throughout there is all of what informs the book to me seems to be a very consistent indignation over how capitalism has wrecked our ability to actually do things that we love. Right. And that could be work. And maybe to ask you more personal questions, but you seem to really straddle that experience a lot.

28m 35s Sarah Jaffe Yeah. I mean the first words in the book, right. Or I love my work, you know, it's it's and I partly did that because I knew the first thing that people were going to say who got like indignant about this book. And you know, some of them have said this to me, like, well, what do you want people to do? Like just do jobs they hate. And I'm like, no, like I much prefer being a journalist to waiting tables, which I did for quite a long time. Absolutely. Like, I don't think you should just decide. I don't think the answer is like, just decide to do work that you hate, because I just don't think the answer is about your feelings. I think the answer is about power and power is something that you can have an unlimited degree as an individual, right? Like I am a person who has now written two books that does give me like some name recognition, which does translate into some individual level bargaining.

29m 24s Sarah Jaffe Right. That I have that I didn't have, you know, 12 years ago when I was just finishing journalism school. That's definitely a thing you can have. I don't want to say that that's like impossible to have, but you have much more bargaining power as an industry, as you know, freelance journalists organizing alongside staff journalists who are organizing one of the great things about a lot of the journalists who have organized as unions of staff writers, is that they've put concern for freelancers into some of their contracts, which is great. Thank you all. I love you, but that like all of us have to understand that this is an industry. And again, like I could definitely have had a chapter about journalism in this book.

30m 4s Sarah Jaffe I didn't want to write about myself.

30m 6s Sarah Jaffe I read about myself a little bit in the introduction and a little bit in the conclusion, but that's kind of it. But journalism is an industry that was built on sort of the partisan press where, you know, you would have had back in the day when they wrote the constitution to give postal subsidies to the press. Essentially, this was really important to these guys who had just fought a revolution. A lot of whom had been publishers of, you know, partisan broadsheets and things. That's how they, you know, organized a revolution, not to romanticize them. A lot of them were slave owning monsters, but like this was something that was built into the post office, which is in the constitution, which is not true in most other, I hate the term advanced democracies.

30m 53s Sarah Jaffe I don't know what the hell we should use instead, because that just implies a lot of things. But nevertheless, this is something that goes way back. And so subsidies for the press go way back, which is to say that the journalism industry in this country has always been publicly funded. It's just usually been funded through tax breaks. Then you get in the little more than a hundred years ago, or so you get the idea of the objective newspaper, which is essentially just to sell more. So it's not because objective reporting is like scientific something, something, some enlightenment Wang about how, you know, it's the search for truth. It's just literally so that you don't piss off one half of your readership it's to have a bigger audience than the partisan press could.

31m 36s Sarah Jaffe So the New York times sells more copies in Jacobin or than the weekly standard because there's theoretically a bigger audience for non-partisan news. And then it's, it's, you know, op-ed pages are supposedly balanced, but New York times aside, you know, every town would have a newspaper and that newspaper would have staff reporters. And that would be a job that didn't require you to have gone to Yale and worked five unpaid internships to get you, you know, probably went to the local state school and you've got a job and you were a journalist and you were a journalist in your community. And as that model has died and been consolidated and all of these other things that we could talk about forever, there is, you know, ongoing fights among journalists unions at sort of legacy papers that still exist that they're trying to kill in places like Pittsburgh and Toledo right now, those die.

32m 28s Sarah Jaffe And instead what happens is like, people like me who, you know, I'm not from New York. I ended up here because that was where you could get a journalism job. And I had to go to grad school and take two unpaid internships or one unpaid internship in one very low paid internship that has since become better paid because the interns organized with the nation magazine. Thank you. That wasn't the way you got into journalism all that long ago, or at least it wasn't the way you got into most journalism, but now it's become this prestige thing. The pay is shit, and you have to live in the most expensive city in the world, or one of the most expensive cities in the world.

33m 8s Sarah Jaffe And you have to sort of jump through all of these hoops to prove that you're prestigious enough to do this thing. That is a public service. And that, again, not to romanticize the American constitution, which is in large part, a racist piece of garbage. We have recognized since the beginning of this country, that this is an important part of having a functioning society, but now it's as the labor of love, it becomes something that we can sort of do without, because it's something that you should do out of high mindedness and blah, blah, blah. And that just means like rich jerks get to do it. And why has labor coverage suffered? I don't know, because none of the people who are doing prestigious journalism have ever worked a day in their lives, no journalism is work, but you know what I need like, yeah, not that many people at Yale had to wait tables to get through Yale, fewer have actually done that after graduation.

34m 3s Sarah Jaffe When you actually sort of realize like I did, this might be my life, this degree that I got might actually not do any of the things that, you know, my dad said it would, sorry, dad, it might actually just be true that I'm a waitress. So what do I do about that?

34m 21s Laborwave Radio It reminds me of when I was a younger person and willing to make an ass of myself and play punk rock music

34m 28s Sarah Jaffe Of ourselves on a podcast. Right. Yeah. It's totally different in different ways.

34m 35s Laborwave Radio Yeah. I just wanted to share this because it's just what you're saying is very similar to how I could never figure out, like, why is it that I'm making pizza, you know, working like these menial jobs and like I'm barely scraping by I, as I'm playing music and all these other people are just coasting. They seem to be totally fine playing in dive bars and like living, living the life. They're all fucking rich kids.

35m 0s Sarah Jaffe Yeah. And what happens to a world though when like our punk rock is made by rich kids? Yeah. You know, there's just like fascinating. I also don't have a chapter on musicians in this book and spoiler alert. I really want to write one. And I had this idea that I wanted to go on tour with like one of the kinds of bands of which there are most of them that sort of make a living, but they only make a living at the level of like constantly touring, never being home. And that being the way that you can be a full-time musician is you're basically killing yourself. But yeah, but like what, right. What is punk rock when it's made by rich people? You know, no offense to arcade fire, but like, it's not like arcade fire, but like it's not the same thing as people who are living in squats, you know, back when you could live in a squat on the Bowery and be, you know, Patty Smith or, you know, be the sex pistols and go to art school for free in the UK and, and make art.

35m 60s Sarah Jaffe Right. I think that there's wonderful period of publicly subsidized arts education for the pearls produced this wonderful thing that they have systematically tried to destroy ever since like Margaret batcher, like was like no more of you because that mattered because like music and pop culture can be wonderful places for learning about the world. We live in politics, right. And people would call, you know, hip hop, like, you know, news radio for the ghetto. There's a reason that they've tried to destroy arts funding. And it's not just because it's conservatives are assholes and they don't want to fund anything, which is also true. But there are various specific things that they basically don't think working-class people should have.

36m 43s Sarah Jaffe I am fascinated and obsessed with the period of the first new deal. Maybe we get a green, new deal at some point, who knows, because one of the things that they funded that, you know, the, the FTRs administration funded was an arts project. And I knew about that beforehand. Right? Most people sort of vaguely know about that, but you know, I read books about it in researching this book and learned about like, not just the fact that they paid already well-known and emerging artists to make art and paint murals on the sides of housing projects, as well as in, you know, public offices and museums, but they also paid for community art centers. So people could do art so that you had not just, again, I'm not just like a class of people who are artists who got to make art, but actually anybody got to make art, which has amazing, right?

37m 31s Sarah Jaffe Hello, Joe Biden here. You want to have a new deal type of thing. This would be great. Of course, I don't have any faith that Joe Biden will do any of this, but this was a thing that, you know, there was a period in time where people actually were able to make art based funded by the government in their community. And of course, a lot of this comes out of demands of, of organized art workers who were, a lot of them were communists. They were literally in the communist parties, John Reed clubs, and they formed what became the artist union. And they demanded government funding. They said, we are also workers who are also out of work and you also need to create work for us.

38m 15s Sarah Jaffe This was when that, and the destruction of Europe's art centers during world war two was what moved sort of the center of the art world to the U S we had funded it. And we, New York wasn't wrecked by Hitler's bombs. The way that, you know, Paris and London had been,

38m 33s 5 I wanted to move us in conclusion to

38m 36s Laborwave Radio The final chapter of your book that I think in some ways is maybe the most ambitious in that it's trying to identify ways that work actually can be fulfilling and we can actually discover real love, but clearly that's not under capitalism. It's a bit more of a opportunity to be utopian in the book. And I appreciate that. And like, it's very clear and you say it explicitly in the final chapter that don't buy into this myth that you can discover love through your work, right? Like work won't love you back. What do you think it could look like? Like what types of work might be done in a world where we actually have access to love and we don't have to live under wages.

39m 17s Sarah Jaffe I mean, I think the thing that I wanted to do in that chapter was like, I didn't want to do what, like my buddy Joshua Clover calls, 10 chapters of marks, one chapter of canes and what, you know, Malcolm Harris called Bobbitt solutions and his wonderful book kids these days where like, they expect you to sort of diagnose the problem in this big sprawling historical fashion, and then like have a list of five policy solutions at the end. And I knew people were going to be best about that, but I don't care. Sure. There are a bunch of policy solutions that are being talked about right now. That'd be amazing, like the four day work week and basic income and all of this shit and like hell during the pandemic, we've even seen some of them enacted, right. We have gotten and are in the process of getting more basic income Jackson government from the Trump administration for God's sake.

40m 3s Sarah Jaffe So great. Yes. There are all sorts of policy solutions we can talk about. But what I actually wanted to think about is like, okay, what do we do if we don't work? Because that's what people ask all the time, right? Oh, people need work for fulfillment. Well, I don't know, man, if I had some free time, I'd probably do a lot of things that now are work, but don't have to be right. Knitting that I'm doing right here. While we're talking. I took this up as a hobby basically to make myself spend less time scrolling through Twitter on my phone. But it's been particularly during the pandemic, like really relaxing for me, especially in the early days where I like couldn't concentrate enough to read, I would just knit, but it is a job for people, right?

40m 44s Sarah Jaffe Like the sweater that I'm wearing here was, you know, knitted on a machine somewhere by somebody who got paid for it. So, you know, there, there's this line of what is working, what does not work that's blurred and, and crossed and changed all the time. You know, I'm a writer, that's what I do for a living. If I didn't have to work as many hours in a week for a living, I might have written a novel by now or two or three or five. And that would, you know, on some level, yes, it would still be work. It would still be like focused, disciplined activity, but it would actually be something that I was able to choose and really decide whether I enjoyed it and how I wanted to do it.

41m 26s Sarah Jaffe And, you know, thinking about this community art centers, like, it didn't matter if what you did in the community arts center, it was like trash, right? Like I,

41m 34s Sarah Jaffe I, I once was on a panel about the, we call it in defensive, bad art with art critic, Ben Davis and artist, Molly Crabapple. And I was saying that, you know, on some level, like the test of whether your society actually cares about these things was like, do people get to make bad art? In other words, can it be something that isn't necessarily a saleable commodity, but something that we just do for the fun of it, like, you know, my, the sweater that I'm admitting, isn't going to be the greatest thing in the world. It's not, I'm working from a pattern. It's not like anything, all that exciting, but I like doing it. Nobody's ever gonna, you know, hire me to be a networker designer likely, but I enjoy doing it.

42m 14s Sarah Jaffe And, you know, I wrote the check after also about what the thing, the other thing that, that loving your job job does is it sort of turns all this affection onto work that we could otherwise spend on other people. Like, again, I'm interested in this dichotomy that sort of comes out of neo-liberalism, but also comes out of sort of second wave of feminism that getting a job was sort of pose in a dichotomy to like being in a crappy marriage, basically being a housewife. Okay. But like what, what would the world need to look like? So like marriage has weren't crappy anymore.

42m 55s Sarah Jaffe And also like, you know, for most people who, who got most of the women who moved into the wage workforce in the seventies and eighties, didn't go into wonderful, fulfilling careers. They went into low wage work that was in most cases, very similar to the work they had already been doing unpaid in them. So what would it look like to actually both like, think about, you know, what kind of role will we need that our relationships aren't crap. And that it means that like the family, as the sort of privatized economic unit, can't be the shock absorber for all the garbage that capitalism throws at us. We have to actually have all, we need to survive in order for it to not be sort of necessary to end up in these really heteronormative couple of units that like, I'm even matter about this after, you know, nine months of panic, nine, 11 months of pandemic, because for people who went through lockdown as part of a couple, you're sort of forced back into this couple of unit where you might've had a vibrant, exciting social life and lots of other people now you're basically only allowed to see your partner and maybe your kids, if you have, if you are single, you've just been cooped up alone for a long time.

44m 13s Sarah Jaffe Both of those conditions actually are awful. And like the pandemic is, you know, on some level we can't escape that, but we could have escaped it going on for this long. If our governments had given a crap about how we survive. I argue that in order to think about like how human relationships could be better, we also need free time from work. And we also need our basic needs met. That is sort of an old feminist argument, right? That women who are economically dependent on men can never be free. It's just that I don't think the answer to that is therefore get a job. I think the answer to that is what kind of society would actually create freedom for everyone.

44m 53s Sarah Jaffe And in order to do that, like the combat river collective argued, you have to look at the people who are the most exploited, what would it take? They wrote for black women to be free because if black women, black queer women, like most of the writers of the Combahee river collective statement, if black queer women were free, then everybody else would have to be free because the things that would actually make them free would actually make things better for all of us, which is why, again, always forever and ever, and ever read more about the welfare rights movement, because they were amazing. And again, a movement of black women who didn't want to be in, in many cases, a traditional family, and they wanted the support and the recognition and the care, and sort of honor given to the work they were already doing of raising their children and being present in their communities.

45m 40s Sarah Jaffe They wanted that to be valued and they didn't want to sort of be forced into crappy relationships with men in order to have a limit. I kind of just think all of the answers are found in the welfare rights movement. Yeah. If we think about those demands really, and they, again, they did make a lot of concrete policy demands, everything from like the welfare people do not get to come in and look through my underwear drawer or try to determine if I'm having sex to give us a basic income. And they did demand that. And we almost got it under Richard Nixon and then it all fell apart. And instead, you know, well, we know what happened to Nixon. This idea that we get fulfillment on the job tells us that if we're not fulfilled by the job, there is something wrong with us.

46m 25s Sarah Jaffe And that the number one thing I want people to take away from this book is like, there is absolutely nothing wrong with you. If your job is unfulfilling, your job is actually designed to be incredibly unfulfilling and to exploit the crap out of you and make somebody else a lot of money. And the best way to change that even in the short term is literally still connecting with other people. It's just that in the workplace, we call that a union,

46m 48s Laborwave Radio The bogus card work. Won't love you back. How devotion to our jobs keeps us exploited, exhausted and alone. It's published by both type books, Sarah Jaffe. I really appreciate you talking to us. I've really liked your book a lot. And I encourage our listeners to go get a copy as soon as possible. Thank you

47m 4s Sarah Jaffe Always good to talk to you.

47m 6s 6 <inaudible>.



Full transcript below.


David Graeber was an anthropologist, proponent of anarchism, and participant in many movement struggles of the past two decades including the Alter-Globalization movement and Occupy Wall Street. Among his popular authored books includes Debt: The First 5,000 Years, The Utopia of Rules, Bullshit Jobs, and Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology. He passed on September 2, 2020.


We discuss his ideas and celebrate his memory in this conversation with comrades Tony Vogt, member of the IWW and co-founder of the Anarres Project for Alternative Futures, and Shane Capra, an organizer and participant in the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking and member of the IWW.


Our discussion covers topics of leadership and charisma, the tension between play and games, and falling in love with a ghost you cannot capture.


Before getting into the episode, wanted to give a shout out to our most recent patron, Adam, who became a strike captain via our Laborwave Patreon.


You can join the Patreon as well by going to patreon.com/laborwave. As Adam has recently joined, they will be receiving in the mail very shortly a custom made Laborwave t-shirt, illustrated zine of our Dinner Table After the Revolution episode, and some really cool hand drawn stickers. We also continually give gifts as we go, and you get access to the early release of our episodes. So welcome Adam to Laborwave, we really appreciate you joining the Patreon. I also want to give a shout out to In The Red Records, they have recently given Laborwave permission to use the music of their artists on our show. So you'll be hearing during our musical breaks music from In The Red Records.


Today we chose, in celebration of David Graeber, to keep the music fun and spirited in keeping with his legacy. So this song is called Shake Real Low by King Khan and BBQ Show, and you'll be hearing it in the outro to this episode. My guests on this episode are two comrades. Tony Vogt, who in introducing himself omitted the fact that he is also a co-founder and participant in the Anarres Project for Alternative Futures, which puts out really great content and recently started releasing YouTube videos, discussing broad ranging subjects, and particularly a lot of focus on Star Trek and the leftist themes within.


So check out the Anarres Project at anarresproject.org. Shane Capra also joins us, who is one of the founders and participants in the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking. Both of these projects you can learn more about in our show links. We've also got some really cool episodes coming up, including another in our mini series, After the Revolution, where we talk to Shawn from the Srsly Wrong podcast about Malls After the Revolution. We're also going to have conversations with the Angry Workers, do another discussion of Comrades Read Together, talking about the book No Shortcuts, and we're planning and scheduling a conversation with Marianne Garneau, editor and writer for Organizing Work and Nick Driedger, a consistent contributor to Organizing Work, about the future of the IWW.


All of that and more coming up on Laborwave. Please follow us on our social media, we are at Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, and leave reviews and like our content on Apple podcasts, Spotify, and SoundCloud. We hope you enjoy this conversation about David Graeber. Laborwave Radio: Joined today by two comrades to discuss the life and legacy of the now recently passed David Graeber. Before we talk about Graeber's life and legacy, and some of these ideas, I want to give my guests the opportunity to introduce themselves. So I can see most quickly Tony, on my screen, so how about we start with you? Tony can you just introduce yourself to our listeners?


TV: I'm Tony Vogt, I am a long time Wobbly, as was David Graeber, and I'm also part of the faculty union at Oregon State University. I'm an instructor in philosophy there and I've been involved in social movements for the last 40 years.


LR: And Shane can you introduce yourself?


SC: My name is Shane. I'm one of the organizers that runs the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking, I'm also in the IWW but I'm just a little baby, and I've been doing lots of different anarchist and radical projects since I was a teenager.


LR: Yeah, I'm really happy to have you both here. Full disclosure, I had been an attendee of the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking and I thought it was a great week out camping and getting exposed to a lot of new perspectives. And learning how to climb trees, I have not yet utilized those acquired skills, but one of these days. And Tony and I also have a great history in that he's often served as a mentor to me in my learning and political imagination. So this is a great crew to have this conversation with.


I'm not going to like give too much of a rehearsal of David Graeber cause I think a lot of folks are fairly well acquainted and aware of who he is. But just very briefly, Graeber was an anthropologist, and he was also known as a very key proponent of anarchism as a political perspective. He wrote a lot of books, probably the most famous, I would say is Debt the First 5,000 Years. He also wrote The Democracy Project, The Utopia of Rules, more recently Bullshit Jobs. And for anarchists in particular, I think his big, big book is Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology, which was a little slim primer that quite frankly is a great introduction and a lot of his work and thinking.


He passed away recently on September 2nd at the age of 59, causes still unknown to my knowledge. But what we were going to do is just kind of have a little panel discussion about some of his ideas that influenced us the most or the ones that we want to like chew on the most, talk about things we like, maybe things we didn't like, and just give a little bit of a celebration to somebody who I think lived with a very rebellious spirit and a rebellious soul. And I imagine he is probably having a lot of fun wherever you might be today. So who would like to maybe kick it off with just, when I invited you to the talk, what was the first thing that you thought of when you thought of Graeber and things that he's impacted you by?


SC: One of the first things that I was thinking about was like, I am in my early thirties, so you know, I was a teenager when I was getting involved and stuff, and I basically started organizing and identifying as an anarchist as a teenager, right at the time when the Green Scare was happening. So it was like 2005-2006, and 9/11, the Anti-War Movement, and the Green Scare sort of all combined to end the spirit that sort of drove the Global Justice Movement. And I think in a lot of ways, I came into this sort of era where, you know, I was reading all these books that were like, oh, there is going to be these giant mass summit shut downs and black blocs and this really building momentum, and it was all gone.


And so it was sort of like being in love with a ghost. And I think David Graeber's work, you know, Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology and Direct Action: An Ethnography really sort of like laid out this map of that ghost we were sort of inheriting, and it was all sort of smashed to bits and gone at that point. And so that was sort of like the teenage me, was like reading these books, being animated by them, and finding none of it. So that was my first brush with David Graeber.


LR: I feel similar in that I came to political activation later in life. So I was already in my mid twenties—my chronology is so fuzzy, I don't even know how old I was ever—but I think I was in my mid twenties and it was really in Occupy Wall Street. So Occupy Wall Street happened at the same time that a lot of other things were happening for me personally. And I didn't directly participate as much as I wish I had, I did a little bit, but not that much, and this was in Atlanta. And then when it was crushed and when it was over, I was kinda more shocked by just what happened, you know, how it was like brutalized by the police and just within a week swept away.


And within that, I started actually trying to dig in and learn more and come to educate myself about it. And I came to the Democracy Project eventually, and I came to like fall in love with Occupy Wall Street, and feeling like I missed out on it. And I think that that's kind of a similar to what you were saying Shane, it's almost like, you know, chasing a ghost, like trying to like get tapped into this moment and spirit in time and place that just was always out of my grasp a little bit. Tony how about you share?


TV: Yeah one of the things about Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology is it's a great introduction for anybody who's unfamiliar, not just with Graeber, but with anarchism. And it's really accessible, well, pretty accessible, it's still a slight bit academic and scholarly, and he's been critiqued for that, but he was a scholar. Even though he was an anarchist scholar, even though he came from a working class background—and he had some important things to say about being working class in the academy—but it's a spirited book, it's fun, it's got verve, or chutzpah. I think it has sparked a lot of people to search further into the history and Anarchist perspectives.


And I've given it as a gift to the number of people. I'm just going to say, I mourn his passing. I miss his voice. He was onto some really interesting things in these last few years that he will now not get a chance to develop. And so I guess it's up to the rest of us. SC: I think, to sort of go off of something that, Alex, you were saying about Occupy Wall Street and this idea of being in love with the movement that just ended before you joined up. I was sort of invovled as a teenager and one of the things that radicalized me—I was this young anarcho-punk kid and I was getting more politically serious, and when I was 18 I was riding my bike around and got a flat tire.


And I went to this collective bike shop that was in the basement of a community center called Stone Soup, and sort of just by wandering up after working on my bike I met these weird people doing Food Not Bombs, and they had this library and this Infoshop community social center space. And in a lot of ways what was sort of animating that was this Direct Action Network, Global Action Network—which was part of the DAN stuff in the global justice period—hung on longer than it did in other places, I would say it ended in probably 2007. And so I was sort of in this echo of the Global Justice Movement in the things that I was reading about in David Graeber, but I was doing more community organizing than, like, these gigantic spokescouncils of 500 spokes and all these affinity groups, and there was barely any of that around, until when Occupy Wall Street happened I was like, "Oh yeah this is it, and here's the rule book that we took from zines and reading David Graeber."


And we were like, "Okay, we're going to go down to Occupy Wall Street." And we didn't really know to expect. So an affinity group I was in a went down, and our only goal was to not get arrested. But we got to Occupy Wall Street the very first night, and we were in this march that was going to Wall Street. We got to a fence and we were like, "Okay, now we pull down the fence," and everybody was like, "Oh there are a lot of cops, these cops are going to stop us, the cops are stopping us, let's go back to the park." So we were like, "What?!" We were expecting this stuff of the global justice period, and then we went back to the park and had a long-ass meeting.


And we were like, "This sucks let's leave." We thought it was never going to go anywhere. And one of the things that's memorable of that was David Graeber being there and inventing the People's Mic in order to make that bad meeting happen. But I remember leaving really fed up, and like you missed your moment and then you missed your moment.


LR: Yeah. I mean, it maybe seems like a weird connection, but it actually reminds me of the Great Gatsby. You know how Gatsby has this romanticized vision of the love of his life, Daisy. And he like has pined and yearned for years and years to reconnect and recapture this love, this moment in time that he idealizes was like the peak of his life. And then when he comes back to encounter her, he realizes that it was all in his imagination more than the reality. Like the reality really didn't live up to the expectations at all. It was kind of crushing. So anyway, that's what it connects to for me, you saying that. It's like, there are these moments where I think, even still today, we're prone to probably glamorize and highly exaggerate the rebellious moments in time, the experiences of it, the reality of it.


A lot of times, anarchist organizing has a lot of boring meetings. It's not just throwing Molotov cocktails and soup cans at the police.


TV: I must be an outlier because I generally like meetings, political meetings, Wobbly meetings. And my first really wonderful experience at a meeting was in 1983 in the anti-nuke movement. My affinity group got arrested with about a thousand other people and thrown into a big circus tent, surrounded by barbed wire. We had refused to give our names upon arrest. So the cops were closing in and I experienced my first spokescouncil meeting with about 500 people and saw it work and it blew me away.


So there are these moments in movements that truly are real. And you don't have to romanticize them. And they're hard, they're scary, but they're real. And I think Graeber was inspired by some of those moments himself. I also experienced that to some degree in the Occupy movement, even in smaller cities in Oregon. Of course Occupy was everywhere, right. There was an Occupy Antarctica.


LR: Well it reminds me of—so, in the preparation for this talk, I revisited some of Graeber's works that I like the most. It has been a little while since I read them. So I kind of remembered a lot of like, why he's so appealing as a writer. I will say like Tony, you mentioned earlier, he was maybe a little academic at times, I acknowledge that that's true, but I will say he's one of the few academic writers I encounter that actually writes to be understood, which I find refreshing. And you can tell he's having fun as he's writing. I think that there's something there's just some fun that you have as a reader, but what you were saying about meetings, about those moments, it reminds me of his work in The Utopia of Rules where he's talking about bureaucracy and the kind of hidden underlying appeal of bureaucracy, even for radicals and even for anarchists.


And he defines it as the distinction between play and games, desiring play versus desiring games. And these moments of Occupy, these explosive moments, these were moments of rebellion, not just Occupy, but things that seem spontaneous, I think tap into our desires for play, which is spontaneous creative moments of expression. But he says bureaucracies are more about the desire for games, which are rule-bound affairs where you understand the rules, there's no ambiguity about it, and by abiding by the rules of games, you actually can win at, I guess, the games of life. I think that these are actually still a lot of the arguments we're still having within radical circles about: How do we organize?


What's the necessity of the logistics behind things? How much do we need to have games versus play? And everybody's kind of trying to invoke these different desires and inject it in movement spaces. Maybe that sounds really abstract.


TV: How can we make decisions together that honor the radical imagination and bring out all of our capacities? And I think this is something that's an ongoing project within movements. Nobody's really figured it out, but there are moments when it happens. And it's really worthwhile. Graeber spoke to this somewhat. He's got on YouTube, I think—God, was it a TEDx talk? Did he actually give one? He has one called something like Political Pleasure, which is sort of subversive and he begins by saying, "I've got to admit, I like meetings." And then he goes on to talk about how meetings have been robbed from us, like the coming together to make decisions and not just make decisions, but honor each other's capacities for a radical imagination and play.


And I don't know if you two know his essay called What's the Point if We Can't Have Fun? Yeah, it's a great essay, and he actually argues for a a materialist metaphysics of play and intentionality, from any kind of organization from the subatomic all the way up to the biological. So he's actually saying the universe is imbued with this kind of a sense of play. It has the potentiality of that. And it's built into, even on a material basis, its built into our very bodies, and it's built into everything around us.


That's a really interesting essay. And of course he's building on kinds of philosophies that are opposed to mechanistic philosophies, trying to open the space for imagining a whole different world and how to relate to it.


SC: I don't think you can be some sort of pure insurrectionary person who just shows up to the riot and reads all the rest of the time. Mostly people enjoy meetings to whatever extent. It seems like it's like, some meetings are bad and some meetings are good. I think the impulse of direct democracy is beyond the concept of meetings though. But I think the essay about play and his style of writing are a big factor of why he's popular. If you think about other quasi-academic or academic people who are a public mouthpiece for anarchism, like Noam Chomsky.


I love Noam Chomsky but he's boring as fuck. And David Graeber really brings it in and he's like, "I'm going to write an essay about Batman. I'm just going to be really goofy." And you can even see it in his online presence. When someone critiques him online he gets kind of mad at them, but he responds in funny ways. And we need that in leadership. Humor and play are part of—I don't know if folks are familiar with the book Joyful Militancy but I think it's a useful injection into an anti-Marxist and really rigid way of trying to change the world.


Not Marxist, more vanguardist I guess.


LR: I think you're right. That is one of the things that appeals to me is that he's having fun and he's kind of bringing fun into politics. And I think it's valid, but right now I'm perceiving, in general, an extreme problem of morale and inspiration. And of course we're a living through a pandemic, and in the Pacific Northwest, wildfires getting more and more intense every year, the police shootings of especially black folks in the streets, just continuing without any breaks. I get why it's easy to feel cynical right now, but morale can really spread and undermine our organizing efforts in and of itself and that we need to have things to fight for and to believe in, and be sparked and motivated and animated by an imagination of something better.


Because what I found in all of my organizing experience is that trying insist on practicality by all means and just go for inches motivates nobody. And nobody wants to come back to the meetings. Nobody wants to participate that much. We need more joy, we need more fun in our movement spaces. And I think Graeber's work helps bring some of that into the conversation.


TV: Yeah, one of the ways I think he helps is because he's really good at reframing things, taking unexamined assumptions about everything: debt, work, meetings, political action, human evolution. You know, his latest work with his friend David Wengrow—he is an archeologist—and they were trying to reimagine how human beings evolved, and departed from the story that we all know: that we all started in small bands, and then there was agriculture and it established cities and they became hierarchical and so on and so forth.


And he actually writes with his archeologist collaborator, that's not the story that archeology tells or anthropologists now tell. It's wrong, really, basically wrong. And so he proposes another way of looking at ourselves as an evolving species. He says the first cities were often robustly egalitarian. He says our species did not. In fact spend most of its history in tiny bands. Agriculture did not mark an irreversible threshold in social evolution. And then he says, even as researchers have gradually come to a consensus on these questions, they remain strangely reluctant to announce their findings to the public, even scholars in other disciplines, let alone reflect on the larger political implications.


So there's a whole essay he puts out called How to Change the Course of Human History (at least the part that's already happened).


LR: I want to follow up immediately on that because when I was reflecting on Graeber's passing and the ways that I think my ideas have been mostly shaped by him. One of the biggest things for me that I've come to realize is that I believe fully one of the monopoly powers of the state that's not often highlighted enough is a monopoly over the political imagination. Like the state has a monopoly over violence. We hear that all the time, right? But I think that the state also has a monopoly over the political imagination, meaning the understanding and definition of what politics is, narrowly defining it, and then creating this kind of shallowness around what's possible.


And the Margaret Thatcher motto is a classic, right? "There is no Alternative." That's an obvious example of monopolized political imagination. I used to think that it was a shallow imagination, I even just said that word shallow. It's not. It's actually a rich and fully developed imagination, it's just a bad one. It's an imagination that believes that the world has to look this way. And that's just another story that we've told ourselves. So for me, I've realized so much of my frustration in organizing spaces has come from recognizing that what people call common sense and pragmatism and practicality is actually a highly utopian imagination in and of itself that they are not even aware of.


And I can link that insight so closely to Graeber's works, and the way that he has blasted away assumptions like Tony is talking about.


SC: I think that's a good point, and gets into some of the stuff that Gramsci was talking about with cultural hegemony. But I think David Graeber takes it in a lot more of a broader strokes zone in a pretty accessible way of doing it. That seems to be a lot of his power, of like, here's his book Debt, and it's going to erase how we're supposed to academically and culturally think of money. So Tony, did that book that was supposed to come after that essay, How to Change the Course of Human History, actually come out? Because I would be fascinated to read the book.


TV: Yeah, and his collaborator's name is David Wengrow. So Graeber and Wengrow. I think it's going to come out, I think I read somewhere that it's going to come out maybe in the next few months. I mean, he did this for Debt. He did it for what we call productive work. He had this thing he used to say regularly when he talked, which he said, "Now think about it, we think of productive work as like working to produce a mug or a glass." He said, "But you only do that at one time. Then the rest of the work is cleaning it, taking care of it for 20 years."


So he's trying to reframe work as caring work and as the work of maintenance and sustaining our lives together, and not just merely defined as productive work. So he was really good at reframing things. I appreciated that in him. LR: Because the production under capitalist terms is a narrowed definition of production, right? It is the production of things specifically, but not the production of people, as I've heard David Graeber describe it.


SC: I'm not sure if you're familiar with Paul Goodman, his role in the '60s, and even in the '40s and '50s, sort of being this anarchist gadfly that put out these works that focused on these certain subsets and tried to turn things on their head and make him make us look at them in different ways. He's not really well remembered, Tony probably has a better grasp on him than I do.


TV: I used to read him back when. It's been decades and decades. But that's interesting you mentioned him in relationship to Graeber because there's a way in which there's a similarity there. They're both very accessible. They're both kind of provocateurs with really good imaginations. They both can be really funny. That's an interesting connection.


SC: And they both died pretty fucking young. The role that they played in somewhat similar in my mind, just for a different era, where it was like, this is the one voice for anarchism or this sort of version of an anti-capitalist that's going to get any air time. And they're sort of goofy. And it's been important. One of the things that, you know, rereading some of the essays on possibilities, and one of the things that he talks about is the idea of a joking relationship, and what is politeness. And that joking relationships tend to be more horizontal and egalitarian.


Like, the ability to have jokes with each other. You know, you don't say poop to the queen was the thing he wrote. But I think having a public leader or figure, or like a mouth piece, and having them be funny, is really important for movements. But also inflected around this anarchist "What is leadership?" question. So it was striking to me, especially with their later work, how similar it was. Like, Bullshit Jobs is like the same book as People or Personnel by Paul Goodman. It's just really interesting.


LR: I wonder though if that brings up one of these tensions around leadership, and kind of things in organizing spaces that shall not be said out loud, and that is that charisma matters in organizing.


Like I think that anarchists, and I include myself within this category, are very invested in horizontal networks and like trying to blast away hierarchies wherever possible. And more specifically social hierarchies, right? Sometimes organizations need a bit of hierarchy or at least bureaucracy within them. And because of that, I think there was a real tendency to want to push against like the charismatic leader model, which was maybe a model that, like Martin Luther King Jr. represented better. But at the same time, it is fair to acknowledge that Graeber had charisma. And I think that that's a lot of the reason that he actually gained influence, not the only, he was still a brilliant writer. He had a lot of insights, but his charisma mattered. He was funny.


And I know you said Chomsky is boring. Which, I guess now. But Chomsky in the nineties was a pretty lively. And I thought he had his own brand of charisma, amongst particular people. So I don't know, Graeber was really prone to ask a lot of open-ended questions, even end his essays with questions rather than conclusions. So I'm kind of just throwing this out here as an open question. How much does charisma really matter on our organizing and how much are we willing to even acknowledge it.


SC: I think it matters a lot. It's sort of a skeleton in the closet for a lot of folks, and it can replace a lot of other things, or mask over a lot of other things.


But yeah, the anarchist hand-wringing around leadership is not functional, in my opinion. We both need leaders, and you can have leadership models that are accountable. And saying we don't have them—in some ways like Joe Freeman's The Tyranny of Structurelessness. You can have organizational models that don't have leaders and have that be systematic, but I think pretending to not need them is no good, because it's sort of just this opaque movement that has no public interface, and what it has is only at a local level.


It feels fairly hard to understand.


TV: I wish Graeber had written more about that. I'm not sure what we're talking about when we're talking about charisma. I kind of know, it's like, okay, does it mean that you are able to get people to listen to you? Are you able to move them? And if so, then there are people who have that developed more so than other people. And as anarchists, we hope those are also people, like I hear Graeber was to some degree personally, aware of their own charisma and willing to step out of roles when he felt like he was given too much authority, he wanted to reflect it back to the people who wanted to give it to them, and say, "No, do for yourselves."


At least there are some stories from Occupy about him doing that. So I don't know, charisma. Because you can have charisma on the right and the left.


LR: Yeah, I think the challenge is the right openly embraces it and they unify under it. And the single leader is a model that works perfectly well for them. So we have this challenge, because yeah I understand what you're saying, charisma as defined in what way. But it's difficult for me to bounce from any space to any space where I don't see some type of charismatic leader having influence over that group. And I think like Shane is saying denying it doesn't benefit us. And maybe that's one of the legacies of Graeber that, he probably wouldn't have put it this way, but Occupy had a legacy of claiming no leaders.


And the challenge and critique to that message that came out of Occupy has, in some ways almost discredited Occupy entirely amongst a certain cadre of leftist that I don't think should be listened to all that much. But unfortunately, they have a platform and they get listened to, and now I see Occupy—even in this anniversary that's just a passing of Occupy—it's characterized as something that was just a drum circle of a bunch of hippies that had no relationship to real people in real life. Because it's like they take these cheap shots about the kind of a leaderless of it, and the horizontal networks of it. So maybe this was one of the legacies that Graeber helped introduce into anarchism itself or into the public consciousness around movement spaces that has had some negative impacts.


SC: I guess this is sort of like, you know, you can kind of see it that way. Certainly a lot of Occupy went in funny directions, sometimes went nowhere, and then ultimately was just repressed, which was ignored. But you really have to think about the bigger picture of what Occupy accomplished. And whether whatever tiny more disciplined organalle, whether it's an affinity group or a vanguardist group or whatever, saying what your impact as that has done? And I would argue Occupy Wall Street captured the energy post-2008 that put class analysis and discourse back into the American public.


And that's directly what led to the Bernie in my eyes. And then that's directly what led to the DSA in my eyes. And where that will lead, who knows. But that's a big impact, that's a cultural shift that would have been impossible without all those hippies beating on their buckets.


TV: It also created space in communities of color that kind of had a problematic relationship with Occupy, in that it was often too much of a white space, but that white space got challenged a lot too. And there were groups like Occupy the Hood. And there were indigenous people that were in relationship to the movement and demanded that they talk about decolonization and not Occupy. So it gave rise to these ripple effects that I think were tensions, but they were creative tensions. And I think productive.


LR: I agree too, with the kind of chronology that Shane provided in terms of one thing influencing the next succession of events.


I think prior to Occupy there were also some explosive moments, like the uprising in Madison amongst labor unions and a coalition of forces, and the Arab Spring, and I think these things were confluences that also helped spark Occupy. And then I agree, Occupy put class politics back on the map, able to talk about it again. And Bernie Sanders openly embraced the rhetoric and language of Occupy Wall Street in all of his campaigning. I mean, he regularly referred to the 1%, and that language we got, we were able to use again because of Occupy. And I agree Bernie's popularity and success led to the success of the DSA. The interesting thing to me is that you will hear some people that have large platforms within the DSA, and like Jacobin and other platforms on the left right now, that acknowledge that Bernie helped them build their socialist organization.


And they will be the same people that'll shit on Occupy at the same time and try to dismiss it as having any bearing or any influence. So they won't acknowledge what I figure is a pretty clear connection. And also I place myself in this legacy too. Occupy helped radicalize me and turn me into the organizer I am today. Those are metrics you can't really capture very easily. How many other people were sparked and inspired and came to a radical politics because of Occupy that we don't know?


TV: Occupy Portland and Occupy Oakland I think I had a whole lot of folks taking on different projects, initiating projects within the movement. And then when Occupy was basically crushed by state repression, like you mentioned earlier Alex, coordinated efforts put it down within a week. It didn't smash all of those projects. A lot of those projects continued. A really small example is here in Corvallis, Alex has been a part of this, our friend Joseph Orosco initiated an Occupy reading group that is still going now, and it started in 2011. There are these demonstrable ongoing projects that change and evolve over time.


LR: Yeah, and that reading group, the Occupy reading group was happening prior to me arriving. I used to live in Corvallis, Oregon. I don't anymore. But prior to me arriving that reading group existed, it was still continuing. And because Occupy had sparked my imagination and helped radicalize me, I was attracted and gravitated to the Occupy a reading group by a flyer. And I started going and quite frankly, no shade to any of my previous professors, but I learned a lot more in those reading groups than in my four years of higher ed. And then my additional years of getting a master's education. So I agree. I think there's lots of things happening that still are directly connected to Occupy that you just can't measure.


And you can't say that it was a complete failure or that it wasn't a real movement or mass politics, or whatever people's claims are these days that want to be critical of it.


SC: I think each time there is a big movement, peak, or a crisis, a new crew of people get dumped into the left, and a lot wash out, but a lot stay. And some of this stuff happened through Occupy and then a lot of people just joined in 2016 because it was "Trump and the rise of fascism" and that was a big sort of birth, and I'm sure the George Floyd response and this wave of Black Lives Matter is going to be an even bigger group of people radicalized and dumped into the left. But if you didn't really know what it was like pre-Occupy, like the foundations or the cultural shift are just not there, or inconvenient to whatever political line you're trying to take, like Jacobin and things like that.


LR: So maybe we can shift a little bit here, because something else we were talking about within this recent conversation around Occupy and leadership is that Graeber had ideas too around vanguardism. One of my favorite essays of his was titled, The Twilight of Vanguardism. And what I really like about this was kind of, again as Tony was talking about, his ability to reframe just basic assumptions, basic assumptions even on the left, around what a vanguard even means, how it's defined, and who has the hegemony over that idea. Because, you know, a lot of people hear vanguardism, they think Leninist political party of intellectual cadre that basically disconnect themselves from the movement and repress all the people on the bottom.


But that essay was interesting in that he kind of highlighted the origins of even the ideas around vanguardism and even its own inflections within it. Some are more of the intellectualized nature of the vanguard, but then there's this other inflection of vanguardism that's more like the avant garde. Where it's like creative provocateurs and artists, and people that cut against the grain of popular thinking are the ones that can help spark the imagination and spark people in action, maybe even use their charisma in these positive ways to build organizations around them. So just throwing that out there, interesting ideas around leadership that he had even there.


TV: I always appreciated with Graeber that he definitely saw a role for the counterculture, and for artists, and for creative folk, and he had an affinity for that. That's one of the things that you sometimes find it on the left that's easily dismissed. Like again, you know, it's the drum circle, it's reduced to the drum circle, or something like that. It's so much more profound than that. And I love that essay that you're talking about Alex, I would encourage your listeners to read it.


SC: I think it's interesting cause in a lot of ways what I would say was sort of this death knell moment of like, the Soviet Union had fallen apart, we were the last ones standing. He's got those essays with Andrej Grubacic that are sort of like, "the new anarchism, we are the new radical paradigm." And I think those were really important to me as a younger anarchist, being like, all of this is irrelevant, and I didn't need to think about it ever. It's just now that I'm going back and reading any Lenin or Mao, and I'm just like these people suck.


He built so much of the foundation of my thinking around that that I never even bothered. And now I'm going back and I'm like, oh yeah I really shouldn't bother.


TV: I'm trying to think of criticisms of Graeber. I guess I wouldn't call it criticisms. One of the things I wish he had done more in is writing, and I think he might've started doing it more toward the later years, is really acknowledge how much many of his ideas were sparked by for example, people like Sylvia Federici and radical feminism, radical left feminism.


And indigenous peoples, he took inspiration from as an anthropologist, but also as a political thinker. And sometimes he would acknowledge that and I just wish he had made those connections more explicit.


LR: Yeah. I think you're right, that he has made explicit reference to his affinity for the Italian Autonomist movements, but then kind of like once some time, maybe twice some time and then kind of left it alone and stopped talking about it. But you can see without his writing that he clearly had this more autonomous streak, this feminist streak that I think came more out of the Italian Autonomist tradition too, represented by Federici. And this was one of the things that I both like, and also I think you can push on and say that it's a critique of him that's valid.


I like that he was willing to make generalized statements. These are kind of sins in academia, you can't make any sweeping generalizations. He would do it all the time, just to like try to get to a question that he wanted to actually reflect on. But in doing so I think he also would pass over the influence and the ideas, where they were really originating from, and maybe not give enough citation to the people that were probably getting him to think of the ways he was thinking too.


SC: I mean, I guess that's the difference in my eyes between academic and public work. Like who's the audience for your work? And in a lot of ways, I think depending on the book or whatever the essay is, he was kind of talking to the public, slash other anarchists or activists. And that's an interesting audience. And it was a pretty big soap box.


LR: If I could pose this question, trying to get to today. You know, anarchism, I think had a real uptick immediately in the wake of Occupy. And then I think—I'm not trying to say this is a bad thing—but I think DSA and like the brand of like democratic socialism had reigned primary among the left for a little while there. And then these insurrections happen and we're talking about anarchism again. We keep going in flux between all of that, like the flavor of the week on the left. But what do you think about today's anarchist organizing? Like how much power is there in terms of an anarchist movement or the influence of anarchism on the left today, and how much do you think Graeber has kind of helped nurture this movement?


SC: Let's get to some of my critiques of David Graeber, and how I've really sort of gone back to these inspirational works from when I was younger. There was a great essay called Revolution is More than a Word, by Gabriel Kuhn. In that he sort of talks about the phase of David Graeber saying anarchists are ascendant and if you're going to be radical you're probably are going to be an anarchist, are over. And sort of trying to analyze problems within anarchism. And this is in the rise of the DSA and in some of these other, you know, the re-rise of tankies and that sort of vanguardist thinking.


In some ways I think one of the things that David Graeber was really good at was invoking big idea thinking. And he sort of argued in a lot of ways that anarchism is not all of these sects or big-A Anarchism, it's direct democracy and direct action, and anybody who's pro those things and is loosely anticapitalist is an anarchist. And so, that's a very powerful idea because it sort of loosens the cage that we place on ourselves, but it also kind of melted anarchism in a really weird way.


And this was something that Spencer Sunshine in a dissertation talked a lot about, is when you do that you make it such a small-a anarchism that basically any non-profit that runs on consensus becomes anarchist. What does that mean for the left? And did we miss our moment? Because we had this moment where anarchism was very ascendant. And it is and it isn't now. But we haven't capitalized on that, in my opinion, we sort of let it melt into "whatever you're doing is kind of anarchist. So you're anarchist, so great."


There was no strategy behind that at all. And one of the things is, what actually made the global justice movement was big-A Anarchists in their own groups and in a coalition and in spokescouncils. And so I really feel like, we're always on the front lines of social movements but we never win anarchist goals. We're always just sort of the front lines or the shock troops for liberalism. We haven't seen whether that's true of the George Floyd struggle yet, but it seems like that is one of the negative impacts, in my opinion, of David Graeber is like, he made everyone an anarchist and made no one an anarchist.


LR: I do agree that he had this kind of "anarchism is for everybody" approach, which maybe it is, but I think that there probably was some danger in like trying to make it a broadly appealing and safer for folks to explore, because anarchism is a scary word for many people, particularly newly exposed to the radical left ideas that it could've kind of emptied all meaning and content of what anarchism actually is in practice, or made anything and everything fit within that rubric.


TV: I've heard this critique of him, and I kind of understand it but I also think I depart from it somewhat. I think that his writings are full of examples of how people, in very concrete ways, act and structure themselves in ways that are according to his vision of anarchism, in his understanding of anarchism. I don't think it's just completely formless, but I get the critique and maybe it's because he was championing anarchism at the time that both of you have talked about. And maybe that moment has passed. It has.


But now you see, for example, there's more attention being paid to Black anarchism. And there are Indigenous voices reminding us that a lot of Indigenous societies were anarchist before there was anarchism. And that in fact, European anarchists and libertarian socialists actually drew some of their ideas from having read accounts of Europeans living amongst indigenous people. So I think we're in flux, and always have been, and always will be. And so, and I'm not sure about trying to pin down anarchism as a specific set of practices.


I think his argument was that it was more like general principles. And if you generally follow these principles, the result will be something anarchistic. I would like this discussion though, about what are anarchist goals. If we are always in movements and inspiring movements and a central part of movements, but we ended up with reformism or liberal kinds of achievements. What would we rather see? What are anarchist goals?


LR: I think that's a good question. Before trying to answer it in any way, what you were saying reminds me of Graeber's consistent example of communism in action. He kind of said in some ways like he famously says we are already communist. And his example was, if you work on a project, like a construction project with two other people and one of them says, "Hand me that hammer," the other two don't say "What's in it for me?" You know? That's like the capitalist logic, but people work collaboratively because, his argument is, the most expedient and efficient way to do work together is communism. And he was an anarcho-communist.


So mainly his treatment of anarchism was trying to really hone in on the small, the very granular levels of daily life, and arguing that those granular levels of daily life when scaled up would create something of an anarchism in practice.


That reminds me of, it's very Colin Ward, the Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow sort of thought, that basically the only thing stitching this society together, and all society together, is the anarchist and communist impulse to have mutual aid and to run our lives in these sorts of ways. And I don't think it needs to be outlined like, "Everyone must be an anarcho-syndicalist something something." I think that's good, but that's not really what I see as the goal that should be sold. I think one of the things that David, Graeber sort of left off the table was, if it's just direct democracy and direct action, the question should be asked: Are you against the state?


Are you against capital? Are you against all forms of unjustified hierarchy? And how do you think that's going to be achieved? Without that, those questions of strategy, like a million billion nonprofits and just kind of everybody (are anarchists). And I recognize that that has got power in it, which is part of why David Graeber is massively appealing, but minus those conversations we're sort of left it in the dust by people who will start asking those questions, whether we think their answers are good is another matter.


TV: I totally agree, that wasn't his forte, strategy. The thing about having so few anarchist voices, contemporary voices right now that are public like he was, is that we want—I wanted Graeber to be able to do what we all need to be doing. He couldn't be everything. He was really good at some things and he left some things pretty much untouched. Like I think you've identified, and that's up to us.


LR: I like this conversation around what are the goals that we want to accomplish through anarchism and the strategies to get there. I think that's a really, really hard question, to be honest, because going back to the Occupy people always said, Occupy lacked demands.


That's completely untrue. Occupy said we demand everything. So I think that that is the same. If we're going to talk about anarchist goals it' like everything, right? We want it all. But if I have to be a little bit more specific, you know my position is as a labor organizer, I tend to focus on that because that's where I obviously have my most immediate influence in that. And what I would like to see in terms of some anarchist goals being realized is the labor movement at-large busting out of the labor relations framework that is completely stifling and restrictive and narrowed in term—well, full of a political imagination, but in a very narrowed sense.


Mostly the goals for a lot of organizing campaigns of labor unions is to acquire a collective bargaining agreement. And that's the victory. But that leaves a lot to be desired. There's a lot of questions still in terms of—if any worker's are on this podcast right now that I've talked to me, they would know that I say a lot—winning language in a contract is half the battle. The bigger battle is then enforcing the language that you want, and that is big. And then there's a lot of weapons that bosses and the state have to insure that you don't have the power to enforce those contractual victories. And the IWW I think is not specifically an anarchist organization or an anarchist labor union.


However, I think it's much more prone and open to anarchist strategy and practices. And I think that the broader labor movement, whether they would scoff at this or not, you could probably learn a lot more from at least the IWW's goals and principles, and how they really do prioritize direct action on the shop floor amongst workers to exert power, because we don't necessarily need a contract to win. And that's not just breaking out of the labor relations framework, I think if I'm being more specific, it's breaking out of the state monopoly over politics. Like we don't need to fight the political battle on the state's terms all the time, and the mainstream labor movement I think is a little guilty of that.


TV: Well, we also need that greater vision that the IWW provides. I mean who is saying these days: The abolition of wage slavery? The taking back of our life energies and our time from the capitalist system that uses us up, and uses up our whole lives, right? So I think you can't just have strategy in a vacuum. You have to have strategy towards something. And so the vision is really important. You've got to know what kind of horizon you're struggling toward. Otherwise you have no way to measure whether you're moving there at all.


SC: I think that's true. I agree with all of that. I think then there's spontaneous—well things are generally not spontaneous—but like for instance the George Floyd stuff, you know, whatever gains might be had on a city-by-city basis, in terms of defunding or abolishing the police. It's slam dunk of a paradigm shift that it is more legitimate for a social movement to be like, "Actually, get rid of the institution. Nationwide, we don't want it, just abolish it." And for a lot of normal, non-activist people to start saying that, that's an anarchist win unto itself.


And I think what Alex was talking about in terms of what if we ruptured the labor movement so it was not funneled into the normal union-drive model and the bureaucratic top-down model so it is this grassroots resistance movement. These are paradigm shifts. They're not like, "And then we've got this reform X, Y, and Z. It's very explicit" Maybe that's the level that we're talking on.


Going back for your listeners, if you haven't read Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology and you don't know a Graeber, that's a good place to start. And one of the reasons is because he takes on those really big questions people have, like, what do you mean do away with all national borders? What do you mean do away with all laws? What would happen? And he looks it straight in the face. He's like, well, let's look at that question, was would happened? No spoilers, read it. The other thing I wanted to say about Graeber is that he did have a pretty articulate critique of capitalism. At some point there's a YouTube video of him giving a talk in the last couple of years.


And at some point he talks about how capitalism has failed on all its promises. For example, he says, the promise that every generation will be better off than the generation before it, that's not happening. The promise that capitalism will make the world safe because it'll get everybody involved in economic networking and we're gonna all depend upon each other and so that will lead to the abolishing of war. Well, that didn't work. Technological progress, assuming that you could only have any kind of technological imagination and inventiveness under capitalism, which he says, is bullshit basically, but he says you know, all of the promises of all of us having our own individual hovercrafts by this time.


He's being facetious, but he says even technologically—the iPhone is great, for its purposes, but it's also built on the suffering of others. It also has costs in terms of ecologies and human labor and suffering that really should make us all question what technological progress—who is for and what it is, literally. And he says, can we really reduce it to just the iPhone? Everybody says the iPhone, the iPhone. Isn't our imagination greater than that? And capitalism hasn't been able to deliver on that. And so if it can't deliver on all these promises, why are we still enthralled to it?


And he says, one of the things that keeps us enthralled is culture. Specifically morality, a sense of shame. If we don't do what we're told and do it well, if we don't do our work, if we don't pay off our debts. And he, if you haven't read Graeber on debt, or look up a YouTube video where he's talking about debt, it's really mind blowing. And his approach really opens a lot of space for reimagining how we should relate to each other, what work is, so on and so forth. So he says, what capitalism depends upon now is the ability to shame us.


LR: Well, we've had this conversation for about an hour now, I'm wondering if you all think maybe this is a good way to conclude, because I think we could probably talk for a long time, about Graeber and anarchism and politics more in general. It would be fun to just go around and just have some kind of concluding thoughts. Anything we want to share about, even suggestions and recommendations for Graeber his work or work to follow it. I do also mourn him. Tony, you were saying this earlier. His passing struck me more than I was anticipating it would. And it was a really great experience getting to revisit, reread, and also anticipate this conversation with comrades, celebrating his ideas, having some friendly critiques of them as well.


So I really appreciate you both taking the time to do this with me.


SC: Great. Thanks for having me on. And yeah, it was certainly a blow to be like, "Oh, I thought this person was going to keep on..."Passively I was like, "Oh yeah, David Graeber will keep doing his thing." And I sort of instantly was like, oh we really lost something here, this was a big, big blow.


TV: Yes.


LR: But let's end on a better note than that. (Laughs) Kind of returning, maybe being a little redundant here, but again, for me, Graeber's attention to the imagination and the creative powers that we have within all of us is the stuff that I consistently return too. And that in particular, I find motivating for me when I'm kind of trapped in these moments of despair. Because the organizing is frustrating. Being within institutions that have their own accumulated history and rigid orthodoxies and ways of doing things is frustrating.


And just desperately beating my head against the wall trying to get people to just imagine the differences, imagine alternatives. It's a taxing and exhausting thing. So revisiting Graeber and coming back to him, there is a lot of power in sharing these ideas and sharing the imagination and just nudging people. Even with workers. When I'm doing my organizing work, I just ask them to imagine your workplace tomorrow the way you want it to look. And even that conversation can open up things for them, and for me, that I just hadn't even thought of before, and can we allow us time and opportunity to really sustain our organizing energy long into the future. So that's, that's where I leave with Graeber.


TV: Yeah, I don't have anything to add that. That's a good end point for me.


LR: Well, with that, I really enjoyed the conversation comrades. Thank you for joining me. LaborWave Radio and we should bring you back on again in the future. Talk about organizing projects. I particularly with a lot to do an update one of these days on the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking, if folks do not know about the Institute for Advanced Troublemaking, you should definitely look it up when we're able to do things in person. Again, it will be a great opportunity to learn some of the ropes of practical Anarchist organizing day-to-day. Thank you Tony and thank you, Shane.


Links:

Anarres Project for Alternative Futures


Institute for Advanced Troublemaking


In the Red Records


Music:

King Khan & BBQ Show: Shake Real Low



Joining Laborwave is Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University, to discuss his piece on Identity Politics and Elite Capture published by the Boston Review.


"If elite capture boils down to the way power and resources tend to be distributed within groups, and not simply across groups, then it is a fully general problem of politics in a world that distributes power and resources unjustly and unequally. Elites get outsize control over the ideas in circulation about identities by, more or less, the same methods and for the same reasons that they get control over everything else."


We discuss how elite capture is on display in the op-eds of Andrew Yang and calls for better representation within mainstream media, its manifestations in current discourse around "cancel culture," and the prospects for revamped social movements, especially in organized labor, to elevate politics to a level that transcends the capture of elites.



Music: Damaged Bug- Sold America


Transcript [edited for clarity]

Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò: This kind of hope for representational politics is a strong contribution to how identity politics works. I think how we should read that is as indicative of a fairly total defeat of the left in the United States, where the only kind of outside, the only kind of alternative reality that most people can imagine as being a possibility close enough to reality to be worth discussing, is changing the race of the person whose boot is on your neck.


What I think ultimately we need is just to rebuild the kind of organizational basis for serious politics. And so I'm encouraged by how many people are on the streets doing just that right now. They're forcing real crises of power and mounting genuine courageous resistance against injustice. And that's a beginning that is worth building on.


LR: Today on Laborwave, we speak with Olúfẹ́mi Táíwò, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Georgetown University, about his piece published in the Boston Review, titled Identity Politics and Elite Capture. We have an expansive conversation over these ideas ranging from op-eds published by Andrew Yang, to the projects of historical figures like Booker T. Washington. We also discussed the ways that elite capture manifests itself in conversations around cancel culture and current calls for better representation in both media and political governing structures. And we finally round out our conversation with ways that we can build a politics that overcomes elite capture through militant unionism and bargaining for the common good, as well as other socialist political programs. All of our content on Laborwave is available for free at laborwaveradio.com. Most of our episodes are transcribed and we're continuing to aspire to transcribe all of our episodes, even our backlog ones. And you can help us reach some of our goals and sustain our show by becoming a patron of Laborwave at patreon.com/laborwave.


We have tiers for Rank and Filers, Committee Members, and Strike Captains, and all of those come with gifts as gestures of our appreciation for supporting our show. Also be sure to follow us on social media as well as SoundCloud or Spotify, and Apple podcasts. And we'll be bringing you new content coming up soon, including rounding out our final conversations around the book, No Shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age by Jane McAlevey. That and more coming up on Laborwave.



LR: I thought it was a really good and well-put beginning to start your article with the Washington op-ed post by Andrew Yang, where he was encouraging Asian-Americans to step up to dispel racial hostility in the midst of COVID-19. Can you talk a little bit about that and how that represents what you describe as the elite capture of identity politics?



OT: When I was writing this article, I was trying to think of which example to use, because it seems like there are a lot of instances, at least to me, that seem emblematic of elite capture as a force guiding how identity politics gets mobilized, who identity politics gets mobilized for. And what I found compelling about the example of Andrew Yang was that it just seemed to me to be an especially sharp example of elite capture. Because normally what I think happens is there's some overlap between the version of the identity struggle that elites of the group face and the version of the identity struggle that non-elites of the group face.



And the story about identity capture is more about how we rank those issues of overlap in order of importance, right? So a classic example is something like representation, right? I'm sure it's important in some sense, perhaps a psychological sense, perhaps a spiritual sense, for groups to be able to see themselves represented in media. And not just represented, but represented well in media, representative in nuanced and sophisticated ways, I think that's a legitimate area of concern. But the elite capture is the extent to which that concern kind of dominates other concerns, which are arguably more important, which tie in a more direct way to people's wellbeing, ability to survive, those sorts of things.



But that's not really what's going on in the Andrew Yang example. It just seems like Yang has a completely different goal than what I imagine most Asian Americans have. Most Asian Americans, I would guess, are not trying to, you know, survive both the pandemic itself and to the racist response to the pandemic in a way that is maximally comfortable for the white Americans around them. So in this case, Andrew Yang just has a goal that, by my perception, just completely divergence with the group's goal.



So it's just a really kind of sharp example of how different it is for elites than the non-elites of their group.



LR: Yeah. I think it's interesting too, with Andrew Yang--I guess I don't want to be too moralistic or ascribe too much value judgment to it--but you could kind of like have this moral judgment against him for just really cynically utilizing identity politics, just for his own specific advantages. That's what it seems like to me at least in his op-ed. But what I like about your piece is, you go back a little bit in the history of some of these debates and arguments and you highlight Booker T. Washington's project of racial uplift and how he really felt like economic power was a pathway towards Black liberation. I wouldn't necessarily say that Booker T. Washington was just trying to like become part of the bourgeoisie necessarily--maybe to some degree--but that seems to be a more honest and well-intentioned effort that still manifested in elite capture of these kinds of politics. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Like what Booker T. Washington was trying to do and how that represents elite capture?



OT: So I kind of liked the pivot that you made there. I think there's a lot to be said for just not having any grand unified psychological theory of elite capture, because at least as I explain it, elite capture isn't at bottom a psychological phenomenon, right? What causes elite capture is the fact that things in fact are different for elites. And some of the differences that being an elite makes are psychological, some of them are ideological, some of them are in terms of one's class interests, some of them are in terms of one's other interests, politically speaking.



And depending on the historical example, you know, we might be moved towards one kind of explanation or other, but if we just focus on the differences, the various kinds of differences between elites and non-elites, I think we're going to be flexible in the right kinds of ways to the differences in these phenomena. And yeah, I mean, one read of what Yang is doing is just the cynical kind of ploy. But another one is, you know, the more false consciousness kind of explanation, maybe Yang is just so used to playing the game, the political game at that level, that he really just believes that that's what would be good for people like him and just genuinely take Asian-Americans as a group to be in a position like his, where it really matters in a concrete way, how comfortable the potentially racist people around you are with your level of assimilation, and that matters more than dignity and self-respect in other forms that you could possibly pursue.



And that's what I find interesting about Booker T. Washington, because exactly as you say, I totally agree. I think Booker T. Washington, you know, my interpretation of him, my read of him is that he was completely genuinely invested in Black uplift and the National Negro Business League. And in general, that kind of approach to racial politics wasn't a cynical attempt to exploit Black people, although perhaps that's true for some of the hangers-on, but from Booker T. Washington's perspective it comes from the sort of racial realism.



And so the idea is if you have a kind of realpolitik going, you think--and not even just a racial realism, but a racial realism, that's particularly congenial to, you know, a kind of Marxist or otherwise materialist way of looking, right? The thing that moves the world is money, in some sense. Maybe Booker T. Washington is thinking less about the circulation of money and commodities and maybe more about profit in a different sort of way, but money is power. If we get money, we can make white people's opinions of us irrelevant.



So in a way, he kind of anticipates the things that Kwame Ture ends up saying later about black power, right? And so let's just get power on the terms that power is doled out in a capitalist society, money and economic leverage, that requires businesses. Let's do that. And why this is misguided, according to E. Franklin Frazier and his telling of it, isn't a story about motivations. It's a story about differing kinds of conceptions about what's possible given the economic structure of the United States, given black people's buying power and given the state of labor organizing.



And Frazier just doesn't see a way to bootstrap black people from their thorough economic marginalization through opening some businesses to any kind of real leverage, any kind of historically consequential leverage over the rest of the United States. The rest of the United States is too large, it's too monied, those will be stumbling blocks, so on and so forth. Frazier has something of the benefit of hindsight, right? He's living on the other side of a time of quite a bit of racial strife, destruction of Black Wall Street ,so on and so forth, right?



Booker T. Washington started the National Negro Business League in 1900, but he's also writing from a different ideological perspective that is very purposely responding to problems of elite capture, right? One story you can tell about why Booker T. Washington comes to this conclusion is because Booker T. Washington is in the group of people for whom it really is possible to get personally, at the level of you and your family and maybe even your community, it is possible to amass enough money to at least check back against some levels of white racism.



You know, there are Madam C.J. Walkers, right? There are people who develop some personal wealth, and that is meaningful. And one story to tell is just that they confuse their economic position with the broader economic position of the group. And it's not because they're evil. It's not because they're trying to get it wrong. It's because they don't recognize the structural difference between their position in society and the position of the larger group. And so that way of telling the story, isn't really about intentions, you know, as you were saying, right, it's fully compatible with that story that Booker T.



Washington truly meant to help, but it's nevertheless delusional. And I use the word delusional coming out of how Frazier describes the black middle-class in this book. So lumpen bourgeoisie that lives in a world of make-believe, has fundamentally detached itself from reality. And, you know, Frazier is being a little bit of an asshole about it, but it's not clear that he's wrong, right? If you buy the story I just told, that kind of deep mistake about the structure of the political world you live in really does involve a deep kind of un-tethering from how the world actually operates.



LR: I can't recall specifically the figure that you quoted in your piece, but you did mention that that group of folks with Booker T. Washington, their collective wealth put together didn't equal that of a small bank in the United States at that time. So like, what you're saying is their misdiagnosis was really imaginary about how much possibility they really had to like integrate themselves into a middle or upper class with power.



OT: It's actually worse than that, unfortunately. Frazier is talking about--the stat that you're referencing, Frazier is referencing all the Black-owned banks in the nation by 1955, when he's writing. All of them combined didn't represent the amount of capital of the average local bank of a small white city. The situation was even more dire in Booker T. Washington's time. If you combine all of the net worth of the original attendees of the National Negro Business League meeting, it was in the six figures, right? It didn't amount to even a million dollars.



So, this is Frazier's way of saying just on the face of it, this is absolutely delusional. And there's no reason any of these people should have believed that this was the strategy, but there's a complicated set of stories we could tell from there about why they were delusional, but Frazier takes it that it's just obvious that they weren't.



LR: But nevertheless, that strategy has continued.



OT: Yeah. (Laughs)



LR: Yeah. Not to completely denigrate it, but I mean, Frazier has a lot of, as you point out, scathing criticism of the Black press for perpetuating this strategy. I'm wondering if you can maybe update the story to today, why has this continued and how does elite capture particularly manifest itself in conversations around identity politics?



OT: Yeah, let me, let me take the first one. We're a similar distance away from E. Franklin Frazier, and this book about the Black bourgeoisie, as E. Franklin Frazier was from Booker T. Washington, right? Booker T. Washington starts the National Negro Business League in the turn of the century around 1900, Black Bourgeoisie comes out in 1955, 55 years later, something like 65 years later, here we are. And you see some of the same stuff. I don't know if I would say that Black business, I don't know how to quantify this, I'm not sure whether or not it's as prevalent, less prevalent, or equally prevalent now, but as you said, the ideas is still around that we're going to Black business, Black bank our way from here to freedom.



And I have to step out of recounting what Frazier says and just say myself, I in 2020, think this is delusional, right? I'll have Frazier's book to stand behind, you know, Frazier is no longer with us, but to my knowledge, by my point of view, I think that is a delusional enterprise. There's the combined weight of the United States--just the United States, we're not even talking globally yet--but just the United States commitment to violent control, within its own borders and outside of its own borders, is well north of a trillion dollars.



If we had a thousand Jay-Zs and a thousand Oprahs, it would still be delusional--I think--to think that, you know, you're going to small business, micro finance, your way out of that kind of political arrangement. One, just the size and scale of the commitment to prisons, police, military, border patrol. And two, the political state of affairs,that explains why those things can get so many resources. The commitments of various aspects of the ruling elite to making sure that those things are well-funded, well-protected by institutions and regulations, to bending the courts to the will of this, to the point where we have infants defending themselves legally in deportation proceedings.



The amount of ruling elite buy-in to this form of social control is so dense that the money is the tip of the iceberg of the problem. And given how large the tip of that iceberg is, that says a little bit about the rest of the iceberg, right?



If anything, it's hard to compare with 1955, you know, Cold War, post-World War II boom, and US power and exceptionalism. I think it would be fair to say that it's just as delusional now as in 1955, perhaps more so. LR: Well, and it seems like with identity politics specifically, the way that I would describe elite capture as manifesting is the notion that better diverse representation of the ruling class is the path forward towards collective liberation. Is that what Andrew Yang is kind of putting forward, or is that type of identity politics being expressed in like media and popular culture today?



OT: This is certainly a load bearing wall of the kind of elite capture of identity politics that we have now. It'd be tough not to put representation in the story. And I do think, you know, a lot of people hope that if the right people are in charge of the system, the people who look like us are part and parcel of the governing structure, that the governing structure is going to do different things than it has done. And it's surprising to me, the extent to which this has survived the Obama administration. And even, in fairness to the liberals among us, I mean, it's not as though the Obama administration achieved nothing.



You know, the Affordable Care Act met immense opposition, which shows you the extent to which right wing politics is unusually powerful in the United States. So in the face of that kind of opposition, there are some legitimate, progressive victories that you can attribute to the Obama administration, but by no means was it a radical break from the politics of the past. Drones strikes, continued deportations, continued the other erosion of the protections of social security and safety nets for the working class and the increase of precarity of various kinds, whether from insecurity from police violence, insecurity from job loss, on stages other than healthcare, all of those trends continued under Obama.



There was no indication, there was no reason coming out of the Obama administration to believe that having the guy at the top look like you was going to fundamentally, rather than incrementally, change the character of US government. And, you know, depending on where in the country you live, there is no reason that you would have needed to wait for the Obama administration to make a conclusion of that kind. There's been plenty of parts of the country where Black people have for decades been integrated into the Democratic Party machinery. Again, perhaps better than some other ruling elites that might've been in place.



Perhaps they've done a better job on this or that issue. But again, there is no reason to think that putting Black people, having Black faces in high places as Cornell West might say, there's absolutely no reason to believe that that represents in and of itself a radical break with anything. And even just the fact that this is still an open kind of question in US politics that is viewed hypothetically, is just strange given that the end of a system of racial exclusion from formal apparatuses of power is not by any means a new thing in world history that happened after the 1960s as the civil rights movement.



The Haitian rebellion was in the 18th century, the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s was happening at the same time as decolonization movements worldwide.



And we could just empirically ask the question, what does it change to change who the ruling elite is? And if we were willing to look at the vast amount of examples in the Third World--or the global South as I guess you're supposed to say now, whatever--but you know, there's absolutely no reason this should be a hypothetical question, right? We could look at governance in Jamaica. We could look at governance in Nigeria. We could look at governance in Mozambique, and just empirically ask this question. What kinds of differences does it make? And we would find a very mixed record of results. And we would, I think come to the conclusion that other things matter other than what race is in the ruling elite.



I do think this kind of hope for representational politics is a strong contribution to how identity politics works. But I think perhaps more to the point, perhaps more, I think how we should read that is as indicative of a fairly total defeat of the left in the United States, right? Where the only kind of opposition to the current ruling class and ruling structure that the majority of Americans, the vast majority of Americans--because let's be serious about how large left is, the genuine left--the only kind of outside, the only kind of alternative reality that most people can imagine as being a possibility close enough to reality to be worth discussing is changing the race of the person whose boot is on your neck.



That's not the case everywhere. And ultimately I think the explanation of why it's the case here has to be one historically rooted in the incredibly violent anti-communism and anti-radicalism of the sixties and seventies. It has to be rooted in the erosion of union density that followed Right to Work legislation. It has to be rooted in the full court press that the right and the neoliberal center collaborated on, on the left here, and the unabashed success of that campaign. LR: It's hard not to agree, which is depressing.



There's a quote in the piece that I wanted to share, because I like how it, I think, very succinctly defines elite capture. And maybe I can read this and then we can follow up with what you were just saying. Cause what you're saying about the defeat of the left, I think is really important. So you write, "If elite capture boils down to the way power and resources tend to be distributed within groups and not simply across groups, then it is a fully general problem of politics in a world that distributes power and resources unjustly and unequally. Elites get outsized control over the ideas in circulation about identities by more or less the same methods and for the same reasons that they get control over everything else."



So I was originally going to ask you to expand on that quote, to explain more about the tendencies of elite capture to keep reproducing itself. And I think what you just did was provide that explanation. So maybe we can talk more about how has the defeat of the left allowed identity politics to be kind of subverted and take into the path that it's commonly understood in the discourse today, which is distinct from like the identity politics of socialists, like the Combahee River Collective.



OT: Maybe I'll say a bit on the theory behind the quote and then spring from there and to answering the question that you just put it as. So I like to think of capitalism, and I like to think of the system we have, in terms of racial capitalism, which is the short hand for a theory pioneered by people like Cedric Robinson and Oliver Cox. But basically the idea is yeah, capitalism, the mode of production that we have is something that embeds inequality and embeds injustice in ways that were pretty well described by, you know, a lot of the European socialist traditions, you know, Marx, Proudhon, and all those people.



But you know, if you're describing this from a point of view of the people enslaved and their descendants, the people colonized and their descendants, you would have noticed that it didn't just, you know, they didn't just come and say, "by the way, you're going to make surplus value now." You know, there were other things that came along part and parcel with the control over the globe that made globalizing the capitalist mode of production possible. It came with cultural baggage, some presumptions and pressures towards full kinds of social organization and not just organization over economic production.



And these forms of social organization came from the place that the drive for capitalist production came from. It came out of European politics and the particular kinds of social organization that colonizers brought with them when they colonized other places, how they present and organize the world. So, you know, if you start from there, you get this idea that the groups that we're parceled into and what those groups mean, socially speaking, comes from the same place, the same historical events, that the fact that we're all producing according to the capitalist mode of production came from.



And hey look at that, races. Right?



So the idea of racial organization came from the particular things that were going on in Europe. It's not some universal phenomenon it's been made universal by colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade. And so there's a tie historically speaking between the kinds of social organizations we have, which explain the fact of race and other things, and the capitalist mode of production, which explains how we produce the things that we need. How we meet our material needs. And that's why people like Cabral in the African Marxist tradition say it's an act of culture to get control over the news production. Because that's part and parcel of our domination under a global capitalist system.



So production is obviously important. That's a thing Marxists are used to talking about, but you would also notice at this point that there's this distributive thing. So how do we distribute power? How do we distribute political responsibilities? Where do the advantages end up and where do the disadvantages end up? And it turns out that part of this social organization that proliferated is that those things too are patterned in the way that capitalists ending up with all the surplus value is patterned and built into the kind of system that we have. So this is the thing that I'm alluding to.



These are the sort of big thoughts I'm alluding to in the quote that you pick out, and that I'm trying to kind of say without saying.



LR: It's hard to explain the origins of capitalism in a piece for the Boston Review.



OT: Yeah (laughs) you know, you've only got so many words. You know, you can't make necessarily the same assumptions about your audience that you would in other venues, right. But that's what I'm talking about in the quote. I'll just read it again too. So just because I've been talking for awhile. "If elite capture boils down to the way power and resources tend to be distributed within groups and not simply across groups, then it is a fully general problem of politics in a world that distributes power and resources unjustly and unequally." So the basic thought here is that look, broad strokes races are going to more or less correspond to distributed groups, right? Whites are going to get the most Black and Indigenous peoples are going to get the least, non-Black people of color are going to get somewhere in the middle.



It's more or less the patterns, whether we're talking about continents or whether we're talking about families within a community, it's more or less a pattern that repeats fairly reliably. But a problem with trying to just work off that pattern and then build a view of the world that says, okay, white people, most advantaged, most privileged, Black people, least advantage, least privileged. So on, so forth is that that same kind of analysis is going to be true within groups. And so if you ask which people of the oppressed groups are going to get the mic, right?



Which of them are going to get to do the research at fancy universities? Which of them are going to have the media outlets that E. Franklin Frazier was talking about? You could ask the same kinds of questions about them that you would ask about overall advantaged people, right? So in the same way that you might ask, should we be generalizing about white people when we decide whether or not the U S is a real democracy, something like that. You could ask, you know, should we be generalizing from middle-class Black academics when we describe what's happening to black people? The same kinds of inequality that make white people a bad place to generalize from when we're trying to characterize the world system or the United States or whatever it is, because there are elites, because they get more, is going to be true within groups.



And so that complicates the identity politics. So finally, to answer your question on why is it that the defeat of the left leads to the rise of this and identitarian movements, is that one possible trajectory, you know, one way the world can move is that the people who would naturally have the mic for the oppressed groups, the people most proximate to the kinds of power, whether it's over political institutions or over money or over media outlets, one way things can go is that they can join the people below them in political struggle--below them, social position-speaking--and engage in a politics that requires them to pay attention to what's going on below them and is less vulnerable to elite capture than the alternative.



The other way things can go of course, is they can join with the people above them, right? And much of the struggle for injustice just boils down to which of those wins out, given the relevant kind of historical conditions and material conditions and so on and so forth. And the defeat of the left means that door number two wins by default, right? If there is no anti-colonial struggle, there is no place for elites to go other than intentional or unintentional kind of sycophancy for the current political struggle. So unlike the Cabrals and the Nkrumahs and the Ambedkars who were, you know, relative elites to the colonized populations that they were fighting with, but to join up and struggle--you can argue about how successfully they did that--but they joined with the other non-elites of their group.



They did that because it was possible to, and it was possible to because the wars of extermination that the capitalist powers that be, and the CIA's, and the MI5s, and all those people waged against them, hadn't been fought and won yet, but now that's gone.



LR: What I really like about the piece too, is that your articulation of elite capture, and how capitalism and power under capitalism works, I think helps kind of push against this more prevailing condemnation of identity politics, internal to the left. Like I hear leftists, it's not shared, but there tends to be this like desire to just say the problem is identity politics in and of itself, that's fracturing this and that's the problem. But I think you highlighting how elite capture works really pushes against that, because your point really is that this is a problem with politics in general, not identity politics per se.



And you even highlight in the queer liberation movements, we've seen similar patterns, and other social movements as well. I'm kind of wondering, this is maybe a tangent, but in the conversation around cancel culture I wonder if we're actually seeing a similar phenomenon because my knowledge of cancel culture initially came from conversations around transformative justice and disposability and how human beings aren't disposable. And now I don't even know if I understand what the conversation is anymore, because JK Rowling is suddenly crying about it.



OT: Yeah, I think this is a classic situation of elites, either cynically or just confusedly, trying to generalize from the dynamics of their social position and just falling on their face. I have a colleague Liam Kofi Bright who tweeted something funny about this, I'm going to butcher it because I don't remember the exact words he said, but it was something like, you know, "My working theory of the cancel culture debate is that there were a bunch of 19 year olds who really meant that they didn't want to read Aristotle or anyone else, and everyone else's position is being defined by their reaction to those 19 year olds."



But, but I really genuinely think that that's what's happening. You know, the people who are closest to the editorial board of the New York times just have only been told to shut up in the context of mean tweets, and on the basis of that, just have a view of what it is to be treated as disposable and what it is to not be free to speak that is just completely unmoored from reality. Just completely unmoored from reality. Like what's more authoritarian than the corporate workplace? Do middle managers at Exxon get to speak their mind with respect to climate change, right?



Like, I don't know. I have a guess about the answer.



LR: I think it's a good assumption.



OT: Right. You know, do minimum wage workers at fast food restaurants get to speak their mind about the health conditions of the cooking apparatuses they use? I doubt it. I also doubt that they would get published complaining to the New Yorker about these facts, right? So if marginally altered social norms about which fancy people's books we read is what cancel culture is, then I suppose there has been a sea change in cancel culture. I just don't see what further conclusion I should draw from this fact.



It's utterly bizarre.



LR: Well, it sounds very similar though to what you're saying about people like Cabral that had the opening to participate in a social movement for liberation, within an entire collective. That maybe is foreclosed right now. But that's actually what I'm hoping to pivot towards is, so the problem isn't identity politics in and of itself, it's elite capture, it's capitalism is the problem, and the lack of opening. Where do you see those openings maybe emerging? Or how do we overcome--that's the big question, right? How do we overcome these patterns of elite capture and get beyond the kind of surface level criticisms of identity politics to actually get towards something that's effective?



OT: I go back and forth on this, but at the end of the day, I think these versions of politics are able to win because the stakes of politics are so low. Because the ultimate discipline is just the possibility of winning and the possibility of failure, right, and what comes with those consequences. So Cabral and them, whether they made mistakes or whether they got things right, they were quite serious about the positions they took because failure meant death, and in fact, many of them did in fact, die.



And failure meant the continuing of formal, unabashed, unhidden forms of colonial rule and domination. People will bear burdens to destroy colonialism that they won't bear to get clout on Twitter. And people will exercise forms of carefulness for those purposes that they won't when, you know, when stakes are cuter. So what I think ultimately we need is just to rebuild the kind of organizational bases for serious politics.



And so I'm encouraged by how many people are on the streets doing just that right now. They're forcing real crises of power and mounting genuine courageous resistance against injustice, and that's the beginning that is worth building on. And one of the aspects of it, which I think gets most directly to answer your question that I'm most encouraged by, is these beginning, or I guess it would be fair to say a ramp up in the participation of organized labor. So there was the Strike for Black Lives this week, I believe.



And, you know, in and of itself, perhaps symbolic, but the question is where do we go from here? And in general, I think that kind of thing, and that approach to wielding popular power and wielding community power, the better we can harness it, the more it will raise the stakes of political contestation and what politics is. And then that will in and of itself I think take care of more craven appeals to identity politics. In particular, the one example that I kind of lean on for this is an approach that was taken up by several teachers unions, most prominently the Chicago Teacher's Union and an SEIU local, "bargaining for the common good" they call this approach, and the basic ideas that you can use the contract process and organized workers in a different way than perhaps some unions do. It's an approach where you think, "well, we're not just going to bargain over common workplace demands, not just over wages, but also over the common good." Over demands that are of concern to the community that workers live in and the families that workers have, and not just narrowly to workers, and involve community organizations and political organizations and the development of demands and in the prosecution of strikes and negotiations.


And so harnessing worker power for these larger political goals. And the SEIU local in particular use this to wage, you know, what some people call the first climate strike, but, you know, if this scales up, which I think it has the potential to do, that can seriously change the stakes of political engagement. And at the end of the day, if it becomes a real option that, you know, we can force the state to concede to us community control over police, or we can force the state to pass a Green New Deal through these segments of strikes, or we can force the state to bring back comprehensive universal health protections, these mobilizations of--and all of these things--we can force the state to hold evictions, all these things vastly disproportionately affecting Black, Brown, and Indigenous people.



It will just seem silly by comparison to like, be concerned about whether there is a Black central character on the Bachelor or whatever. That's my hope. Like I wouldn't want to be the person wielding that form of identity politics in a world where those things are seriously on the table. So I think that's what we need to do more so than indict identity politics as an idea.



LR: Well, before I let you go, I wanted to hear your thoughts about one last thing, because I appreciate, and I really agree fully with organized labor as the kind of potential social movement that we really need to ramp up, and the bargaining for the common good approaches. I've had the good fortune of even being an organizer where that approach was adopted, and it's really amazing. It's effective. The raised expectations really increased. But I want to give a little bit of an opportunity for you to speak about maybe the other pathway that people have been proposing more recently with like the Bernie Sanders campaign and such.



I tend to be cynical about those possibilities. But one thing I wonder is like, now that the Democrats have been so laughably displayed as just being completely out of touch when it comes to identity politics, and just keep falling on their face with people like Pete Buttigieg that they're trying to prop up as their like identity champion. Maybe that provides an opening in the formal political arena, or what do you think about the electoral left? I've heard some people describe it as like a dirty break from the Democrats, or like you take over the Democrats, you make them a leftist party, building up some kind of broad electoral base and party to combat the power of capitalism.



Where do you see that strategy fitting in? And how could it maybe get us to a better place?



OT: I mean, I'm certainly not a person that advocates for ignoring electoral politics. I think anything that's a base of power is a thing we should want. And most of the problems that people attribute to electoralism are really problems of priorities and narrowness rather than problems inherent to having electoral politics as a goal or a set of objectives. So, no, you shouldn't think the way that we're going to solve these problems is by exercising leverage over the Democratic Party, but neither should you think that there's no role for getting people elected in a broader push for making the world in a sensible way.



So all that's just to say, I think there's a very possible role, especially at local levels where waging meaningful campaigns at the city level that would affect how utility companies match up with consumer bases or with communities on issues like energy, would seem to be just an obvious place to go. And climate politics for example, eco-socialism, if that's a left concern that you have, it's an obvious place to go. If you're worried about community control of police and police abolition. So I think there's a definite role for electoral politics in this, and I'm just agnostic about whether or not it goes by way of challenging the Democrats within the party or outside of the party.



I think people try to make that into some kind of moral question, it's a purely strategic one from my point of view. So I don't have any particular thoughts there, but yeah, why not? Where power is, we should want to have it or contest it or shape what it does.



LR: Well with that, I again reiterate my optimism lies more with where workers can gain power.



OT: Absolutely.


4 (50m 40s):

LR: Fits in more with this show's theme.



OT: You try to grab the state, the state grabs back. That's just how it is. And the state's better at subverting things typically than we are. So the less we rely on grabbing formal levers of power, the better off we are probably.



LR: I'll leave it at that. Thanks so much for being on the show. And hopefully we can have you again some time to keep talking about these.



OT: Yeah. Thank you for having me.

©2021 by Laborwave Revolution Radio.

Thanks for submitting!

bottom of page