I was wondering if there's anything like what our :large-adult-son: did for DoE? I've been enjoying the book, but I'd love for more directed and structural turns than what Graeber gives. Not that arguments for "spiritual warfare" against capitalist hell aren't useful (they are, individually, I'm sure!) - but I'd love for interventions from the ML side on the argument. Especially because he also occasionally uses old 20th century AES as comparison and critique of neoliberalism.
Currently on Chapter 5, thinking it might be a good read for my undergrads in my rhetoric classes, but I want to pair it with some other material (gonna include some :citations-needed: pods, among other things).
Anyway, also just a general place for comrades to converse about it/Graeber. Personally, I like him more than :large-adult-son: did, but I definitely recognize the limits of his anarchist approach to things.
Let's try to be :left-unity-4: in this too - I'm not trying to start a struggle session! I just want to know how to incorporate Graeber's ideas into a more statist framework (because I'm a :sicko-pig: like that).
I love Graber and think he is bar none the best entry ramp for getting people into leftism. He has a way of speaking to a bunch of the bullshit people just take for granted and say "its super weird we all just put up with this shit." That being said he has serious blind spots and issues. Like he seems to have trouble seening that societal structures can take on a life of their own and has to come up with reasons of human agency as to why structures exist. He also still seems to function on a level in which he believes all people are as foundational altruistic as he is. Like ge will in one breath recognize that people can be monsters, but then try and rationalize a justification for that other than "no those people fundamentally don't see other humans as fully human as themselves." It can be frustrating for a more developed leftist, but he is super accessible and we lost a gem when he passed.