Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Alphazero wrote (edited )

The fact that you see a demarcation line before and after civilisation, equating before and after work, is the mistake in my opinion. There is no such line. Unfortunately some people were working at occasions since forever, while others were not. All you arguments follow this demarcation line which not based on facts and is merely religious obsession. This is the point in Graeber’s book too. Having spoken with people studying anthropology, the absence of this line (the allegedly agricultural Revolution) is known for decades, it’s just that only a handful among academics on the subject are anarchists to see the implications. For the rest, refer to my previous comments to avoid repetition (about the ultimatum). Lots of ego in the end of a day from your side mate, relax. The Revolution does not depend on our discussion. You wrote a very nice article which in my opinion has a weird mistake, I get it now, you believe in primitivism, that’s fine. Good for you

2

ziq OP wrote (edited )

I don't think Graeber demonstrated it at all, in fact he willfully ignored the troves upon troves of evidence to the contrary, including the staggering quantity of new evidence from anthropologists living with today's gatherer-hunters, as several anthropologists and anarchists who have critiqued the book have explained.

And his examples that purported to expose gatherer-hunter cultures as oppressive were incredibly flawed to the point where his prime example was a culture that enslaved people and forced them to grow food for them. That's not a gatherer-hunter culture, it's a royal family that goes fox hunting while their slaves grow their food. His other examples were essentially fish farmers who exclusively controlled the fisheries and stockpiled the fish to build hierarchy and rule over others. Their diets were almost completely made up of dried fish. These aren't gatherer-hunters, these are examples of early civilization. They were land-owning lords.

Dismissing me as a 'primitivist' for recognizing the tradition of play vs work in gatherer hunter culltures is a strong reaction. I don't desire a return to the primitive, I only desire to understand the reasons we've gotten to the desperate position we're in, to pinpoint the decisions we made that led us here, and find ways to approach the unprecedented in natural history ecological disaster that has taken hold of the entire world.

Peace and love.

3

Alphazero wrote

I am really sorry but it seems that you are really bringing it to yourself. Far from me to elevate a single book to the level of a bible, you really seem to have not read the same book.

He did not ignore any evidence, instead he has offered a massive amount of info with references for foragers of both egalitarian and slave-working ones, exactly to make the point that they both existed for millennia.

You are right to question to definition of what forager is, using the info in the book that is presented to make the exact same point with you! that the history that we learned in school about pre-civ foragers is bollocks.

I am not dismissing you i am directly giving you my honest comments as people do in public discussions. I feel secure in doing so that i will not harm you in any way and i see you as comrade in our common struggle to dismantle this society and build a new one.

In the end it's not about understanding or learning anything new at all really, it's about clearing the grounds from all the parasites and preparing the soil to plant the seeds, parabolically. It's a trap to look for revelations in the past, there is nothing there but pain together with hope, the same as today.

keep fighting and stay strong

2