Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Styx wrote (edited )

My hopes for anything like "a good, radical Graeber" are dwindling.


I tried to read this one and I skimmed it up to the page 50 (or so) where he was rambling about how they had to stop at some pastry shop because one of his buddies had a sweet tooth and I thought -- life's too short for Graeber being in love with his own voice.

academic and yet careless

The problem is that he is not being 'academic' at all! Why the fuck is he talking about Marx in relation to anarchism? If he wanted to go the commie road, there are plenty of ancom writers he could have engaged with. And a huge lol at the primitivism critique -- where is he getting it from, reddit???

This comes up again and again with Graeber. He ignores (literally ignores) well-known authors and studies that do not happen to fit within his pre-establish views. Most of his ideas are not original at all -- yeah, let's have assemblies to figure out the new world, nobody thought about this one before! He never bothers with the details of his stunning proposals. Oh, we'll just automatise; it's already happening anyway -- so what's there to discuss. Oh we'll just have spokes and fishbowl bullshit to resolve our difference, no need to even mention things like the tyranny of majority, heard mentality, contrarians -- we'll just magically wave all of this away. (As a digression: I find it disturbing how his 'democracy' fetish basically comes down to how we all have to talk out our differences until we can all agree -- no we don't!)

I have to say it again, the fact that Graeber, the activist, anarchist and 'theorist,' is even a thing is a testimony to the fact that a white male privilege is still at its most robust.


subrosa OP wrote

Yeah. Academic in number of citations, in namedropping, in authoritative tone. Careless like he's having opinions for his blog.