So, while I enjoyed Graeber’s book, it was kind of a head scratcher in a few ways. Other than showing how our notions of money, debt, and trade have changed over time – and disproving some long-held beliefs – it offered little in the way of enlightenment regarding how we should be dealing with things differently going forward. Of course, perhaps one shouldn’t expect much in this regard from a self-described anarchist. But it is a pretty good book.[/quote]
Dave: Graeber’s writings on anarchy are quite good and do offer certain solutions, or, more correctly, alternatives to the status quo ante.
One has to be careful in handling the term “anarchist”, largely because it can mean many things, but in Graeber’s case, he’s of the kinder, gentler variety (meaning, not a bomb-throwing anarcho-syndicalist.)
He riffs somewhat on Jared Diamond and Kropotkin, in the sense that modern societies are simply too large, too complex and too fast to be managed competently, even by the “best and brightest” and thus he advocates for a simpler and slower organization of people, labor and compensation.
It’s very interesting stuff, especially when you happen to look at our hyperactive, interconnected, globalized world and how well that seems to be functioning.[/quote]
I don’t doubt for a moment that Graeber has some interesting alternatives in his other missives. He’s clearly a very clever guy. Of course, I think Ayn Rand and Marx (among many others on opposing sides of the political spectrum) also make some very interesting – and correct – observations. I suppose I’m just wary of all of the extremes at this point.
