- cross-posted to:
- anthropology@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- anthropology@mander.xyz
David Rolfe Graeber (/ˈɡreɪbər/; February 12, 1961 – September 2, 2020) was an American anthropologist and anarchist activist. His influential work in economic anthropology, particularly his books Debt: The First 5,000 Years (2011), Bullshit Jobs (2018), and The Dawn of Everything (2021), and his leading role in the Occupy movement, earned him recognition as one of the foremost anthropologists and left-wing thinkers of his time.
I didn’t actually know about this guy. Reading up on him now. Thanks for posting!
every example of “monkey considering monkey stranger” was “bad monkey.” That is the forest of this article: we’re good monkeys to monkey friends and bad monkeys to monkey strangers.
but that’s not the case at all, because we have monkey traditions and monkey manners and monkey mores.
again I agree that we don’t think of people outside our 150-200 person capacity in the same way as those we know well. we don’t give them the level of consideration we should. we don’t live up to the golden rule all the time.
but EVERY example in the article was monkey stranger --> bad monkey.
Graeber radicalized me. Bullshit Jobs was my first book, later I read Debts and Dawn. Now I work a bullshit job and spend my working hours on lemmy and podcasts
I only heard about Bullshit Jobs recently. Now, knowing he’s an anarchist anthropologist, definitely putting it in my ever-growing-rarely-shrinking book list.
up to what size & technological level?
There are historical examples with tens to hundreds of tousands of inhabitants. Those are actually quite common.
Graeber’s book “The dawn of everything” has some good examples.
The thing is there is no tipping point. You have small size hunter gatherer groups who are egalitarian and others aren’t. Same for agricultural societies and cities and on and on. There are even groups that change depending on the season. The Dawn of Everything is a very enlightening book about this topic
In what way is the “technological level” dependant on a state?
From the top of my head: The Neo-Zapatistas in Chiapas show that both metrics can be answered with “quite high/a lot”.
my thought is actually that higher levels of technology begin to whittle away at the workability of more “free form” social organization.
For example, I’d argue that American Indians were living in something much closer to anarchy than anything else when the technologically vastly superior Europeans arrived with guns and absolutely demolished them.
I think anarchist societies could probably solve problems that require high technology (electricity, sewage, water distribution…), probably in ways we can’t imagine. But I don’t think they can solve the “higher technology oppressor” problem.
For example, I’d argue that American Indians were living in something much closer to anarchy than anything else when the technologically vastly superior Europeans arrived with guns and absolutely demolished them.
I disagree. The native Americans were “technologically” quite advanced when it came to stewardship of the land. Think agriculture (food and forests), language and the like. Europeans basically enacted biological warfare on them.
American Indians were mostly killed by the germs that the European invaders accidentally brought. In actual battles the Europeans didn’t fair so well as they were usually vastly outnumbered and the Europeans that defected or got captured mostly preferred to stay with the Indians afterwards. And yes, never trust history written by the winners.
Chiapas has a lot of what it does because of Mexico. The anarchists didn’t create the sewer or power systems for example
Is there a reason why anarchists couldn’t build these infrastructures?
The fact that this is one of the areas that anarchist communities historically struggle with?
Can you give examples? I’m not aware of any historical precedents where these attempts failed.
Exactly, please explain how anarchists would approach the problem of redoing the entire US electrical grid (this is critical from a security perspective and would increase efficiency).
Radicalize the workers
This is juvenile
Thats such a silly question that shows a deep lack of understanding what anarchism actually means.
Why are you bothering to reply then unless your goal was to be rude to someone else? You certainly have nothing constructive to offer in your comment.
Dont bother replying. im blocking you because you clearly aren’t worth it
It seems you are asking anarchism to prove itself as utopia for all.
deleted by creator
Which one should I start with?
I’ve not read them all, so I can’t really rank them, but I do share Are You An Anarchist? The Answer May Surprise You! often, and of course there are the renowned Bullshit Jobs and Debt. I’m sure other folks can add their own suggestions…
Further evidence that only the good die young. My man was too great for this world.
Here’s a fun Graeber video
This is awesome!
do you remember one or two? I’m unlikely to go get that book any time soon.