@99 - well, I'm no longer in Seattle but I do think this one claim I'll respond to.

The unemployment rate rose as high as 25% in the depression - at certain points. However the numbers were kept completely differently then. Basically the government has been spending the last 50 years cooking the books so that the official unemployment rate is always half the real one (or what would have been measured in the '30s) - or even less. So while it's true that unemployment is not as high as during the depression, it's also true that it's a lot closer than we think. It's also true that workers who actually did have jobs in the '30s ended up doing better than workers employed now - wages went up during the '30s, probably because of much higher rates of unionization, whereas during the "Great Recession" they've actually gone down. Similarly, it's true industrial production collapsed in the '30s but right now industrial production is a tiny proportion of the economy, even according to the official numbers only maybe 15% of corporate profits even come from manufacturing any more, and that's cooked too, probably it's more like 9%. The sectors that are driving the economy did undergo massive collapse.

There have been independent economists who had made detailed comparison of actual conditions in the '30s versus today (you can find a lot of good discussions on the blog nakedcapitalism.org, Yves Smith in particular did a detailed comparison earlier this year), and they conclude that it in some ways people are doing much better than the depression, in other ways, actually rather worse. So while for instance we never saw the same chain of bank failures and lost savings, since the banks were bailed out and we have FDIC, loss of people's life savings that had been invested might have had worse effects - since not that many people lost their savings in the crash, but most people were affected by the market crash of 2008. Similarly while the manufacturing sector hasn't taken such a hit, the housing sector has taken much more of hit than during the '30s - the level of foreclosures, evictions, is much higher now than it was during the worst years of the Great Depression. And these are things that immediately affect people's lives.

I wasn't being histrionic. I was being quite measured and careful in what I said. I said in much of the country (not all) people are experiencing depression-level conditions. I didn't say "the overall shape of the economy is the same. I was clearly talking about impact and the statement that the impact on people in some areas of the US is on the same level as in the Depression is simply true.

@108: Ken, would you please respond to David's refutation (@107) of your statement @99?

@109

That was a walkback on David's part of his earlier characterization of the state of the present-day US economy as "depression-level catastrophe," not a refutation of Ken's argument. There's no need for a response.

I don't feel Mr. Graeber has provided sufficient answers to some of the questions raised here, but he's under no obligation to provide further response, and badgering him will likely make him less inclined to elaborate, not more. It's sometimes difficult to recognize an argument that's come to an impasse, and it can be even harder to drop it and move on to another question, but it benefits everyone involved in this type of discussion when we can do both.

@110 - no it wasn't. Saying that the situation is in some ways worse than the depression in many parts of the country is in no way a walkback from "depression-level catastrophe" in much of the country, it's just putting it in less colorful words.

@112

I had no expectation that you'd agree with my reading of your response to Ken's argument.

I think that using "less colorful words" is itself a walkback, in addition to the retreat to "in some ways," where the question of "which ways?" matters quite a bit.

I find your refutation of Ken's actual numbers rather weak, too: even if we agree that orthodox economists are cooking the books to make the present look better when compared to the Great Depression, I see no reason to believe that the heterodox economist you cite isn't doing every bit as much cooking to make it seem worse.

And regardless, why should it matter that the present economy is better than, vs. just as bad, as that of the Great Depression? Does this somehow change our morality, or the political structures we prefer, based on those moral beliefs?

Do you believe that the 99% will be more likely to embrace antirepresentational supermajority-consensus democracy systems, if only you can convince them that they're worse off now than they think they are?

If you're wondering why the commentors on this thread seem politically cynical and unable to wrap their heads around any theory of self governance, mutual aid or collective direct action, it's because the journalists of the Stranger have continually fed them a neoliberal meme of pandering to their corporate masters. Much ink has been spilled indeed around the OS events, most of it condesending and dismissive; insisting that the occupiers find a list of demands, stay within SPD defined limits of free speach and expression, deriding each misstep and fracturous squabble, refusing to admit the motivations behind activists' actions as serious.
The editors of this paper have taken their neoliberal stance so far as to endorse Gulf War 11 as an advancement of gay rights in the Middle East, they have hired interns who insist they "have no opinion" about war and empire building, made mockery of every street level political action and consistantly try to prove that candidate level endorsements are the only true wave of change.
The vicious hectoring of contributors like David Graber is a direct result of this steady drumbeat of establishment politics. Hiding behind annonymous usernames, these people sit smugly behind their computors and insist that everything will be fine if we all just don't rock the boat. Show of hands, anybody actually go to a GA meeting? Walk a picket line lately? Defend a foreclosed homeowner from eviction? RESCUE A STRAY KITTEN FROM A TREE?
It really doesn't matter if the proponet of direct action and consensus decsion making is a doctorate of anthropology or a pimple faced punk with a black hoodie, they are all equally deserving of scorn for daring to do something. Despite mounting evidence that the future of this country simply cannot continue down the path of economic growth and political complacence, journalists and editors of the Stranger continue to hope that if we just vote one more time, go out to eat and see a show from one of their adversers, we can pass this life on to the next generation.

@114

There are quite a few people, in SLOG comments and elsewhere, who do not see antirepresentative supermajority-consensus direct democracy as the only possible solution to the particular economic injustices observed today in the US and elsewhere.

These people are, in fact, doing something. They are working through unions, through churches, through charities, and yes, through governments and other hierarchical democratic structures to achieve their goals. They may or may not be rescuing kittens.

It has been observed, correctly, that you can't evict an idea. It is also true, however, that you can not confine an idea under house arrest. Economic injustice is no longer Occupy's sole property, and no amount of contemptuous sneering can prevent "verticals" from using the accompanying rhetoric, or working to achieve clearly-stated goals that address such injustice.

I do understand that people like Mr. Graeber and yourself believe that economic justice, by ideological definition, can not be separated from antirepresentative supermajority-consensus self-governance. But you need to recognize the fact that the other 99% of humanity has no trouble making that distinction.

@113

While I agree that hard times can radicalize people, I personally believe that such radicalization will always be an extension of preexisting belief. As a matter of present demographics, then, I expect economic hardship to produce many more radical Christians, radical racists, right-libertarians, etc., than radical left-anarchists.

This is one of the more pragmatic reasons for my lack of patience with pernicious "worse is better" thinking on the left.

Thanks RS, your comments are actually well considered and fair. I think, however, we may be entering a time when sensible criticism and considered judgment will not be all that useful. As you have noted, economic conditions may well lead to more racism, bigotry and subsequent balkanization of geopolitical map making. While the calm, reasonable people dither away with planning the next election and deciding weather nonviolence principals are sufficient to allow participation in political events, other people are making more mundane decisions about short term survival. A lot of those plans don't include a safe, family friendly rally and inclusive language
.
It really doesn't bother me that the greater public can't get behind participatory democracy; they will find their own way to some kind of justice. I go to Union meetings and neighborhood watch organizations that have no motivation at all to achieve a super majority consensus; it doesn’t make what they do any less important. Hell, I even vote every election and go to lobby events in Olympia, that’s how desperate I am. Each time I make a contribution to these kind of activities I am reminded that the deck is stacked heavily against the poorest and most vulnerable of our society. What they are doing is making the motions of progress while the powerful elite consolidate more power.
After watching the shrinking of my Union’s power to maintain a semblance of a middle class, I have turned to stronger medicine- forming stronger bonds with coworkers and neighbors to provide for our selves what the corporations already have. This isn’t rocket science, as more people get kicked to the curb they look to each other to make provide security and safety. I know journalists and pundits think it’s funny when people have to talk to each other with a “people’s mic” and form affinity groups, somehow it’s just come to that.
What I can’t stand is the stance journalists and politicians feel they must take if they have any stake in power decision making; to uphold the teetering pyramid of oligarchy and corporatism despite all evidence that it is unsustainable. Despite all claims that they would only listen to the Occupiers and anti-authoritarians if they would only be nonviolent and reasoned, their actions say otherwise. Only the words of the stupidest black bloc infants get repeated, as if the journalists are disgusted with having no press release to crib from so they do the laziest job of interviewing possible. Only the actions of destruction and personal violence get headlines, more ink is spilled over the personal hygiene and fashion sense than motivations and philosophy. The day to day work of teaching, learning, talking and legal petition is deemed unworthy of reporting on, while punks carrying torches on a march invites the scorn and condemnation of every single news outlet in the city.
Watch this summer as this public spectacle gets even more bizarre; when the demobilized soldiers hit the streets looking for a job with college educated kids struggling with a 30K student loan, dog whistle racism thrown about by politicians, militarized municipal police, religious zealots seizing control of public institutions, billionaires pouring more cash into a presidential election than seen in history. You will beg for a sane alternative that Occupy people are proposing now.