Guy has Basic Economics in his favorite books :bruh:
Unbiased is when you don't say anything that goes against the status quo
While talking about how communism killed 1 jiillion gigajoules of peoples.
"disloyal trickery" fucking lol disloyal to fucking who you bootlicker?
system that has caused millions of deaths and huge suffering
Mao oversaw the largest life expectancy increase in recorded history
I was just looking at these stats for Tibet, where during the Dalai Lamas rule the life expectancy was like 36 or something, and after Chinese intervention it was up at 65 within 40 years.
Fuck this dipshit. First, what the fuck is a disloyal weapon?
Anyhow, dum-dum only wants to read arguments as long as they exist within the context of "free market good." God, forbid Graeber (rightfully) points out capitalism is and has been rife with inefficiencies, undesirable (yet predictable) outcomes, and frankly a lot of bullshit.
The mental hoops fuckheads like this have to jump through in order to come away from reading Bullshit Jobs and conclude the book is wrong vice taking a hard look at capitalism and thinking, "hm, maybe this system isn't working so hot" - it's just beyond me.
Oh god, remember that study that got presented by news media as "debunking" Bullshit Jobs? They did it after he died so he couldn't fucking clown on them the same way he clowned on people criticziing Debt without actually having read Debt (for whatever reason there's some really dogshit reviews of Debt and watching Graber just cut loose and be a poster is a fucking delight, scroll down to the comments he's fucking gettin' in there). Just completely ignoring his definition of a bullshit job (not the fault of the study itself, as it predates Graeber's essays) and just assuming that "I believe my job provides value to the company" means anything at all like "I believe my job is socially necessary and useful." But they say shit like "oh but his book's still useful because it's important that workers feel valued" and try to recuperate it as some mindfulness and HR bullshit, as though the fundamental issue is that companies aren't communicating that they appreciate their employees enough.
“Disloyal weapon” implies that while Graeber’s rhetoric is effective, it’s ultimately what hurts his argument. Reads to me like “you don’t know what you’re really asking for”
I mean, I kind of thought that or along the same lines of reasoning - but really, that's a stretch. It's closer to word salad than some logical conjunction of two words. It's not effective, regardless.
Doesn't matter. The dude's a complete fuckhead one way or the other.
this David Graeber guy is breaking international book rules by showing how communism is cool and good
Graeber was kind of an all over the place anarchist type and it would have been absurd to call him a liberal. He hung out with a lot of liberals though, but that's just kinda how it is if you're a professor.
He was a radical activist whose books are still some of the best modern texts for introducing people to anti-capitalism. A history of communist action in the United States would be incomplete without a mention of him, regardless of how he identified
He's absolutely an anarchist and openly identified as such. And he very much criticized Marxist assumptions about the nature of capitalism and the progression of the modes of production throughout history. Which is probably why people called him a lib, because that's what leftists call other leftists they disagree with.
Lib.
Is he even a communist
i highly recommend his of flying cars and the declining rate of profit essay, it's probably one of my favorites
Buddy how can the river be different? I was just stepping into it yesterday.
Not going to look at them myself, do they justify it or deny US involvement?
Reminds me of this one motherfucker on there who I noticed always pops up on pages for mildly obscure left-wing books and gives like single-sentence one-star reviews dumping on them while clearly not having read them. He's allegedly read more than five thousand books with an average rating of one point something and he's been at this shit for years, mostly going after little-known authors. Shit pisses me off.
anyone who unironically types, "aaa, where was I?" deserves to be :gulag:
It’d be some real lib shit if it weren’t obvious this guy’s an insufferable ancap
I've got a friend who's kind of a "freedom-maximising" liberal, thinks that a higher stage of socialism with common ownership of means of production is unrealistic utopian thinking "because conflicts between individuals in a community are inevitable", etc., but also says he thinks that liberalism will eventually collapse under its contradictions. Is Graber's Debt a good book recommendation for this kind of person? Is there a specific book or theorist that would speak to this kind of person?
If he's interested, maybe? I think a lot of what makes Graeber's body of work so compelling is that it kind of refutes a lot of liberal (or even overly orthodox Marxist) talking points by just literally pointing to the anthropological record and just proving other ways of living have already existed, that not only can "conflicts between individuals in a community" be resolved without a capitalist state but that humans have been doing that for thousands of years. Like Graeber opens up Debt by just fucking destroying the myth of barter, which is a foundational assumption of liberals that keeps many thinking that no other economic system can exist, and the rest of the book just hammers that point home over and over and over and over again that it's fucking wrong. So if you think your friend's main hangup is skepticism that we can have common ownership of things, like Graeber does lay out that that's literally how shit worked for a longass time before the closing of the commons, and nerds running around using money were not to be trusted because only people who can't form lasting relationships have a need for it.
Bullshit Jobs is overall the more accessible text and it can radicalize libs, but if your friend already agrees that capitalism's gonna die and is extremely ineficient then that's not going to necessarily push them any further.
literally pointing to the anthropological record and just proving other ways of living have already existed
Yeah, that was my reasoning for recommending Debt to him, since he's often one of those "have you read Econ 101/ Adam Smith" type anti-communist liberal. Just worried that it could be a bit much for him since its literally more than 500 pages.
tbh if anyones read adam smith at all carefully theyd be railing against the current state of the western world as much as any leftist right now lol
Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It speaks about radicalization and critical consciousness. The intro in particular has a passage that your friend might see himself in about people who value their security over freedom and somehow spin this as bravery
Ooh, that's an interesting choice. My friend's actually lecturing A-Levels and pre-university law now, so it really might interest him.
edit: just read the preface. "Fear of freedom, of which its possessor is not necessarily aware, makes him see ghosts. Such an individual is actually taking refuge in an attempt to achieve security, which he or she prefers to the risks of liberty." :jazz-ecstacy:
Yeah, I'm not sure if a Second Thought video would work. IIRC Second Thought is more of a "inoffensive and accessible intro to anti-capitalism for well-meaning but clueless libs" kind of youtuber. I don't remember him talking about any substantial deeper leftist theory about how to organise a post-capitalist/communist society.
I'm with you, but maybe they don't think the lib in question is totally clueless?
The guy's not really clueless. He learned about communism/socialism from our really Marxist jurisprudence uni lecturer (who was pretty cool; would lecture about other more traditional jurists like Austin, Hart or Dworkin, and then immediately dunk on them using Marxist theory. I used to be a lib before then), and really got into debating against the viability of communism.
Well, if people like my friend can be debated into agreement, I would like to know the method myself. I've been debating him on the same issues for over 3 years now and he's still a liberal/neoliberal (which isn't that bad in the context of my country, where the relevant political powers are somehow all openly racist, socially-conservative, and/or hypercapitalist, and the communists/socialists have either been massacred or exiled decades ago, or are kept in permanent irrelevance).
I partially blame Anglo-American legal theory, thinking and education, which he is completely enamoured with.
I agree with you that most (if not all) people do have to live within or at least come into regular contact with the contradictions to "get" the appeal of socialism/communism. That's why many of the most committed leftists are from marginal or oppressed classes, and none of them are billionaires, CEOs. or nobility. The practical usefulness of good faith theoretical debate and discussion, I think, is as personal exercise to ensure our critique is focused and purposeful while also growing to include the experiences of others, or for teaching and learning the vocabulary to communicate lived experiences. In other words, debate and discussion is useful so that people who are alienated by capitalism or other types of oppression don't become nihilists, fundamentalists or fascists. But I don't think debate can ever convince people who are not already convinced deep inside themselves by their lived experience.
