Well. it's a collection of essays, so the point is less clear than Bullshit Jobs, but it's largely about bureaucracy, how public and private bureaucracies are basically indistinguishable, and how they maintain a facade of respectability over situations that are, in his words, already stupid, because of factors of inequality and arbitrary authority and the like.
I'll be honest, a part of me was disappointed in the subject matter. I kinda thought it was going to be about the modern tendency in society to make new rules or laws in reaction to singular events, and how the mentality behind that is basically that, with the right set of rules on the books, you would have a Utopia (hence the name, I thought). It's not about that, and it's good for what it is, but I'd still like to read something about that other topic.
I think the overall point of Rules was to highlight the stupid absurdity of bureaucracy and that in large part it only becomes what it is because of the underlying promise of state violence. I'll add that I read Rules at almost the same time that I read Capitalist Realism, and I think the lasting value of the former lies in its ability to pick at the inherent contradictions of liberal bureaucracies in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of libs. Graeber tends to be above all relatively accessible. There's a lot of talk in this thread about hiding his power level, and I'm sure there's some of that, but I don't think he did that here really. Bureaucracy is dumb and everyone hates it; you don't have to want to start a vanguard party to take a sledgehammer to civil society.
I enjoyed the last bits of Capitalist Realism especially the chapter titles, Marxist Supernanny and Market Stalinism both made me laugh out loud the first time I read them.
ive read utopia of rules twice and i still cant figure out what his overall point was, can you perhaps help me out?
Well. it's a collection of essays, so the point is less clear than Bullshit Jobs, but it's largely about bureaucracy, how public and private bureaucracies are basically indistinguishable, and how they maintain a facade of respectability over situations that are, in his words, already stupid, because of factors of inequality and arbitrary authority and the like.
i think thats what gave me the most trouble
I'll be honest, a part of me was disappointed in the subject matter. I kinda thought it was going to be about the modern tendency in society to make new rules or laws in reaction to singular events, and how the mentality behind that is basically that, with the right set of rules on the books, you would have a Utopia (hence the name, I thought). It's not about that, and it's good for what it is, but I'd still like to read something about that other topic.
I think the overall point of Rules was to highlight the stupid absurdity of bureaucracy and that in large part it only becomes what it is because of the underlying promise of state violence. I'll add that I read Rules at almost the same time that I read Capitalist Realism, and I think the lasting value of the former lies in its ability to pick at the inherent contradictions of liberal bureaucracies in a way that doesn't scare the shit out of libs. Graeber tends to be above all relatively accessible. There's a lot of talk in this thread about hiding his power level, and I'm sure there's some of that, but I don't think he did that here really. Bureaucracy is dumb and everyone hates it; you don't have to want to start a vanguard party to take a sledgehammer to civil society.
I enjoyed the last bits of Capitalist Realism especially the chapter titles, Marxist Supernanny and Market Stalinism both made me laugh out loud the first time I read them.
thanks, considering he was an anarchist this makes sense to me